Talk:Knights Templar - Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Lordknowle (talk | contribs) at 14:53, 19 March 2007 (→Inappropriate external link). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 14:53, 19 March 2007 by Lordknowle (talk | contribs) (→Inappropriate external link)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Knights Templar has been listed as one of the good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: No date specified. To provide a date use: {{GA|insert date in any format here}}.

Military history: Medieval GA‑class

This 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

This article has been rated as GA-class on the project's quality scale.

Associated task forces:
/
	Medieval warfare task force (c. 500 – c. 1500)

Template:FACfailed is deprecated, and is preserved only for historical reasons. Please see Template:Article history instead.

This article (or a previous version) is a former featured article candidate. Please view its sub-page to see why the nomination did not succeed.
For older candidates, please check the Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations.

Archives

/Archive 1 /Archive 2 /Archive 3 /Archive 4

Jehan de Vezelay

Find out more about Jehan de Vezelay also known as the prohet Johannes of Jerusalem. Interestingly, there is an article of it in the Albanian version of Misplaced Pages.

Number of members

It wasn't several members of the church. Just saw modern marvels on tv, apparently it was a tenth of the population of the Knights or somethin. Very small percentage that where actually tortured.

Scottish headquarters

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: http://www.templevillage.org.uk/temple_history.html

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. --Trusilver 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. ——Nussknacker胡桃夹子 ^.^tell me... 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. --Surturz 22:44, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

A somewhat wading web search turns up Priory of St. Michael & St. George of New York City; 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'. Kbthompson 01:58, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I think I have found a useful link about this: link 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. --Surturz 14:33, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

A wise move, I feel. Kbthompson 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? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.163.0.38 (talk • contribs) 17:45, January 30, 2007 (UTC)

Fixed. --El on ka 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, "List of places associated with the Knights Templar", and then only mention a few of the more notable (and referenced) ones in the main article

Does anyone else have thoughts on this? --El on ka 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 "Good Article" status (and then eventually maybe even to Featured Article). The first step along the path will be a Peer Review, 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 Misplaced Pages:What is a good article?. Unless anyone has any objections, I'll go ahead and request a review in a few days. :) --El on ka 22:30, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I have requested a Peer Review of the main Knights Templar article. Please post any comments to Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Military history/Peer review/Knights Templar, and we'll see if we can get this to official Good Article status! :) --El on ka 19:43, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Request for expansion

Per the comments at this article's Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Military history/Peer review/Knights Templar, 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! --El on ka 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.—DCGeist 10:29, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Will do, thanks! :) --El on ka 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." Steve Dufour 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 History Channel 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 FA status, but if the consensus is that it's too informal, we can definitely pull it. --El on ka 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? --El on ka 16:23, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

see Cross pattée, 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?). Kbthompson 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. --El on ka 12:58, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Another source of interest says that the Cross Pattee was the emblem of the Portuguese Order of Christ, a successor order to the Templars. This may have been where the confusion came from. --El on ka 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. Lord Knowle 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. Lord Knowle 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. Kbthompson 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: Essjay controversy. But regardless of someone's credentials, we still have very strict verification requirements here. See Misplaced Pages:Attribution. 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 WP:COI. 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. --El on ka 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.

Lord Knowle 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.

Lord Knowle 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 Misplaced Pages:Attribution. 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. --El on ka 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. Lord Knowle 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? --El on ka 21:15, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

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.

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.

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.

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.

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...

Lord Knowle 11:56, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

LK, your comments would have more weight if you were able to present them without resorting to personal attacks. Please read WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL and try to adopt a more professional tone, thanks. --El on ka 18:43, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

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. :-) Lord Knowle 19:13, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Lordknowle, comment on contributions not the contributor. Thanks.--Alf 20:33, 18 March 2007 (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. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lordknowle (talk • contribs) 20:53, 18 March 2007 (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 {{fact}} 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.--Alf 21:04, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

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:

Cross of the Knights Templar

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

Here's a lithograph of the last Grand Master, Jacques de Molay:

See also this image from the cover of Histoires des Templiers.

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."

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. --El on ka 19:44, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

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??? :-) Lord Knowle 20:45, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

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.--Alf 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. --El on ka 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.--Alf 21:12, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm not sure of the veracity but middleages.org.uk gives "1146 The Knights Templar order adopted the 'cross pattee' - a splayed red cross as their emblem".--Alf 21:23, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

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. Lord Knowle 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. --El on ka 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 here 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.--Alf 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 OSMTH webpage, but we shouldn't enforce that symbol on the medieval order, because it's incorrect. --El on ka 21:53, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

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. Lord Knowle 22:22, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

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 Knights Templar Misplaced Pages article is strictly about the medieval version of the order. There are other articles which deal with the modern orders, such as Sovereign Military Order of the Temple of Jerusalem and Knights Templar (Freemason degree). 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. --El on ka 06:10, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Inappropriate external link

I've noticed that Lordknowle (talk · contribs) is repeatedly inserting a link to his own website, http://templars.org.uk in the Knights Templar "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 WP:EL, 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 SMOTJ article or the Knights Templar in England article (where it's already listed)
Including the link causes confusion, because the modern order has different rules and symbols than the medieval order

As such, I feel that the link should be removed. Does anyone else have an opinion on the matter? --El on ka 22:00, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

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.

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. Lord Knowle 22:22, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

The fact of the matter is that you putting a link to your own website is easily a Conflict of Interest 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. EnsRedShirt 05:56, 19 March 2007 (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?? Lord Knowle 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 Conflict of Interest. 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 WP:COI problem. Make sense? EnsRedShirt 14:28, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

You don't need to word your response as if I'm an idiot or an errant schoolboy. Elonka's self-promotion article has clearly been set-up, with friends and aquantances - you just have to look through the contributors and then where they're from, and what sort of occupations they're in. I'm not stupid you know, and I can see through this like it's glass. We also know that Elonka has been visiting our site (via the web stats info) and reading the articles, and based on the wording of some of her entries, has clearly used some of that info. So, if it's good enough for her to read and recycle, then it's also good enough to be referenced. You have also, conveniently, failed to answer my question as to whether she is an aquantance of yours, and why the other eight websites, including such sensationalist names as urbanlegends.about.com are considered fountains of knowledge and hard facts and are they equally backed up by years of research and supported by some of the authors in the reference list. Lord Knowle 14:53, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Categories: