Misplaced Pages

Talk:Knights Templar: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 14:30, 19 March 2007 editEnsRedShirt (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users1,519 editsm →Inappropriate external link: copyedit my responce so It doesn't make me look like Jar Jar Binks← Previous edit Latest revision as of 21:54, 18 November 2024 edit undoPARAKANYAA (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, New page reviewers43,575 edits request deactivated, i don't know what this is asking for 
(730 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Talk header|noarchive=yes|search=no}}
{{GA}}
{{Article history
{{WPMILHIST
|action1=FAC
|class=GA
|action1date=December 5 2004
|B-Class-1=yes
|action1link=Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Knights Templar/Archive1
|B-Class-2=yes
|action1result=failed
|B-Class-3=yes
|action1oldid=8178816
|B-Class-4=yes
|B-Class-5=yes
|Middle-Ages-task-force=yes
|old-peer-review=yes
}}
{{facfailed|Archived_nominations/December_2004#Knights_Templar}}
{{Archive box|] ] ] ]}}


|action2=GAN
==Jehan de Vezelay==
|action2date=March 1 2007
Find out more about ] also known as the prohet '''Johannes of Jerusalem'''. Interestingly, there is an article of it in the Albanian version of Misplaced Pages.
|action2link=Talk:Knights Templar#Good article
|action2result=listed
|action2oldid=111793418


|action3=WPR
==Number of members==
|action3date=March 6 2007
It wasn't several members of the church.
|action3link=Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Military history/Peer review/Knights Templar
Just saw modern marvels on tv, apparently it was a tenth of the population of the Knights or somethin.
|action3result=reviewed
Very small percentage that where actually tortured.
|action3oldid=112925374


|action4=FAC
== Scottish headquarters ==
|action4date=03:22, 12 April 2007
|action4link=Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Knights Templar
|action4result=promoted
|action4oldid=122056095


|action5 = FAR
I didn't see any mention of it here but as there has been a long and ongoing link between Scotland and the Templar Knights I think an inclusion about Temple village might be useful. This was the Scottish headquarters of the Templar Knights. Brief history here:
|action5date = 2022-03-26
http://www.templevillage.org.uk/temple_history.html
|action5link = Misplaced Pages:Featured article review/Knights Templar/archive1
|action5result = demoted
|action5oldid = 1079182405


|currentstatus=FFA
|maindate=October 13, 2007
|otd1date=2004-10-13|otd1oldid=6790308
|otd2date=2005-10-13|otd2oldid=25390924
|otd3date=2006-10-13|otd3oldid=81234870
|otd4date=2008-10-13|otd4oldid=244902990
|otd5date=2009-10-13|otd5oldid=319564877
|otd6date=2010-10-13|otd6oldid=390525087
|otd7date=2013-10-13|otd7oldid=576816997
|otd8date=2015-10-13|otd8oldid=685569216
|otd9date=2017-10-13|otd9oldid=805067359
|otd10date=2019-10-13|otd10oldid=920948834
|otd11date=2022-10-13|otd11oldid=1115758795
|otd12date=2023-03-22|otd12oldid=1145889601
}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|collapsed=yes|class=B|vital=yes|1=
{{WikiProject Military history|class=b|B-Class-1=yes|B-Class-2=yes|B-Class-3=yes|B-Class-4=yes|B-Class-5=yes|Crusades-task-force=yes}}
{{WikiProject Pritzker-GLAM|importance=High }}
{{WikiProject Western Asia|importance=mid| Cyprus=y|Cyprus-importance=mid}}
{{WikiProject Middle Ages|importance=high}}
{{WikiProject Christianity|importance=Low|catholicism=yes|catholicism-importance=low}}
{{WikiProject Secret Societies|importance=mid}}
{{WikiProject England|importance=high}}
{{WikiProject France |importance=Low}}
{{WikiProject Organizations|importance=Low}}
}}
{{annual readership}}
<!-- please do not remove this tag -->
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn
|target=Talk:Knights Templar/Archive index
|mask=Talk:Knights Templar/Archive <#>
|leading_zeros=0
|indexhere=yes}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{aan}}
|maxarchivesize = 100K
|counter = 8
|minthreadsleft = 5
|algo = old(90d)
|archive = Talk:Knights Templar/Archive %(counter)d
}}
{{archives |search=yes |index=./Archive index |bot=Lowercase sigmabot III |age=90 }}


== Commanderies Map Request ==


'''Commanderies''' Map Locations


== FA concerns - bad sources ==
yeah that is just davinci code nonsense which people are trying to stick into this article

==Disbanding of the Knights Templar==

There is an inconsistancy in the dates noted in this article concerning the year that Pope Clement disbanded the Knights Templar. This article states that this occured in both 1312 and 1314. To the best of my knowledge, 1312 is the correct year. However, I am not positive about this and am researching this to be sure before I make an edit.

The correct year that Clement IV disbanded the Knights Templar was 1312, the 1314 date is incorrect. --] 23:09, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

== God wills it! ==

It is said, "God wills it!" was the battle cry of the Knights Templar. Or it was the common battle cry of all the knights fraternities?

Another little question: what is the meaning of "wills"? It is the ancient form of the word "wants"?

Thanks. <small>]]</small> 18:11, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

A french answer ;)
The battle cry "God wills it !" (in french "Dieu le veut !") is the battle cry of the crusaders. The sentence used by the knights templar was "Non nobis, Domine, non nobis, sed nomini Tuo da gloriam" (Not in ours, Lord, not in ours, but to your name give glory). As far as I know them, they don't use particular battle cry.

"Wills" is here the ancient form of "want".

== OCMTH-IFA SMOTJ-SKT ?? ==
What is the bit in 'Legends' that mentions "OCMTH-IFA SMOTJ-SKT"? What does this acronym stand for? It looks like vandalism to me. --] 22:44, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

:A somewhat wading web search turns up ; now I suspect that that is a mix of 'fact', half-truth and brain warping 'balderdash', so I'll leave it to someone else to actually read it in detail! There doesn't seem much else to link the alphabet soup and the various characters. I'm not an expert on the subject, so I'll leave it someone else to stamp it out, and provide critical appraisal. Or, you could pay $70 to go to a cold chicken buffet to find out the 'true inner mysteries'. ] 01:58, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I think I have found a useful link about this:
OCMTH-IFA=Military Order of Christ, Jerusalem Temple, International Federative Alliance
SMOTJ-SKT=Sovereign Military Order Temple Jerusalem-Scottish Knights Templar
Their websites are unconvincing to me and I will remove the references.
--] 14:33, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
:A wise move, I feel. ] 15:26, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

==Vandalism==
VANDALISM? - What's this bit about how "the knights liked to play with swords and throw them at tables" under the section about the disbanding of the order? {{unsigned2|17:45, January 30, 2007 |138.163.0.38 }}
: Fixed. --]]] 19:50, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

==Changing the "Places" section==
Currently a large portion of this article is "Places associated with the Knights Templar." However, there are few references, and most of the locations are redlinks. Personally, I think that this detracts from the overall quality of the article, so I'd like to talk about changing this. Possible courses of action are:

* Remove all of the redlinks and poorly-referenced sites, keeping only the most notable examples.
* Move the list to its own page, "]", and then only mention a few of the more notable (and referenced) ones in the main article

Does anyone else have thoughts on this? --]]] 19:48, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

==Upcoming peer review==
Company's coming. :)

I'd like to see about buffing up this article, and seeing if we can get to "]" status (and then eventually maybe even to ]). The first step along the path will be a ], but before I post an official request, I'd like to make sure we're ready for official visitors. So, let's all give the article a good proofread, double-check our sources, and ensure that we've got things up to snuff per the standards at ]. Unless anyone has any objections, I'll go ahead and request a review in a few days. :) --]]] 22:30, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
: I have requested a Peer Review of the main Knights Templar article. Please post any comments to ], and we'll see if we can get this to official ] status! :) --]]] 19:43, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

==Request for expansion==
Per the comments at this article's ], this article needs to be substantially lengthened (by a factor of 2). There's also been a specific request for more info about the fall of the Templars, including their trial. So if anyone would like to add a sentence or a paragraph somewhere, please feel free! --]]] 18:00, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

==Good article==
Clearly written, well-referenced, and richly informative article passes GA criteria with room to spare. A few initial thoughts on areas calling for work as this fine article moves toward FAC:
*Membership/Size: How many Knights Templar were there? "ach knight had some ten people in support positions," says the article. Not quite clear--are the "support positions" (a) sergeants and serving brothers, with chaplains ranking seperately; (b) sergeants, serving brothers, and chaplains; (c) sergeants, serving brothers, and non-Templar employees; or (d) or...? In sum, how many members of the order were there, and how many Knights per se?
*Membership/Demographics: Mostly French, like the order's founder? From all over Europe? Who joined, exactly?
*Distribution: "Each country had a Master of the Order for the Templars in that region," says the article. What countries were those? All of Europe? Just Western Europe and the Holy Land? "he Templars had become a part of daily life in Europe. They managed many businesses," says the article. So there were substantial business (non-military?) units of Templars all over the place? Where?
*References/Further reading: Standardize style. Add retrieval dates for online sources. Make it purty. And make sure best sourcing possible used for every cite.
Battle on. Best, Dan.—] 10:29, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
: Will do, thanks! :) --]]] 01:00, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

::I learned a lot reading the article. In a couple of places the tone was a little too informal for an encyclopedia, like "the tide turned against them." ] 06:54, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
::: Hmm, I kind of like it, and have heard that type of analogy in other Templar sources. For example, in the ] documentary ''Lost Worlds: Knights Templar'' at the 46-minute mark: "Despite the web of fortifications, by 1187, the tide was turning against the Templars. Their great enemy Saladin swept through the Holy Land, grabbing town after town from the Christians. Ultimately, he captured Jerusalem." Does anyone else have an opinion on whether the "tide" analogy is appropriate for the Misplaced Pages article? I think it's worth keeping for the "brilliant prose" requirement towards ], but if the consensus is that it's too informal, we can definitely pull it. --]]] 04:05, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

==Red cross pattee==
I'm uncomfortable with using the term "pattee" to describe the Templars' cross. The majority of my sources describe their symbol as simply "red cross." The only sources that seem to use the word "cross pattee" are either hobbyist websites, merchandise websites, or Freemason sites. As such (especially because of the commercial merchandise angle), my recommendation is that we remove the term. Does anyone else have an opinion, or can anyone provide a reliable source which uses the "pattee" term? --]]] 16:23, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
:see ], and (''associated with the Royal Arms of Denmark'') for more general use of the term. The more general description seems to be ''splayed cross''. I think you're right to treat the term with suspicion, in this case it might have some merit. I think the person adding it may well be knowledgeable, but may also be pushing a personal agenda, and that is where the line has to be drawn. Ah, I see you can get a Templar t-shirt (do they come free with 100 edits to this page?). ] 16:45, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
:: I've been checking my references, and can find no use of the term "pattee":
::: * Barber, ''The New Knighthood'', page 66: "According to William of Tyre it was under Eugenius III that the Templars received the right to wear the charcteristic red cross upon their tunics, symbolising their willingness to suffer martyrdom in the defence of the Holy Land." (WT, 12.7, p. 554. James of Vitry, 'Historia Hierosolimatana', ed. J. Bongars, ''Gesta Dei per Francos'', vol I(ii), Hanover, 1611, p. 1083, interprets this as a sign of martyrdom).
::: * Martin, ''The Knights Templar'', page 43: "The Pope conferred on the Templars the right to wear a red cross on their white mantles, which symbolized their willingness to suffer martyrdom in defending the Holy Land against the infidel."
::: * Read, ''The Templars'', page 121: "Pope Eugenius gave them the right to wear a scarlet cross over their hearts, so that the sign would serve triumphantly as a shield and they would never turn away in the face of the infidels': the red blood of the martyr was superimposed on the white of the chaste." (Melville, ''La Vie des Templiers'', p. 92)
:: So, I recommend that the term be removed, unless it can be shown in reliable sources that it's a common way of describing the Templars' emblem. --]]] 12:58, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
::: Another source of interest says that the Cross Pattee was the emblem of the Portuguese ], a successor order to the Templars. This may have been where the confusion came from. --]]] 13:46, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

== Cross pattee reference ==

There is no 'personal agenda' here at all, and I resent the insinuation. It is quite simple, and is a matter of simple heraldic terms, which is something that those Wikipedians in America appear to have very little knowledge or won't listen to those that have.

There is no definition in heraldry for a "splayed" cross. Most terms in heraldry come from the French words, e.g. argent, chevron, gules, vert, etc. - with me so far??? The 'splayed cross' was chosen as it was different to the Latin Cross or the Cross of Lorraine (indented arms), or the Amalfi cross - later the Maltese. Eugenus allowed the Templars to choose the colour argent (red) to signify the blood that they were prepared to shed for their cause.

The definition in heraldry of a cross that has wider parts to the arms than at the centre is 'pattee' after the French term meaning 'paw' - the wider part was described as looking like a paw.

I think having a debate over one word in the definition summary panel is REALLY over-egging the pudding and is going to start making this whole article look over-dramatised if EVERY reference is queried to such a detailed level. I have not seen such nit-picking on many other articles.

Also, considering that I have my own coat of arms (properly conferred by the College of Arms) which features the cross pattee (of the last) I knew a lot more about the history of this device than most people in a country that doesn't even have a recognised system of heraldry.

I have a lot of information to start putting onto this site to help enrich its content and fill in the details to help it achieve its top grading, but I will be blasted if I am going to have every single contribution questioned.

Finally, the Glossary on the English Templar Order's website was constructed using reference material supplied by many academics who actually know this subject, including myself who holds a PhD in it and has studied the subject for 26 years. I don't consult with other academics, and the Order's own archives for the fun of it. ] 18:00, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

P.S. I notice that nobody has questioned addition of the word mantle - i.e. the correct term that has been used for centuries - or would someone like a reference to when that term was first ever used in a) the English language (and proof thereof), b) that the Templars actually used the term, and c) that it's not spelt incorrectly despite the various morphing of words through history??? Or am I now being pedantic?? then Touche. ] 15 March 2007 (UTC)

:Thank you for that clarification, and I don't think anybody is trying to discourage you from contribution. I'm sure you have much to add, and I've said so. The criteria here though, is very much: no individual research, ie the material has to be available in published, dare I say in peer reviewed form? It is actually an advantage that many editors don't have the benefit of your experience, as then additions and terms that may seem obvious to you, can be made clear and independently referenced. I'm afraid there is much nonsense written about the Templars on the web, and wiki editors are anxious not to add to the weight of it. Not unnaturally, this creates a group of overly suspicious people to anything that goes too far from already established information. As I'm sure you know from your own research that in order to establish a "fact", you need to triangulate from independent sources. This was just the process going on here. Your own sense of humour, is perhaps not an asset. ] 18:19, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

:: I'd like to echo Kbthompson's concerns. Also, please be aware that there is currently a major scandal going on, elsewhere in Misplaced Pages, about someone with a faked PhD. If interested, go to http://news.google.com and search on "Essjay", or check here: ]. But regardless of someone's credentials, we still have very strict verification requirements here. See ]. If anything is challenged, it can be taken out of the article unless a verifiable source is provided for that information. And yes, that can go right down to the word "mantle," if anyone genuinely has a reasonable challenge.

:: A further concern comes up whenever it looks like someone's primary purpose on Misplaced Pages is to promote their own organization or website. Even with the best of intentions, this can result in a Conflict of Interest. See ]. To avoid a perception of COI, it's best to spend time working on other less controversial parts of Misplaced Pages. In the case of the Knights Templar, there are many books about them, and it should be easy enough to help with other elements of the article. For example, how about expanding the section on the battles that they were involved with, or include more biographical information about some of the lesser-known GrandMasters? Anything like that would be very helpful and appreciated. --]]] 22:45, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

:::: Yes I do have a very dry sense of humour, because I object to this ever-increasing pomposity and attitude on Misplaced Pages that the people who may have 'started' the entry seem to think they then own it for the life of the entry, and thereafter in perpetuity. They shoot down anybody who dares to come and contribute (even in an educated and rational manner) to 'their' article unless it fits with their mantra and so-called standards, that (let's face it) are not standard at all across Misplaced Pages, as the whole system is nowhere near mature enough to have such standards. It is a sort of pontificating attitude, looking down on people who actually know more than they do, as if we have somehow outraged their precious article by daring to try and help it develop.
::::continued... If people want to think that they have somehow 'arrived' merely because they have achieved the dizzy heights of being an admin or editor on Misplaced Pages then, I'm afraid, they really have got their priorities in life completely wrong. But, I guess with some people who have very little else, such an 'honour' means the World. It's the old simily with parking attendants of 'I've got the uniform on, so you can call me God'.
::::I have not at any time tried sabotaging the entries, and have merely contributed factual and well-known established history and I think far more energy has been expended on discussing this ONE point than the real battle that needs to be fought at the moment, which is the continued inane vandalism from anonymously-IP-addressed visitors. That's where the real criticism should be aimed at the moment, not at highly-quailified historians who have more historical and inside knowledge about the Templars than most of the colonial authors could shake a stick at. Let's face it, the average Templar know-all from across the pond - thousands of miles removed from where that history actually took place - is reading a few books bought from Amazon and looking up all sorts of 'research' sites on the Internet. We are over here living and breathing this stuff every day, and involved in the Order to a far greater extent than most of the other 'authors' on here could dream of.
::::With the sole aim of trying to educate the less-informed by adding and enriching the entry, we are then treated with some sort of arrogant 'how dare you interfere with MY page' mentality. Imagine how these so-called American 'experts'(?) would feel if I started editing the pages on the US Constitution, or Stars and Stripes - there would a justifiable hell-to-pay demand.
::::It seems that Misplaced Pages was a good idea - however, the practicality of trying to make it workable, when amateur historians start simply regurgitating stuff they have read in books, doesn't work so well in reality. Ah well, we'll see how things pan out - it was worth a shot anyway.
::::In the meantime, perhaps you ought to know that the History section on the English Templar website was co-written and double-checked by two of the esteemed authors that are so liberally quoted on all matters relating to the Templars on Misplaced Pages, and in the Reference links for this very article.
::::By the way, the cross showing in the Knights Templar series box is not the correct one, but I won't start on that yet, as that will, no doubt, cause even more consternation and disbelief. But I just thought that you might like to know. If you would like a correct Templar cross (not the Amalfi/Maltese variation), then please say so, and I will be happy to oblige.
::::BTW, we have loads of 'missing' information on some of the less well-known GMs, and accounts of the battles, but I now fear that any attempt to start publishing this - as was our plan for this year - will be subjected to the same nit-picking, and we really don't have the time to start giving a three-point triangulation verification process on everything that we're happy to put into the public domain. It's odd isn't it - so-called academics and scholars want the goodies to be the first to get their books/articles out, but then aren't flexible enough to start acknowledging that historical documents are now being made available - 'cake and eat it' springs to mind. which is odd, considering the references to many books on these entries that are actually acknoeldged, even amongst academics, as theories in their entirety, and not hard-fact historical tomes, but merely sometime own interpretation of history - yet there are quoted as the gospel truth. Hmmmmmm.
::::] 23:10, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

:::: quote-'it looks like someone's primary purpose on Misplaced Pages is to promote their own organization or website', well that just about sums it up!!!
::::In case it had skipped anyone's mind, 2007 represents a significant anniversary in the history of the Order, hence the willingness to start releasing more info. A case of 'can't win' against such prejudicial and pre-ordained dogma springs fleetingly to mind.
::::We'd better take mantle off then, as it's not mentioned in some books, and some books don't even mention the fact that the Templar cavalry rode horses, so we need to delete horses as well... and nobody actually filmed them building Temple Church, so get rid of that while we're at it.
::::As to the correction of 'cross' to 'cross pattee' being considered (quote) a 'controversial' matter, then boy, something really is completely out of perspective... I though all the MM stuff was the controversial stuff... how wrong was I in getting that assumption so incorrect.
::::] 23:17, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

::::: LK, Misplaced Pages really isn't the place to be releasing new information. Misplaced Pages is only supposed to be used to summarize information that has already been published. If you want to release new info, a better venue would be an article in an academic journal, or via your own website. As for what can be included in the Misplaced Pages article, it's really very simple: It doesn't matter what I think I know, or what you think you know, it's a matter of what either of us can prove, using verifiable sources that ''either'' of us can check. Please please read ]. And, for what it's worth, I ''like'' that we disagree, as this kind of conflict is actually what produces some of the highest quality articles on Misplaced Pages. :) So, let's roll up our sleeves, line up our sources, and figure out what we agree on. That'll make for a ''great'' article! And for anything that we disagree on, but that we can both back up with reliable (but disagreeing) sources, well, I look forward to the debate. :) Seriously, I ''want'' you to help with the article, I'm not trying to keep you out of it. But I also want you to back up your claims with sources that I, or any editor, can lay our own hands on, to verify their reliability. --]]] 23:33, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

:::::: Having just re-read this entire article, I have counted over 78 instances where I could just as easily insist on a ({fact}) reference citation to be added or included, but I haven't because most of them are well-known fact, as is the 'issue' about the description of what a Templar cross is actually called in heraldic terms - it would be petty and pedantic behaviour if I did. But, it IS important that the cross is described properly in its proper heraldic term, and not simply 'red cross' - a cross means just about any variation of two lines cutting the axis of each other - even a swastika is a form of the sun cross. Heraldry defines shapes and patterns in exacting and specific terms to distinguish them - th whole system wad developed to ensure that any heraldic artist could execute the blazon in exactly the same way. It is interesting (albeit hypocritical) that the picture shown on the left is of a Templar Knight with a cross pattee on his tunic, and not a red (latin, lorraine, amalfi, maltese, etc.) cross - so who's going to pull that picture off, despite it being a well-known assumptive picture of the artists perception of what a knight looked like. Added to that, the beauceant shown could be argued by some as being the incorrect one - there is evidence to show that one commandry had the white on the top.
::::::As to starting WWIII on arguing the toss on every article put on here, I haven't the time or inclination - I have a life outside Misplaced Pages. I also think that this article is going to look very messy with contrasting sources of information (if any exist) - it already looks daft having reference numbers 15 and 16 effectively contradicting each other as to the source and explanation for the mantle cross. Again, two different authors' interpretations and views on an edict written many centuries ago.
::::::If you don't want the help as previously offered, then fine... We'll release the info via other sources, and the Wiki articles will look very out of date very quickly.
::::::In the meantime, the cross with the bevelled ends is WRONG, as in NOT RIGHT, as in INCORRECT, and takes a lot of credibility away from the article by having such a basic error within. ] 00:03, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

::::::: LK, can you provide a source, aside from personal websites, that uses the term "pattee" in reference to the Templar cross? I have been searching avidly for one, but have not been able to locate anything. Is there a book of heraldry which uses the term? --]]] 21:15, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


Several of the sources used in this older FA do not seem to be sufficiently reliable, especially since this subject has attracted some fringe views.
:::::::: Yes there are, and I have updated the reference with two 'independent' references - we have found about another 19 if you really want them. In the meantime, I think you need to stop acting like some sort of 'official' policewoman to this page until such times as you show credible proof that you are indeed the majority shareholder in Misplaced Pages. It is extremely rude and ''bad form'' to arbitrarily remove constructive additions to any page without so much as a by your leave. But, as stated above, there are plenty of people who don't like taking advice from people who do know their history because they sometimes deem it as a sort of threat to their own standing, and others might think them less for it - which isn't actually the case, but that's usually down to some sort of confidence or inferiority problem.
* "Stephen A. Dafoe. "In Praise of the New Knighthood". TemplarHistory.com. Archived from the original on 26 March 2017. Retrieved 20 March 2007." - this appears to be someone's blog
::::::::You do not 'own' this page, and you ought to stop acting like you do. I also think that it is highly hypocritical for you to go about removing all references and links to our published history section on the Grand Priory's website, whilst using them for your own research purposes in the background - yes, we have matched various IP addresses, and the computer names on the stats engine.
* We shouldn't really be using snopes for an FA, FA sourcing is suppose to be higher standard
::::::::Either don't use the material on it, or acknowledge that there's a lot on there that can be used for the benefit of readers of this online and 'OPEN' (as in not owned by you) encyclopedia.
* This article uses the History Channel a lot - it's now considered unreliable due to publishing all sorts of fringe stuff; so we really shouldn't be using it to site stuff in a FA when the subject has attracted sizable fringe views
::::::::It does make me wonder precisely what some people's agendas actually are, when people are trying to help create a credible and informative page only to have 'amateur' historians (who clearly don't know anything about heraldry or half the Templar history) act as censors all the time.
* I don't think urbanlegends.about.com should be used
::::::::And the cross image is STILL incorrect, despite three postings to that effect - there is a considerable difference between paty (pattee) and enhendree. :::But you probably know better...
* "The Order of Christ and the Papacy". 6 May 2008. Archived from the original on 6 May 2008." - from jvarnoso.com. What makes this high-quality RS or even RS?
::::::::] 11:56, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
* What makes medievalwarfare.info RS?
::::::::: LK, your comments would have more weight if you were able to present them without resorting to personal attacks. Please read ] and ] and try to adopt a more professional tone, thanks. --]]] 18:43, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
* ] mainly just publishes New Age/occult stuff, I'm not convinced books published by it are a sound source for this subject.
:::::::::: I likewise believe that you your own edits would have more weight if you stopped deleting/editing or reverting totally accurate and historically sound additions to this article. But there again, what do I know about heraldry, after all, I'm only a Fellow of the College of Arms, but I suppose that counts for nothing compared to someone who's profession is writing computer games. Maybe I should write a self-promoting entry page on my life, career and publications, but there again, I don't think that I could be so vain or conceited. :-) ] 19:13, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
* "Clausen, Daniel (2021). Templar Succession: Establishing Continuity 1307-Present. Codex Spiritualis Press. pp. 21–61. ISBN 979-8465277525." - doesn't appear to be reliable, possibly fringe
:Lordknowle, comment on contributions not the contributor. Thanks.--] <sup><font color="green">]</font></sup> 20:33, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
* " Louis Charpentier, Les Mystères de la Cathédrale de Chartres (Paris: Robert Laffont, 1966), translated The Mysteries of Chartres Cathedral (London: Research Into Lost Knowledge Organization, 1972)." - what makes this RS? RILKO looks pretty fringy
* "Isle of Avalon, Lundy. "The Rule of the Knights Templar A Powerful Champion" The Knights Templar. Mystic Realms, 2010. Web" - doesn't appear to be reliable
* Newman mainly writes fiction, what makes her high-quality RS for this article?


Someone way more familiar with this subject than me should also give this a run-through to make sure this isn't giving undue weight to fringe viewpoints and is adequately representing scholarly consensus. ] <sub> '']''</sub> 15:00, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
:: I would love to continue adding to the article only but, unfortunately, I am being subjected to constant criticism and unnecessary and arbitrary editing questioning my knowledge in this subject area. As such, I find it necessary to equally question the need for such behaviour and equally question the authority by which some people choose to steamroller my text input. Or is it a case that some people are allowed to question integrity and other's aren't? I would love to be inlightened as to the official Wiki policy on how one becomes elevated to a position where they can snip and erase contributions by their own say so. In the absence of any such policy, one can therefore only presume that the number of edits perfomred in total on a massive variety of subjects counts against holding a Batchelors, Masters and Doctrine in the very subject to which I am contributing. <small>—The preceding ] comment was added by ] (] • ]) 20:53, 18 March 2007 (UTC).</small><!-- HagermanBot Auto-Unsigned -->
*Doesn't look great - the sources are variable, but seem generally (from memory) to reflect modern historians' views. The main problem, it seems to me, is the very skimpy account of the order's history in the Middle East when at the height of its importance, a big hole in the middle of the article. The early rise & later fall are dealt with in far greater detail. Some of the phrasing seems iffy too - they weren't monks & the order shouldn't be called "monastic". Would need a deal of work I think. It averages over 4,000 views pd, so it would be good if it can be improved. ] (]) 04:52, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
:::Lordknowle, you have read the rules already, the removal of material that is not easily cited is covered by policy, as is the requesting of facts, the multiple inclusion of which you decided was a valid edit. As yet I haven't checked whether your requests for <nowiki>{{fact}}</nowiki> apply to data that can be easily checked or not. Your credentials are irrelevant in the argument, facts, or rather cites, are the basis for arguments here, not claims of knowing better.--] <sup><font color="green">]</font></sup> 21:04, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
*:The issue is that in the history of my people, we spent a lot of time and effory leading people of our trail. So the historians (credible sources) are literally the ones we polluted. To ask a modern historian about us as Knights Templar is to ask a modern historian to tell you what lies we told to protect ourselves from ignoring and opposing kings and the church. Genuinely, the ONLY way you will learn the truth about the order, especially after the fracture, is through Templar historians. ] (]) 05:09, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
* Thanks for the great list, I'm reviewing now. As regards snopes.com and urbanlegends.about.com, at the time they were worth including because of the issue with the "Friday the 13th" (incorrect) association with the Templars. It's difficult to prove a negative - There are no reliable sources that state the Friday legend originated with the Templars, but plenty of unreliable sources that do. Even our own ] article doesn't seem to tackle it. And our ] article uses the same Snopes and Urban Legends sources. I haven't looked recently to see if any reliable scholars have decided to publish about this, so if anyone else knows of a good source to prove the negative, that would be very helpful. --]]] 17:35, 20 February 2022 (UTC)


== Knights Templar ==
==Cross shape==
I've been continuing to investigate the "shape of the cross" issue, and there still appears to be no one specific shape for the Templars' cross. Every source that I've checked, refers to it simply as a red cross. Reliable video documentaries tend to use a variety of cross shapes. Granted, some of what they're using is for newly-created costumes. But they also show crusader art from the Templar era, and even in those, a variety of cross styles are used, ranging from angular to rounded to the standard Christian symbol with the long vertical bar. The most common usage that I've seen is this one: ]


<small></small><br/>
Heraldric sources vary. I've found none that specifically refer to a "pattee" cross in reference to the Templars, though there is reference to a "Crusaders Cross" pattern, as is seen on this image of Godfrey of Bouillon ]]]
Quote: While the "Roman Church" has been used to describe the pope's Diocese of Rome since the Fall of the Western Roman Empire and into the Early Middle Ages (6th–10th century), the "Roman Catholic Church" has been applied to the whole church in the English language since the Protestant Reformation in the late 16th century. Further, some will refer to the Latin Church as "Roman Catholic" in distinction from the Eastern Catholic churches. "Roman Catholic" has occasionally appeared also in documents produced both by the Holy See, and notably used by certain national episcopal conferences and local dioceses.
This article identifies the Templars as founded in 1119 sometime before the Reformation, yet states it was a ''Catholic Military Order.'' Saying it was "Endorsed by the Roman Catholic Church" feels imprecise. Would prefer the church to be called the Christian Church as it would be identified at the time and Christian Military Order. ] (]) 15:50, 7 October 2022 (UTC)


== Hierosolymitanis/Jerusalem in the name ==
Here's a lithograph of the last Grand Master, ]: ]


The infobox's Latin title for the order ends in "Hierosolymitanis," which wiktionary says means "of Jerusalem." But, that's not mentioned anywhere in the intro text or "Name" section. If it was part of the full name, perhaps that should be included in the English somewhere. ] (]) 11:29, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
See also this image from the cover of ''Histoires des Templiers''.


== This is almost completely incorrect. ==
I've checked LK's source of ''Historia rerum in partibus transmarinis gestarum'', William of Tyre and "Introduction to Heraldry", W H St.John Hope, but was unable to find any reference to a Templar Cross Pattee in either of them. LK, perhaps you could provide page numbers? The "Historia Rerum" is available online, at the thelatinlibrary.com. Please provide a link to your exact source? According to mine, at section 12.7 (as was quoted by Barber), in "CAPUT VII. Ordo militiae Templi Hierosolymis instituitur" the mention is, "''Postmodum vero, tempore domini Eugenii papae, ut dicitur, cruces de panno rubeo, ut inter caeteros essent notabiliores, mantellis suis coeperunt assuere, tam equites quam eorum fratres inferiores, qui dicuntur servientes,''" which I translate as meaning "crosses of red cloth."


As a Knight Templar Grand Master and a descendant of the Rolland line, I must correct numerous inaccuracies. The authors and editors of this page rely on biased sources and guesswork.
In summary, the Knights Templar were known to use a variety of different cross shapes, and I still believe that it would be incorrect to label them as strictly using the cross pattee. --]]] 19:44, 18 March 2007 (UTC)


Our history has been intentionally concealed. We evaded the Inquisition for centuries by spreading false narratives, ensuring our true nature and activities remained hidden.
:The image of Godfrey shows what is known as the Patriarch cross, sometimes also known as one of the Caravaca designs. It is often confused in heraldry as croix treflee and the croix recroisetee. I don't know which version of Hope's book you're reading, but is has a very clear description of the pattee. It's obvious that you have some hang up with not wishing to acknowledge the cross pattee, but I still believe that to just write 'red cross' is incorrect as most people's interpretation of a cross is the Latin cross or St George's cross with equidistant arms. The pictures on this article show that this was not the case, hence the possible confusion to anyone (who doesn't know the subject in detail) who visits for information. Perhaps it might be better to write 'White robe with a red cross (of a pattee design)' There! are we all happy now? or would you like me to quote the OED's definition of robe v mantle??? :-) ] 20:45, 18 March 2007 (UTC)


To suggest we were a "French military order" is incorrect. We were not loyal to any single nation but were soldiers of God’s army, dedicated to His divine mission across the entire Earth. We considered the rule of kings over us irrelevant, which led to significant conflicts with secular and ecclesiastical authorities.
::I would balk at deducing from artworks of known subjects, even if period, as although likely, I would be unsure that the artist was either aware of blazon or represented the design precisely. I think the inclusion does hang on a reliable cite in this instance.--] <sup><font color="green">]</font></sup> 20:50, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
::: Sorry, which reliable cite are you referring to? There's no reference to the pattee in William of Tyre, and in Hope's "Introduction to Heraldry", the only reference to Templars in the index is to page 35, which again says nothing about a cross pattee. --]]] 20:59, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
:::: No, sorry to you for not making it clear, as yet there has not been a reliable cite for it being specifically pattee, the request for verification has been made, I hope it is possible to find one, as that will please all sides.--] <sup><font color="green">]</font></sup> 21:12, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
:::::Well, I'm not sure of the veracity but gives "1146 The Knights Templar order adopted the 'cross pattee' - a splayed red cross as their emblem".--] <sup><font color="green">]</font></sup> 21:23, 18 March 2007 (UTC)


The claim that the Roman Catholic Church dissolved us is also incorrect. While they proclaimed our dissolution, we did not form under their mandate but were merely recognized by them. Their declaration did not end our existence; it marked the beginning of our concealment—what we call "the fracture." We continued to operate in places like Portugal and Scotland, defying the dissolution and maintaining our order. However, we lost communication with each other, meaning that each sliver of the fracture started forming different rules and ways of hiding. Even we Templars are still looking for others of the fracture to reunite. We don't even know the story of all our segments, so there is no way you can.
:::::: Thank you Alf. Correct, 1146 is the commonly accepted date. My original correction to the article was simply that the red cross should be defined in more exact heraldic terms. As you no doubt know, 'splayed' is not such a term and therefore the proper heraldic description was added. However, one esteemed American expert on the Knights Templar took exception on me trying to get the article a little more accurate and went off on one to the point that has left me seriously wondering!! Anyway, her personal attacks on me aside, you will notice that I have ammended the little summary box with a suitable phrase that, I hope, is acceptable to all, based on the Templar Cross image that she has insisted appears in the article - she can't have it both ways, surely??? I am happy to concede that a visitor without knowledge of heraldic terms may not know what a cross pattee is, therefore by putting it in this new sub-bracketed format adds further information that they may look up under another Wiki entry, if they so wish. Now, can we all possibly go back from DEFCON level 1 and get on in getting this article to A Grade... or are there more libellous insinuations about my degrees forthcoming. ] 21:36, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
::::::: I am certain that the listing at middle-ages-org.uk is incorrect -- an assumption made by the creators of the website, that has no verifiable source. I can point to multiple books that make no mention of the cross pattee, and list it simply as "red cross." There are actually very few documents which remain from that era, and most of what is known about the Templars comes from three historians: William of Tyre (d. 1186), Michael the Syrian (d. 1199) and Walter Map (died c. 1208). The most extensive documents come from William of Tyre (all of this information is from Barber's book, ''The New Knighthood'', page 6). The insistence that the Templars only used the "Cross Pattee" seems to be a modern invention, and I think we should absolutely avoid listing it as the "only form" of the Templar cross. Now, one way we could potentially compromise on this, is to say that the Templars adopted a red cross, and that there were various versions of it used, ''including'' the Cross Pattee. I could live with that. --]]] 21:39, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
:I note in KNIGHTS TEMPLAR INTERNATIONAL NEWSLETTER O.S.M.T.H. Issue 4: October 2004, which is available as a .doc on the web that they now have "unification of regalia" - see the section on Regalia and which gives "France has now completed the implementation of OSMTH international decisions regarding the unification of regalia, and the Cross pattee is now the only cross worn on the capes and the only one handed to newly invested knights." so at least their current practice can be cited.--] <sup><font color="green">]</font></sup> 21:48, 18 March 2007 (UTC)\
:: For the modern order of Templars sure, but this article is about the medieval order. It's a common public confusion. The OSMTH is a modern order, founded in 1804, based on the traditions of the medieval order. I'm fine with listing the Cross Pattee at the ] webpage, but we shouldn't enforce that symbol on the medieval order, because it's incorrect. --]]] 21:53, 18 March 2007 (UTC)


The statement that Templars were arrested, tried, or absorbed into other orders overlooks those who persisted, especially in Portugal and Scotland, significantly. The use of “were” implies a past tense, but we are an enduring and current entity.
::: Now I'm really confused... earlier above you stated - ''the Templars adopted a red cross, and that there were various versions of it used, including the Cross Pattee''. Now you're saying that we shouldn't mention the cross pattee ''because it's incorrect''. ???!!!??!?! Does not compute in my book. ] 22:22, 18 March 2007 (UTC)


The assertion that there is no clear historical connection to modern organizations is actually a testament to our successful concealment. If such evidence existed, we failed in our efforts. That said, yes, different churches did create different "Templar" groups in their orders—and they can do it today—but that does not mean we are or are not in that group. We could be.
:::: What I am saying is that in every reliable source that I have checked, the description of the ''medieval'' Templar cross is "red cross", not "cross pattee." The Templars used a variety of different cross styles, ''some'' of which were "cross pattee" style, but many of which used other shapes. I am opposed to including language in the Misplaced Pages article which tries to state that the "cross pattee" was the official medieval Templar cross, because it wasn't. It was just one style of cross which was used among many, from the mid-1100s to the mid-1300s. I believe that where the confusion comes in, is that in the 1700s and 1800s, some ''modern'' Templar organizations were founded, which tried to copy some traditions from the medieval order. Some of these modern orders have claimed the "cross pattee" as their official symbol, which is fine. But let's not confuse the symbols of the modern orders, with the symbols of the medieval order. The medieval version just used a "red cross", in various forms. This particular ] Misplaced Pages article is strictly about the medieval version of the order. There are other articles which deal with the modern orders, such as ] and ]. So this article, about the medieval order, should just use the term "cross", rather than trying to force a heraldric definition of "cross pattee" on the medieval order, when no such definition ever existed. --]]] 06:10, 19 March 2007 (UTC)


We continue to seek the whereabouts of all fragments of our order, and relying on books by those who do not understand us is misguided.
==Inappropriate external link==
I've noticed that {{user|Lordknowle}} is repeatedly inserting a link to his own website, http://templars.org.uk in the ] "External Links" section. Rather than continuing to edit war about this, I thought I'd bring it up here. In my opinion, though I appreciate the amount of work that Lordknowle has put into the website, including it at the Knights Templar article is inappropriate because:
# The link does not comply with ], since it contains unverifiable original research
# It is bad form for LK to be inserting a link to his own website
# The organization is a subchapter of a modern order that is not directly affiliated with the medieval organization
# A better place for the link would be at the ] article or the ] article (where it's already listed)
# Including the link causes confusion, because the modern order has different rules and symbols than the medieval order


You do not know us. If you WANT to know about us, ASK US. Don't assume as your "historians" do. Ask our historians.
As such, I feel that the link should be removed. Does anyone else have an opinion on the matter? --]]] 22:00, 18 March 2007 (UTC)


Deus Vult,
:: The allegation of being an ''apparent SPA account'' is denied in its entirety and is clearly just another petty attempt at discredit. Note well Misplaced Pages's own guidelines - ''Please note that any other use of this tag is highly discouraged as it can be interpreted as a personal attack that may lead to action being taken against you'' My account is NOT a single purpose one, as I have contributed to the other subjects that I know about or are involved with on a business basis - this can be verified by reference to my contributions on a few other subjects. Unfortunately I don't have the time to write loads about everything, so I write only on a few selected subjects that I do know about. I find that this works better as I don't pretend to know little about loads of every subject under the sun. However, I am very up on one or two selected subjects to which I do contribute. Any further attempts to cite me as a SPA user will be referred accordingly.


Shannon Smith
:: This is obviously now just a personal thing as some sort of getback, as there are plenty of references to templarhistory.com and other websites within this article that have no accreditation whatsoever - yet they are freely quoted. Alf mentions medieval websites with no comeback, so I think this is getting just a little petty. Your own self-promotion entry on Misplaced Pages includes a link to your own personal website, so pot, kettle, black, and calling are words that spring fleetingly to mind. The Grand Priory website has been updated and republished to give anyone on the Internet a series of pages aimed at providing historical research on the Templars, both medieval and modern. That research has been put together by several academics, including some of the authors listed in the booklist on this article and are acknowledged in the Templar World as just about the most knowledgable there are. Trying to diss a website's entry just because of personal grudge is quite childish. More importantly, the website is not my personal website anyway (unlike your self-promotion and book advertising site), it is published on behalf of the Order and offers a further reading section where we include a list of books that almost matches the references on this article book for book - are you likewise stating that those books are also invalid references. So, to start being arbitrarily selective as to how the same historical information can and can't be referenced by visitors to Wiki and other Internet reference sites is, in my opinion, nothing but a personal dislike issue. What gives you the autonomous right to start dictating to people which sites are in your personal favourite list when you freely quote other unsubstantiated websites. Sorry, but your argument contradicts itself, and doesn't stack up. ] 22:22, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Militi Templi
:::The fact of the matter is that you putting a link to your own website is easily a ] and as such should not be allowed. If someone else adds the link, and think it has relevance we can rediscuss it at that time, at the moment though it seems like blatent self promotion. ] 05:56, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Sigillum Militum Xpisti


] (]) 05:03, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
:::: If this is a case of self-promotion (considering that the site is about the Order and not me), then would you like to give a suitable description of Elonka's link to her own self-publicity website from her own self-promotion entry on Misplaced Pages? Or are you one of her aquantances?? ] 08:19, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
:::::It doesn't matter if the link is about the order and not you, as the owner it's in your best intrest to get as much traffic to it as you can. This is in conflict to the goals of Misplaced Pages. As for Elonka's article, as far as I know she has not edited it in any substantial way. The article was NOT created by her, and the links in the article were NOT placed by her. As such there is no ]. Do you understand the difference? When you post a link to your own website= bad, as the site may or may not be helpful to a reader of the article, so it's best to leave it out. Others put link to your site= good as some one who has no vested intrest in the site has at least thought that something on the site is useful to someone who wants to learn more about the Knights Templar. If the site is an excellent source, it will be linked.. Just let someone else link to it first, and you won't have a ] problem. Make sense? ] 14:28, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 21:54, 18 November 2024

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Knights Templar article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Former featured articleKnights Templar is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Misplaced Pages's Main Page as Today's featured article on October 13, 2007.
On this day... Article milestones
DateProcessResult
December 5, 2004Featured article candidateNot promoted
March 1, 2007Good article nomineeListed
March 6, 2007WikiProject peer reviewReviewed
April 12, 2007Featured article candidatePromoted
March 26, 2022Featured article reviewDemoted
On this day... Facts from this article were featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on October 13, 2004, October 13, 2005, October 13, 2006, October 13, 2008, October 13, 2009, October 13, 2010, October 13, 2013, October 13, 2015, October 13, 2017, October 13, 2019, October 13, 2022, and March 22, 2023.
Current status: Former featured article
This  level-4 vital article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.
WikiProject iconMilitary history: Medieval / Crusades
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history
B checklist
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
  1. Referencing and citation: criterion met
  2. Coverage and accuracy: criterion met
  3. Structure: criterion met
  4. Grammar and style: criterion met
  5. Supporting materials: criterion met
Associated task forces:
/ 
Taskforce icon
Medieval warfare task force (c. 500 – c. 1500)
Taskforce icon
Crusades task force
WikiProject iconPritzker Military Library High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is related to the Pritzker Military Museum & Library WikiProject. Please copy assessments of the article from the most major WikiProject template to this one as needed.Pritzker Military LibraryWikipedia:GLAM/PritzkerTemplate:WikiProject Pritzker-GLAMPritzker Military Library-related
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.
WikiProject iconWestern Asia: Cyprus Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of the WikiProject Western Asia, which collaborates on articles related to Western Asia. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.Western AsiaWikipedia:WikiProject Western AsiaTemplate:WikiProject Western AsiaWestern Asia
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Cyprus (assessed as Mid-importance).
WikiProject iconMiddle Ages High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Middle Ages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Middle Ages on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Middle AgesWikipedia:WikiProject Middle AgesTemplate:WikiProject Middle AgesMiddle Ages
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconChristianity: Catholicism Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Catholicism (assessed as Low-importance).
WikiProject iconSecret Societies (inactive)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Secret Societies, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Secret SocietiesWikipedia:WikiProject Secret SocietiesTemplate:WikiProject Secret SocietiesSecret Societies
WikiProject iconEngland High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconFrance Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject France, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of France on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FranceWikipedia:WikiProject FranceTemplate:WikiProject FranceFrance
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconOrganizations Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Organizations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Organizations on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OrganizationsWikipedia:WikiProject OrganizationsTemplate:WikiProject Organizationsorganization
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.



Archives
Index
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3
Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6
Archive 7Archive 8

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

Commanderies Map Request

Commanderies Map Locations

FA concerns - bad sources

Several of the sources used in this older FA do not seem to be sufficiently reliable, especially since this subject has attracted some fringe views.

  • "Stephen A. Dafoe. "In Praise of the New Knighthood". TemplarHistory.com. Archived from the original on 26 March 2017. Retrieved 20 March 2007." - this appears to be someone's blog
  • We shouldn't really be using snopes for an FA, FA sourcing is suppose to be higher standard
  • This article uses the History Channel a lot - it's now considered unreliable due to publishing all sorts of fringe stuff; so we really shouldn't be using it to site stuff in a FA when the subject has attracted sizable fringe views
  • I don't think urbanlegends.about.com should be used
  • "The Order of Christ and the Papacy". 6 May 2008. Archived from the original on 6 May 2008." - from jvarnoso.com. What makes this high-quality RS or even RS?
  • What makes medievalwarfare.info RS?
  • Red Wheel Weiser Conari mainly just publishes New Age/occult stuff, I'm not convinced books published by it are a sound source for this subject.
  • "Clausen, Daniel (2021). Templar Succession: Establishing Continuity 1307-Present. Codex Spiritualis Press. pp. 21–61. ISBN 979-8465277525." - doesn't appear to be reliable, possibly fringe
  • " Louis Charpentier, Les Mystères de la Cathédrale de Chartres (Paris: Robert Laffont, 1966), translated The Mysteries of Chartres Cathedral (London: Research Into Lost Knowledge Organization, 1972)." - what makes this RS? RILKO looks pretty fringy
  • "Isle of Avalon, Lundy. "The Rule of the Knights Templar A Powerful Champion" The Knights Templar. Mystic Realms, 2010. Web" - doesn't appear to be reliable
  • Newman mainly writes fiction, what makes her high-quality RS for this article?

Someone way more familiar with this subject than me should also give this a run-through to make sure this isn't giving undue weight to fringe viewpoints and is adequately representing scholarly consensus. Hog Farm Talk 15:00, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

  • Doesn't look great - the sources are variable, but seem generally (from memory) to reflect modern historians' views. The main problem, it seems to me, is the very skimpy account of the order's history in the Middle East when at the height of its importance, a big hole in the middle of the article. The early rise & later fall are dealt with in far greater detail. Some of the phrasing seems iffy too - they weren't monks & the order shouldn't be called "monastic". Would need a deal of work I think. It averages over 4,000 views pd, so it would be good if it can be improved. Johnbod (talk) 04:52, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
    The issue is that in the history of my people, we spent a lot of time and effory leading people of our trail. So the historians (credible sources) are literally the ones we polluted. To ask a modern historian about us as Knights Templar is to ask a modern historian to tell you what lies we told to protect ourselves from ignoring and opposing kings and the church. Genuinely, the ONLY way you will learn the truth about the order, especially after the fracture, is through Templar historians. 125.253.40.117 (talk) 05:09, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the great list, I'm reviewing now. As regards snopes.com and urbanlegends.about.com, at the time they were worth including because of the issue with the "Friday the 13th" (incorrect) association with the Templars. It's difficult to prove a negative - There are no reliable sources that state the Friday legend originated with the Templars, but plenty of unreliable sources that do. Even our own Friday the 13th article doesn't seem to tackle it. And our Knights Templar in popular culture article uses the same Snopes and Urban Legends sources. I haven't looked recently to see if any reliable scholars have decided to publish about this, so if anyone else knows of a good source to prove the negative, that would be very helpful. --Elonka 17:35, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Knights Templar


Quote: While the "Roman Church" has been used to describe the pope's Diocese of Rome since the Fall of the Western Roman Empire and into the Early Middle Ages (6th–10th century), the "Roman Catholic Church" has been applied to the whole church in the English language since the Protestant Reformation in the late 16th century. Further, some will refer to the Latin Church as "Roman Catholic" in distinction from the Eastern Catholic churches. "Roman Catholic" has occasionally appeared also in documents produced both by the Holy See, and notably used by certain national episcopal conferences and local dioceses. This article identifies the Templars as founded in 1119 sometime before the Reformation, yet states it was a Catholic Military Order. Saying it was "Endorsed by the Roman Catholic Church" feels imprecise. Would prefer the church to be called the Christian Church as it would be identified at the time and Christian Military Order. Shanno52 (talk) 15:50, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Hierosolymitanis/Jerusalem in the name

The infobox's Latin title for the order ends in "Hierosolymitanis," which wiktionary says means "of Jerusalem." But, that's not mentioned anywhere in the intro text or "Name" section. If it was part of the full name, perhaps that should be included in the English somewhere. SSSheridan (talk) 11:29, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

This is almost completely incorrect.

As a Knight Templar Grand Master and a descendant of the Rolland line, I must correct numerous inaccuracies. The authors and editors of this page rely on biased sources and guesswork.

Our history has been intentionally concealed. We evaded the Inquisition for centuries by spreading false narratives, ensuring our true nature and activities remained hidden.

To suggest we were a "French military order" is incorrect. We were not loyal to any single nation but were soldiers of God’s army, dedicated to His divine mission across the entire Earth. We considered the rule of kings over us irrelevant, which led to significant conflicts with secular and ecclesiastical authorities.

The claim that the Roman Catholic Church dissolved us is also incorrect. While they proclaimed our dissolution, we did not form under their mandate but were merely recognized by them. Their declaration did not end our existence; it marked the beginning of our concealment—what we call "the fracture." We continued to operate in places like Portugal and Scotland, defying the dissolution and maintaining our order. However, we lost communication with each other, meaning that each sliver of the fracture started forming different rules and ways of hiding. Even we Templars are still looking for others of the fracture to reunite. We don't even know the story of all our segments, so there is no way you can.

The statement that Templars were arrested, tried, or absorbed into other orders overlooks those who persisted, especially in Portugal and Scotland, significantly. The use of “were” implies a past tense, but we are an enduring and current entity.

The assertion that there is no clear historical connection to modern organizations is actually a testament to our successful concealment. If such evidence existed, we failed in our efforts. That said, yes, different churches did create different "Templar" groups in their orders—and they can do it today—but that does not mean we are or are not in that group. We could be.

We continue to seek the whereabouts of all fragments of our order, and relying on books by those who do not understand us is misguided.

You do not know us. If you WANT to know about us, ASK US. Don't assume as your "historians" do. Ask our historians.

Deus Vult,

Shannon Smith Militi Templi Sigillum Militum Xpisti 

125.253.40.117 (talk) 05:03, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
Categories: