Talk:Knights Templar/Archive 4

← previous |

Archive 4

| next →

Templar disambiguation - Page rename proposal

The more I research it, the more I think that we need to be more aggressive about clarifying the differences between the Medieval Order (which is an association) and the Masonic Order (which is the name of a level or degree). For example, I was looking at the Schutzstaffel page, and I couldn't tell which version they wanted to link to, and the listing on Magical organization just bewildered me.

So, here's what I propose:

• The current page Knights Templar should be moved to Medieval Knights Templar (alternatively Knights Templar (Crusades) or Knights Templar (medieval organization))
• (possible) We move Masonic Knights Templar to Knights Templar (Freemason degree)
• We create a new Knights Templar (disambiguation) page. It will link to the Medieval page, and to the Masonic page.
• We ensure that the simple term "Knights Templar" then redirects to the disambiguation page
• Both the "Medieval" and the "Masonic" pages will include disambiguation notes at the top which point to the other page, and to the disambiguation page.
• We scour everything else around Wikipedia that's linking to them, and change links to ensure that everything's consistent, or, where we can't tell, just leave it linking to the disambig page.
• We check all the foreign-language wikis, to doublecheck whether they want to be linking to the Medieval Templar page, or the Masonic Templar page, and update those links too.

Thoughts? Elonka 20:12, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I second of all of that. I think Knights Templar (Crusades) is best. --Loremaster 20:48, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I also agree. The disambiguation page can then link to the Knights Templar (Crusades), Knights Templar (Masonic) and Sovereign Military Order of the Temple of Jerusalem pages.66.156.107.108 21:19, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. The Knights Templar of the mediæval period are by far the best known and the most significant. The disambiguation notice at the top of this page is fine. john k 21:33, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

John, I want to agree with you, I really do, because I agree that the medieval order is more historically significant, but I'm having trouble finding references. When I do library searches, the Masonic Templars are more common. When I do Google searches, they're about dead-even: "knights templar" freemason (327,000) "knights templar" crusades (234,000) and both are obviously well-known (or at least well talked about). Also, just from anecdotal references, there's enormous confusion, and most people have no idea which is which. Just looking around Wikipedia, I'm seeing time and time again where pages are linking to the medieval "Knights Templar" page, when what they really mean to do is link to the Masonic version. It's a problem that has to be addressed, though I'm open to suggestions on how to best handle it.  :/ Elonka 22:48, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

The issue of mislinking is completely unrelated to the issue of where this page should be. Those pages ought to have their links changed, whether or not this page ends up being moved. I'd add that your google search is not really valid. Let me note that the number of hits for "Knights Templar" exclusing Freemasons is 724,000 [1]. I only get 42,000 hits for "knights templar" +freemason [2]. john k 07:23, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I would add that, even if the google references can be found to be approximately equal, that still doesn't mean the terms are really in equal use. When you are comparing a currently existing thing to a historical thing, the google test is particularly bad, since so many websites are going to be existing organizations promoting things. At any rate, the important isssue isn't the location of this article, which is perfectly fine. The important thing is to make sure that all links are properly directed, which won't be helped by moving this article. john k 07:41, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks John. I do have enormous respect for your opinion, but let me explain my thinking here. Because of the popular associations, many other Wikipedia editors routinely link "Knights Templar" without checking which order that they're linking to. If we make "Knights Templar" a disambiguation page, that way it's easy to check to see what's linking there, so that links can be fixed. Though perhaps instead of renaming the current page to "Medieval Knights Templar", it might be more appropriate then to rename it to "Order of the Knights Templar"? That way we could still make the confusing term of "Knights Templar" as a disambiguation-catcher. Elonka 17:53, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I totally agree with Elonka. I will start this process. However, after some thinking, Knights Templar (military order) might be better than Knights Templar (Crusades). --Loremaster 20:32, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Done. Please go to the Talk:Knights Templar (military order) page to continue the discussion. --Loremaster 21:13, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

There is all sorts of insanity going on here. You should have listened to John Kenney above. But if you are not going to listen to reasonable people such as him, please, please, please, NEVER EVER manually move a page. I've fixed it, but I had to delete your new discussion here. Adam Bishop 03:43, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

(update) I've also moved over the archive discussion pages. Loremaster, I know you meant well, but page moves on Wikipedia are a big deal -- it's best to ensure that there's consensus, and that the moves are carried out properly, otherwise things get kind of tangled.  :/ Elonka 05:23, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Insanity? Adam, not only are you are completely overreacting but you've messed up all the work I put into making re-organizing all the Knights Templar page. Thank you very much, Bishop. --Loremaster 18:19, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

A move after a day of discussion, with two in favor and one against, is totally absurd. Now, I'll note, the position is two in favor of the move, and two opposed. I submit that the page should be returned to its original location until there is a clear consensus to move. john k 05:57, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Though I agree that Loremaster jumped the gun, there were a lot of little pages that had to get moved over or redirected, like the archive pages and FAC discussion page, and I think we'd be asking for even more trouble if we tried to move all of them immediately back. My recommendation is that we keep the page where it is for now and give it a good solid discussion. If the consensus is to move it back, I promise to help with the move myself. However, my inclination at this point is to move it to some other title, since "(military order)" doesn't feel descriptive enough for me. John, is there some other title that you'd approve of, to help distinguish between the medieval order and the modern groups? Elonka 06:21, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree that I jumped the gun and for that I apologize. However, I don't understand this hysterical attachement to how the pages were previously. As for the title, you might have a point only because there are modern revivals of the Knights Templar that refer to themselves as military orders. I think Knights Templar (warrior monks) might be better but this is only a suggestion. --Loremaster 18:19, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

My suggestion would be to codify or consolodate some of the redundant information. You have currently several pages called History of Knights Templar, Knights Templar, etc. I would delete some of the pages on "History" or at least those pages that do not contribute any new information or has so much similar information in comparison that most of the page should be merged with a main Knights Templar page. I believe that before all pages are grouped a massive edit and streamlining effort needs to be made to make this subject less of a quagmire of information. Masonic organizations SMOTJ, and newer revivals I would be happy to have thier own page. (These are seperate organizations and in no way related legitimately to the Templars). User:BlueTemplar13 09:19, 13 February 2006 (UTC)~~

The whole point of creating new pages was because Wikipedia was warning us that the main Knights Templar articlee was getting too big for the system to handle. However, I agree that, since I created the History section, people have been expanding it with reduntant information thereby making the whole thing a self-defeating entreprise if people don't realize this. --Loremaster 18:19, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

What about renaming this page as the full correct name of the Order? "Poor Fellow-Soldiers of Christ and of the Temple of Solomon". Then all we have to worry about is coming up with a bunch of appropriate redirects. Alternatively: Poor Fellow-Soldiers of Christ and of the Temple of Solomon (Knights Templar). Elonka 23:46, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Why do we need to disambiguate the actual Knights Templar from groups that just claim to be the Knights Templar? To be blunt, who cares what they think? They can be disambiguated, and the real Templars can stay at the normal title. How about that? Adam Bishop 03:28, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Because on nearly every metric I've been able to track down, the "common usage" of the term "Knights Templar" is either more commonly used for the Masonic version, or the two versions are just about dead even. I've checked in library catalogs, web searches, anecdotal chatting with people on the street, and everything else I can think of. If someone can prove that the Medieval order is better known than the Masonic order, by some measurement that I haven't thought of, I'm very interested in hearing about it. Don't get me wrong, I'm not "pro Mason", but when the average person on the street hears "Knights Templar" and thinks "Mason," I think it behooves us here at Wikipedia to ensure that we keep the term as unambiguous as possible. The term "Knights Templar" obviously isn't clear enough, so I suggested moving the page to a title that is more clear. But I'm still very open to constructive suggestions as to what else the title could be. Elonka 04:20, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I would agree with Elonka the offical title of the order should be used. In order to decern between the Masonic Degree of the Knights Templar, the SMOTJ, and the original order of 1118. I would also like to see the legends part kept to a minimum as this is a source of much turbulance on the page itself. I would say a short excerpt on legends would be appropriate and links to Templar like organizations made available on legends page. I would also like to see "speculation" or spin removed entirely, Wiki should not be a forum for recruitment, and only based entirely on fact. 04:43, 14 February 2006 (UTC)BlueTemplar13

On what basis do you claim, Elonka, that the "average person on the street" hears "Knight Templar" and thinks "Mason"? I would submit that people who are not Masons, for the most part, know absolutely nothing about the names of Masonic levels, and that for most such people the term, if it has any meaning at all, refers to the medieval order, of which people have only a vague idea. It should also be noted that the whole reason that the Masonic Templar thing exists is because the Freemasons were trying to claim the mantle of the Templars. The Masonic business is named for the medieval order, and as such, I think we can stick with the main article being about the chivalric order in the same way that, say, York is the article about the English city of York, despite the existence of numerous cities around the world of the same name. john k 04:56, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Mason's attempt to make no claim to the "mantle" of the Templars. People who attempt to put the "dots" together with Scottish Masons and the First Earls of Rossyln and thereby the Templars make thier own conclusions. Early Masonry has already been proven to exist at least since 1390 with the creation of the Regius Poem (Halliwell Manuscript) which was found in the royal library. But it still gives no evidence of any direct association with the Order, and originiated almost 500-600 yrs before the creation of Masonic Templarism as it is today.While there can be no doubt that Masonry in its present organized form did not exist until the formation of the First Grand Lodges starting in 1717. It is well known that Freemasonry existed non-offically long before the speculative constitutions were written. Its is widely accepted by academia that anyone claiming a direct unbroken heritage to the Templars is lying outright, regardless of organization. It continues to be my opinon that any Templar-like organizations should have a seperate page Masonic, and SMOTJ alike and limit the amount of legend, and conjecture currenlty displayed on the main historical text.

The current Masonic Templar page also states that they make no direct claim to any unbroken Templar lineage and the Grand Encampment makes no such claim either. These claims are made by outsiders (People outside Freemasonry, non-members) and authors who make some interesting fiction,and wrie outside the accepted academic mainstream. Even if the Masons did carry an unbroken line of succession to the Templars they can be very secretive, and I am sure they would not make such information known to outsiders.

I still have to agree with Elonka, since the popularity of Freemasonry and Templars have crept into popular culture, people have started to closely associate one with the other. Most people looking for information on the Templars for the most part are also looking for information on Masonic lore, and have become infatuated with the stories being told ( National Treasure movie, Da Vinci Code) and the numerous programs on the History Channel.

Whether or not any of stories is even remotley true still remains to be seen, and most people seem to be getting confused with the real history, and the movies. For instance the only things real in National Treasure were the locations being filmed, the story that many of the founding fathers were members of the Freemasons, and that Masonic ideas (free education, and secular government) played an important,not an exclusive role in the formation of the United States.

This argument has been made for centuries and I am sure it will continue for centuries more, the origins of the craft have been elusive for almost 700yrs, and contiues to baffle scholars even to this day. While there can be no doubt that certain buildings in history bear the "mark" of Masonry (Rosslyn Chapel, Washington Monument) it still offers no conclusive evidence of Freemasonrys direct lineage to the medevial Knight Templar.User:BlueTemplar1308:05, 14 February 2006 (UTC)~~

I totally agree with Elonka and Blue Templar. Should we put it to a vote? For example:

Should the Knights Templar (military order) be renamed 1) Knights Templar or 2) Knights Templar (Poor Fellow-Soldiers of Christ and of the Temple of Solomon)?

--Loremaster 17:21, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I think, before putting it to an "either/or" vote, it would make more sense for us to submit an RfC (Request for Comment), to get some other opinions on the situation. There may be other good ideas out there. Elonka 19:27, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I defer to your wisdom. --Loremaster 21:44, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Friday the 13th reference

I removed "the day that started the legend of Friday the 13th,". The origins of Friday the 13th being viewed as a Very Bad Day are not known well enough to (for example) point at any specific event as its source.

—-- That Guy, From That Show! ^(talk) 2006-02-16 03:59Z

Thanks, I moved it over to Knights Templar legends. --Elonka 04:52, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Someone else asked the question, "Was October 13, 1307 a Friday?". The .NET Weekday function reports it to be a Thursday... --Surturz 21:24, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Please consider the Gregorian Calendar, the Julian calendar, etc. Also, here's some calculating tools , which does alculate it to be a Friday of the Julian calendar... [User:Grye|Grye]] 22:48, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Request for Comment - Page renaming

There has been a great deal of recent confusion about the difference between the medieval order of the Knights Templar, and the modern Freemason degree called "Order of the Knights Templar" which was patterned after the medieval organization (but which has no actual historical connection). Many modern individuals also call themselves "Knights Templar" because of their association with the Freemasons (or other organizations such as the SMOTJ). And a Category:Knights Templar exists which contains both members of the medieval order and modern politicians. The question, therefore, is how to name the respective articles (and category/categories) so as to reduce confusion. Suggestions for the articles have been:

• For the medieval order
  • Knights Templar
  • Knights Templar (military order)
  • Knights Templar (Christian order)
  • Knights Templar (medieval order)
  • Order of the Knights Templar
  • Poor Fellow-Soldiers of Christ and of the Temple of Solomon
• For the modern version:
  • Knights Templar
  • Knights Templar (Freemason degree)
  • Knights Templar (Freemason)
  • Masonic Knights Templar
• Other modern orders which use the term "Knights Templar"
  • No suggestions yet

A further disagreement exists as to whether the specific term Knights Templar should direct automatically to the medieval order, or to a disambiguation page.

Therefore, a request for Comment is being submitted, to gather discussion on other possible names, and to see if a consensus can be achieved on the best naming system. All interested parties are welcome to participate. --19:33, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

1. I think the Knights Templar article should continue to redirect to a disamgiguation page because many people have and will link to the medieval Knights Templar article by mistake when they meant to link to something else.

2. The medieval order's article should be named Poor Fellow-Soldiers of Christ and of the Temple of Solomon because this is the historically accurate real name of the order.

3. The modern order' article should be named Knights Templar (Freemasonry) since it is more general and inclusive while "Freemason degree" is too precise and exclusive.

4. As for other orders who use the term "Knights Templar", we could create an article named List of Knights Templar revivalist organizations.

5. We chould create a new Category:Knights Templar revivalists, in which we could include modern politicians who are identified as being Knights Templar.

--Loremaster 21:17, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for my edit - I thought the Request for Comment was on the page name, not the article content. As far as article content, the proper name should be given first, considering the Order of the Knights Templar is colloquial usage, and should be identified as such. As the article stands, it looks as if Order of the Knights Templar is the proper name, and the proper name some sort of secondary title. As far as a page name? Knights Templar (military order) might make the page more easily identifiable to those trying to find info (say a primary/secondary school student). That said, it is more accurate to use the proper name, and perhaps more scholarly. But, if the proper name is used as a page name, the disambiguation page should have a note that to the effect that the name refers to the historical military Knights Templar, for ease of identification. There's my two cents!DonaNobisPacem 07:50, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

DonaNobisPacem, you are correct about the nature of the request. I have restored your edits. --Loremaster 20:08, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

From RfC: I would place this article at Knights Templar, as the common English name of the organization, with their full and proper name bolded in the first line. See WP:UE. The military order is the primary sense of Knights Templar; conversely, that is what the order is usually called in English. Hope this helps. Septentrionalis 02:34, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

From RFC: Agree with Septentrionalis. The Teutonic Order is at Teutonic Knights, not at Order of the Teutonic House of Mary in Jerusalem. The article about the crusading order should be Knights Templar with everything else at Knights Templar (disambiguation) and Templar (disambiguation). Olessi 17:05, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

After giving the matter consideration, I have to say I agree with Septentrionalis and Olessi. The primary sense of Knights Templar is the medieval order, and its origin, and the article name should reflect that.DonaNobisPacem 18:23, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the primary meaning of the term "Knights Templar" should mean the medieval order. However, I have been seeing multiple examples around Wikipedia where biographies are linking to "Knights Templar" when they mean "Masonic Knights Templar". Yes, we could do continual scans of "What links here" to check for these and fix them, but I think it would be better if the term "Knights Templar" automatically went to a disambiguation page, because the term is clearly ambiguous. I recommend that we come up with a more specific title for the Medieval Order article, and then link to it from the disambiguation page. --Elonka 19:14, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree with those who suggest that [[Knights Templar]] should be the article about the medieval military order (currently [[Knights Templar (military order)]]. Further, I don't even see the need for a disambiguation page, since all the other articles listed on that page are already linked directly from the main article, and from the navigation template. If a reader who is looking for the Masons comes to this article because of a badly-formed link, the article itself will point them to the correct destination. --Russ Blau (talk) 17:30, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

The RfC has been running for a little over a month, so I wanted to pull all the ideas together. Not everyone was very clear on where they stood, so if anyone wants to review the discussion to make their own tally, feel free. In any case, here's how I read it:

Three people felt that it should have the full name of the order (Poor Fellow-Soldiers of Christ and of the Temple of Solomon), four said that it should be called simply "Knights Templar", one said that it should be "Knights Templar (Crusades)", one said "Knights Templar (medieval order)", and a few others did not express a clear preference.

Since there's not a clear consensus, I recommend moving to a straw poll at this point, to try and clarify people's choices. --Elonka 23:13, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Straw poll - Page renaming

What should the article title be, for this article? Any names can be suggested, but the leading contenders seem to be: Knights Templar, Knights Templar (medieval order), Knights Templar (military order), and Poor Fellow Soldiers of Christ and the Temple of Solomon (a vote for this last one is probably easiest to say as "Full name"). Please vote below, thanks. -----

• Knights Templar (medieval order) -- I'm actually in support of any title that is not simply "Knights Templar", because I think that that one is the most confusing. But if I had to choose one, I would say to call it the medieval order, or the full name at this point. --Elonka 23:13, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Knights Templar -- see my comments in the preceding section. --Russ Blau (talk) 11:07, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
• Knights Templar -- as mentioned previously. It is by far the primary meaning. Misdirected links in other articles can be corrected. john k 14:22, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
• Knights Templar, as mentioned previously. Adam Bishop 18:27, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
• Knights Templar - it is the historical usage of the name (not necessarily back to the date of the Templars themselves, but certainly before it came into usage within Masonic and other organisations), and the most common popular usage. Rather than a disambiguation page, an insertion can be made at the top (according to WP disambiguation guidlines) along the lines of if you are looking for the article on the Masonic Knights Templar, click here, or if you are looking for an alternate meaning of Knights Templar, click here, and have it lead to a disambig. page of Knights Templar - other usage.DonaNobisPacem 18:47, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
• Knights Templar -- Successive pretenders may use a disambiguation scheme regarding their claim to the name. -- Domino theory 22:37, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
• Knights Templar - as it's the most common usage.--Cúchullain ^t/c 23:52, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
• Knights Templar see above. Septentrionalis 00:09, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

OK, it's been well over a week since the last voter appeared, and it seems there is a clear consensus. If any Administrator is monitoring this page, please effectuate the move. Otherwise, we'll have to post on WP:RM. --Russ Blau (talk) 10:57, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree, the consensus is clear. I have requested admin assistance via WP:RM. --Elonka 21:56, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Requested move

Admins: Consensus for the move of this page to the title Knights Templar has been reached, as seen above. I will go ahead and start updating the secondary links -- please go ahead and take care of the move as soon as is practicable. Thanks. --Elonka 22:14, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

It has been moved (I'm not sure what you were doing with the redirect, I would have had to delete it anyway). I suppose someone should fix the double redirects now...Adam Bishop 01:30, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! The redirect was temporary, while I was sorting out some of the other Templar pages. I'll go ahead and finalize everything now, thank you for your help! --Elonka 02:38, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

End of the Order....

"Remaining Templars around Europe were either arrested and tried, absorbed into other organizations such as the Order of Christ and Knights Hospitaller, or fled to other territories outside of Papal control such as excommunicated Scotland. But questions still remain as to what happened to the thousands of Templars across Europe, or to the entire Templar fleet of ships which vanished on Friday the 13th. Also, the extensive archive of the Templars, with detailed records of all of their business holdings and financial transactions, was never found, though it is unknown whether it was destroyed, or moved to another location."

This needs to be re-worded - Templars were arrested and tried, and then absorbed or returned to secular life. In the histories I have read, no mention is made of Templars fleeing Papal control - is there sources for this? As well, the idea of a whole fleet disappearing - it is a bit of a misconception that the Templars had an entire fleet to begin with. They had only a few ships at any given time - the other ships were hired for service. From what I understand, the disappearance of a whole fleet is legend......any input on this?

As to their records - it is commonly accepted that the Hospitallers moved the records to Cyprus, and that they remained their until their destruction in the 1500's (I think), when it was captured by the Arabs. DonaNobisPacem 06:55, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

• Can you please point me at a reference for that, and I'll get it rewritten, thanks. --Elonka 07:44, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

All comes from The New Knighthood, Malcolm Barber.

The Cyprus bit - the island was turned over to the Hospitallers in 1312, and remained in their possesion until being overrun by the Ottoman Turks in 1512. The Hospitallers' own records on Cyprus were also lost, which has led many scholars to believe that the Templar records went with them.

I doublechecked Barber's book, and he's pretty iffy on what happened to the records. He says it's plausible that they went to Cyprus, but there's little proof. --Elonka 20:35, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

As to the number of ships - I don't have exact numbers, as it's been some time since I've read the book, but he mentions that at any given time they only owned a few ships, as the cost to maintain a fleet would have been beyond their abilities - he quotes harbour records, as I recall. The disappearance of a fleet is usually a portion of a legend which states the Templars secreted off hoardes of treasure in their fleet on Friday 13th - which Barber claims is totally bogus.

I doublechecked Barber's book, and from the sections that I saw, he agrees that there was some sort of fleet. He uses exactly that word: "fleet" in the first few pages, and mentions elsewhere a detailed report that there were at least 18 ships in one port alone. Then again, it's only a single report, with no corroboration. There *is*, however, documentation that they had enough ships to be moving a lot of equipment back and forth to the Holy Land. A History Channel documentary also mentioned that 18 Templar ships were seen in the port of La Rochelle on the 12th, but were gone on the 13th, and that there are other records proving that the Templars were acquiring ships earlier in the 1200s. I'm personally satisfied that there's enough information to justify the term "fleet" (or at least "small fleet" ;)), but if you'd like to provide other sources disproving it, I'm listening. --Elonka 20:35, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Slightly unrelated - is the original Talk:Knights Templar page archived anywhere? I've been away from this page (Wikipedia, in fact) for quite some time..... DonaNobisPacem 08:05, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Nice to have you back. --Loremaster 20:09, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I think that it's probably at the Disambig page now. There was a somewhat messy move that left a few talk pages behind, and we're still trying to untangle. --Elonka 20:35, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Elonka I thought it was agreed that legends would have its own page under disambugation? Why is there a legends heading on the main historical text? 08:42, 23 February 2006 (UTC)08:42, 23 February 2006 (UTC)08:42, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Not exactly sure what you're referring to? We're trying to link to all Templar-related pages, from all Templar-related pages. If we missed something, please quote the specific section that you're referring to? Thanks. --Elonka 20:35, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Knights Templar today?

A user named Davidsolomon has created the Knights Templar today article probably without reading the Talk:Knights Templar (military order) page. Should this new article be improved and intergrated in the Knights Templar series OR merged with the History of the Knights Templar article OR simply deleted? --Loremaster 21:39, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I think it should probably be listed for deletion - it incorporates a lot of legend as fact, and the rest is almost all redundant with the articles already existing.....we should probably ask for his take as well - see why he posted the article in the first place..... DonaNobisPacem 00:06, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

I've begun the deletion process. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Knights Templar today. --Loremaster 19:44, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Davidsolomon 6 March 2006:

Hello everybody,

I have exhaustively read the Talk:Knights Templar (military order) page, the History of the Knights Templar section, the Knights Templar in England page and other articles around the subject area as well and frankly there is a lot missing. Why is nobody interested in the Templars in England, or the post-disbandment history of the men in the Order there?

The Knights Templar in England page makes no reference of Baldock or its County, Hertfordshire whatsoever! That is where the Templars had their HQ between 1199 and 1254!! They founded the town and gave it its name!! Other Templar locations still exist in Hertfordshire, such as Hitchin and Hertford Castle (where Templars from Temple Dinsley - ALSO IN HERTFORDSHIRE - were locked up during the persecution. How can any serious page on the Templars, let alone the Templars in England, exclude this factual historical information? Some Templar historians seem to be terrified of Hertfordshire because they know that some people believe the Templars are still there.

Sorry for the typos, I only just created the article and I have not yet finished editing it (in face the drastic response to it may be a little premature!)

I created this article because there is not a single word elsewhere about the Knights Templar after the official disbandment in 1312. There is information about the Freemasonic Knights Templar, but they have no connection with the original Order whatsoever. In fact the only basis for a connection between the two is that somebody once claimed that crusaders formed Freemasonry to make sure they could tell the difference between themselves and the local Muslim population!

Where else in this entire encyclopedia is there information about what happened to the Templars who were not killed (only a tiny minority were killed.)

Is there no reasonable reference to legend anywhere else in this encyclopedia? I see mention of the Holy Grail in other articles but nobody wants to delete them. The Templars are positively steeped in myth and legend as I have pointed out and no piece on the Templars is complete without mention of some of the main legends that surround them.

I've only used solid information and I've also included my sources so I don't see the problem.

I urge you not to delete or make drastic changes to this article because it contains important information - with sources - that is not included anywhere else. That is why I spent so many hours creating the article!

Where else is there material on the Templars in England (the last place they went unpersecuted and the country that bears their flag as its own)? Where else is there information about what happened to the men of the Temple after the persecution began?

Please do not ignore the research of experts with specialist local knowledge like Helen Nicholson, Sylvia P. Beamon and F. M Page simply because it does not fit the usual brand of Templar material, which deliberately avoids the subject of the activities of Templar men after the Order ceased to exist. The men themselves did not spontaneously cease to exist after 1312 and indeed the activities of Templar fugitives after 1312, including the construction of Royston Cave, are fascinating. So why do many historians fearfully ignore them?! These are not modern Freemasonic Templars studying the Order from the United States.

The experts I invoke are people who live and work in towns like Baldock, towns founded by the Templars. These experts have studied the structures the Templars built after the dissolution and some of them indeed have had contact with people today who are involved with the genuine underground Templar order that continued directly from the original. Why does this create so much fear? Perhaps it is because in a cosy, neat and tidy world, if somebody important says, "your organisation no longer exists" that is the final word on the matter. But what if the people concerned don't share that view? What if they still consider themselves a part of something?

Removing or seriously altering this article will denude and rob this encyclopedia of information on a subject that appeals to a great many people. And the legends surrounding it only add to its appeal.

Thank you for reading my response.

God bless.

---

My main issue is that legends have been incorporated without indentifying them as such:

In October 2004, almost 700 years after the start of the persecution on Friday the 13th of October 1307, it emerged that the Knights Templar had been writing to the Pope every year on October 13 for a great many years. A copy of the 2004 letter was leaked to The Times newspaper who printed the story on November 29

This, for example: the organisation is of alleged KT background (as the newspaper article states) - basically, they are the only people who believe they are descendents. The comment by Ben Acheson is also misleading: after 1291, although the organisation ceased to be active in Outremer itself, they did launch a few campaigns, and were still actively planning crusading activity in 1307. And again, the mention of the Church's inquisitors is misleading - the French process was carried out only nominally under the inquisition, but in reality under the control of French secular authority - one of the main reasons Clement V intervened, as he did not approve of the usurpation of his authority. The pressure of Philip was only one reason the Order was disbanded - it is important to note that by the end of the trial (and even before, as people saw donations go down the tubes in failed crusading campaigns) public opinion was not in favour of the Order in many cases.

The disbandment in 1312 did not precipitate the sudden spontaneous deaths of all Templars. Many Templars carried on as normal, only in secret. The Order was a tightly-bound group of men who relied upon eachother for survival in battle and shared a distinctive style of worship, as well as secret practices which remain mysterious to this day. Their shared suffering and secrecy only served to bind the Templars more closely together and harden their commitment to the innocent and wrongfully accused Order.

Here is the main problem: there is no concrete evidence the Order carried on in secret, at least none that is accepted among mainstream scholarship (more on that below). There are some accounts of Templars (two in the Holy Land, according to Barber's or Peter Partner's book - I can't remember which) who had no idea the Order had been dissolved, but these were extremely isolated individuals no longer working with the Order. And in the Church's investigation, they found no evidence for secret practices outside of the Latin/French rules - hence the majority of the papal investigators actually wanted the maintenance of the Order. The initiantions/chapter meetings were secret, but it is unlikely any arcane rituals would have been kept secret for a few hundred years before being found out in the trial - it is more commonly accepted the secrecy was for military purposes (a "Loose lips lose ships" idea argued by Barber).

The Jesuit Order was supressed in several countries around 1767 and its members went underground in those places during that time. The order did not officially exist in those places at that time, but nobody would seriously contend that the people were not Jesuits. Catholicism was at one time supressed in England, but Catholics remained there and continued to be Catholic, only in secret. Like the Templars, they did not advertise their activities, but nobody would seriously cast doubt upon their continued existence. The Templars also continued to have contact with eachother and to consider themselves Templar after the official 1312 disbandment - and indeed there is proof of this in Hertfordshire's Royston Cave.

This is an argument for the talk page - you are arguing why to include post-1312 info, which is not really needed for the purposes of the page, if the information you present is factual.

Part of the issue is also what | Wikipedia NPOV policy - if only a small number of historians (ie, what would be identified as a "fringe" element) ascribe to certain theories, it needs to be identified as such in an article - but I myself will admit I am not knowledgeable enough on the English Templars to pick out all such entries in your article. But it is important that readers of the article get an idea of what is accepted by the majority of historians (fringe or mainstream), what is accepted among academics (being that they almost always have the most info - archeological, written works, previously published works - available, and tend to be both cautious and methodical), and what is accepted among only small minorites/fringe historians, so as to have a reasonable idea of the credibility of the information presented. In that regard, a suggestion is to format your footnotes such that the info on the page directly identifies what info goes with what sources, if possible. As well, Butler and Dafoe are not even properly regarded as fringe historians - their histories are - well - crackpot (hence I don't take info at http://www.templarhistory.com very seriously).

I hope you can see where I am coming from - should the article remain, perhaps it will give some starting points to begin improving the article. It appears you are a new contributor, so I do not wish to scare you away by the above: I merely hoped to point out a few issues I myself had with the article, and hopefully a few others might point out their issues as well, to help you out in your contributions. Cheerio, DonaNobisPacem 22:04, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Apology

Hi, I've just received a comment on my user talk page about the category changes I implemented. It wasn't my intention to cause controversy and, from the note that had been on the Category:Knights Templar, this seemed to be a needed change. Here's what I did: I created a subcategory Category:Medieval Knights Templar and moved articles that were specific to the Medieval period into it. This appears as a subcategory under Category:Knights Templar.

I hadn't any idea that this could be viewed as controversial, so if someone objects please state the reason and how I can accommodate your concerns.

The reason I implemented this was as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Middle Ages task force. Medieval warfare in general had been poorly organized at Wikipedia: important categories were underpopulated or nonexistent, numerous battles and other articles hadn't been categorized. Some obvious categories hadn't even existed, such as Category:Medieval weapons. Since the Knights Templar were an important part of Medieval history, and since it didn't make any sense (to me) to include Harry Truman under a subcategory of Medieval warfare, I implemented what I thought was a routine change. It seems I may have stepped on some toes here. Please accept my apologies. Durova 20:44, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi Durova, thanks for popping in. I think the issue that might be most controversial, is leaving Category:Knights Templar to the Freemasons, since the general consensus here seems to be that the primary meaning of the term should be for the Medieval Order, and not for the Masonic degree. My recommendation (as I mentioned on the Category talk page) is that we make another subcategory Category:Masonic Knights Templar for the Freemasons, and basically leave the Category:Knights Templar category empty except for the subcategories Category:Masonic Knights Templar and Category:Medieval Knights Templar. That will make it easy to check, if some other editor on Wikipedia adds an article to Knights Templar, for us to spot it and make sure that it gets changed to the appropriate subcategory. We still need to figure out how to get the articles themselves properly named, but that's probably the clearest way to handle the categories. Anyone else have an opinion? --Elonka 20:55, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Anyone who wants to create a separate subcategory for freemasons is welcome to do so. It sounds like an excellent idea. Not something I'd have the time to detour and do on my own, though. I'll spend a little time on the articles in the subcategory I created: correcting Wikilinks, looking for images to import from other language editions of Wikipedia, and other basic housekeeping. Please let me know if there are other sensitive issues I should be aware of. Regards, Durova 21:10, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

No mention of important topic

I think the link with the Priory of Sion deserves at least a mention in the legends section of this page (especially the Instance of the Cutting of the Elm in 1188 seeing as something happened here even if it is in dispute exactly what)

If you can provide a source (I don't really know anything about the Cutting of the Elm, even after googling it), I would invite you to add something to the legends section (you can wikilink it to the Priory of Sion article) - generally, the Priory of Sion is not taken seriously by most historians/academia, so I believe it should be kept to the legends section.DonaNobisPacem 06:30, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

As I understand it the Priory of Sion didn't really exist in the form you may be talking about. It was an elaborate forgery. Isn't that right? ThePeg 17:58, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Article name

So why isn't this page at Knights Templar? This is clearly the best known subject at that name; Knights Templar (disambiguation) should link from here.--Cúchullain ^t/c 06:38, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

That exact topic is currently being discussed. See "Straw Poll" above, and cast your vote! --Elonka 16:13, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Oops, didn't see it. Thanks!--Cúchullain ^t/c 23:53, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

External links

With all the work in separating the Templars into historical, legend, modern orders, etc - it seems to me the external links on this article should stick to the historical. Links to modern day orders, legends etc belong on the applicable pages, which can be linked to under "See Also." Do I find agreement amongst my fellow editors? If so, I shall delete the current external links to modern orders...DonaNobisPacem 07:47, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I fail to see the reason why they belong, so I would agree. -- Domino theory 08:32, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree, external links to modern orders should be moved to the other pages (Legends, Masonic, etc.) as appropriate. --Elonka 17:21, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

• See Also - as per above, would it not make sense to keep the "See Also" links to the historical order? Again, the disambiguation link points to other uses of the term.DonaNobisPacem 17:24, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Trivial Errors and Trivial Addendum

This is from memory and desparately needs sources, but I am pretty sure that the following is accurate:

1. Although military fashions changed thoughout the period, for the majority of their existence Templar knights wore a white surcoat with the red templar cross in the center and a white mantle (cloak) also probably with a templar cross over the heart. [this should/could probably be dated exactly]. They didn't wear a habit into battle (like the Hospitallers did until mid 13th century when they too adopted the surcoat), perhaps they wore the habit when not fighting. [clarification is needed here because early in the article habits are mentioned later in the article surcoats are mentioned]

I think the use of the word habit is an editorial mistake here...the mantle and surcoat are the only references I have seen in checking on this.DonaNobisPacem 05:12, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

1. Templar sargents possibly wore a brown surcoat as well.
2. Templar sargents also included recent coverts to Christianity from Islam (perhaps only in small numbers, though), and men of mixed muslim/christian parantage.
3. The number of sargents probably wasn't that great, and they might have only served in a guarding function, rather than on the battlefield [all parts of this point could be debated] In battlefield reports the lose of brother knights and turcopoles (see 7) is frequently mentioned by rarely are sargents mentioned suggesting that perhaps they weren't that numerous or important in battle, or there was a social status/cognitive bias against them.
4. Templar knights were armed and fought as shock cavalry in the manner of a typical medieval knight, not as heavy cavalry [some might not find this distinction relevant but see 6 and 7, below]
5. Templar sargents were armed and fought as heavy cavalry (fighting in supporting roles to the knights) not as light cavalry [see 7]
6. Both the Templars and the Hospitallers bolstered their battlefield manpower by employing Turcopoles as affilliated mercenaries. These lightly armoured horsemen fought in a "Saracen" style as light cavarlymen; their purpose was scouting, skirmishing and providing rear-rank support for the knights (and sargents?). Employing Turcopoles was the feudal perogative of the king, and the military orders, only (i.e. not the right/responsibility of the cities, Italian communes, bishoprics, or fuedal barons; who were responsible for knights, foot sargents, and crossbowmen depending on their fuedal obligations).

Agreed that this is crucial to point out - the fall of one fortress (I'm having a blank on the name - Al Attain? - was due to the abandonment of the fortress by the numerous local turcopoles used to man the fortress (in the hundreds, compared to the small number of knights and slightly larger number of seargents at the fortress)DonaNobisPacem 05:12, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

1. Both orders also employed afflilated mercenary heavily armored foot sargents/spearmen and crossbowmen (dress unknown, but probably employing some templar symbols)
2. [point 7 and 8 are important because the article states that there were 4 principle divisions within the temple's organization, which may have been true of the theoretical organization of the temple (i.e. idealistically), but "on the ground" in reality its organization was more complex.]
3. In battle, brother knights and sargents were under the command of the Grand Master directly, or the Master of the local priory if the force was that small. Templar mercenaries were commanded in battle by the marshal of the temple (???) (a subordinate of the Grand Master) who also took charge of the battlefield standard/flag of the order (???)
4. Something should be mentioned about the pie-bald standard/flag of the Templars (perhaps with a picture). I forget what it was called but it had an actual name (beascant ???). It was quite famous at the time.
5. It was a definative right of the temple to march in the van when on the colomn march, and to take the prestigous right flank when the army was arrayed for battle, with the Grand Master in command of the right flank. The king marched in the center of the column and commanded the troops in the center and reserve (often leading the reserve himself) of the battlefield. The hospitallers marched in the rear and lined-up on the left flank, with their Grand Master in command of the left flank. The right and left flanks of the battle, and the van and rear of the marching column were vital areas where the army could be defeated so they were assigned to the temple and the hospital respectively, because of their percieved and actual battlefield superiority.
6. At times, the Templars negotiated their own treaties and held some of the kingdom's treaties in abeyance (sp?). I think that they even supplied troops to lesser Islamic rulers (in their fight against Saladin (check???)).

I know they frequently negotiated their own treaties, much to the chagrin of crusading kings and local feudal lords - one such treaty resulted in the public humiliation of Templar officials by King Frederick of Germany after they negotiated a treaty he had no knowledge of and was opposed to (he made them, in front of his troops, march barefoot and then publicly reverse their negotiations before a Muslim emissary). DonaNobisPacem 05:12, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

1. They also had to be invited to battle, although usual, their presence was not assumed by the king. They didn't swear fealty to the king or do hommage to him. Sometimes the king had to pledge portions of his income or grants of land to get them to appear. This gave them a great deal of power, because their participation was vital, but couldn't be forced. Also at times the king had to hand-over castles in critical areas to the defense of the kingdom to the temple because the manpower of the kingdom was often limited. Because the temple didn't recruit and finance knights based on fealty/land-tenure like the Kingdom of Jerusalem, but rather based on volunteers, donations, banking, and income from European holdings they had a more secure supply of knights than the king, and were in a better position to defend vital fortresses.
2. The temple (and the hospital) didn't have the same fuedal obligation to the king as the cities, communes, bishoprics and barons had (e.g. the Patriarch of Jerusalem owed a certain quantitly of knights and foot soldiers). Templar knights were supplied at the pleasure of the Temple (check???). William of Tyre actually lists all the knights fees for the kingdom in 1187.
3. As example of their vow of poverty, templar knights were not allowed to wear mail gloves with fingers, they were restricted to mail "mittens". Fingered mail gloves where seen as a luxury. I think that there were restrictions on the type of helment they could were, but that might be wrong.
4. Also, more poverty: a templar knight owned only his sword, and sheild (and his horse?); everything else including his armor (and his horse?) was the property of the temple.

In Barber's book (and I think Peter Partner's as well), he speaks of them owning armour and weaponry, a few horses (the Masters and other officials were entitled to more), a few pack animals (the number depending on rank within the order) and the right to a number of pages (again depending on rank).DonaNobisPacem 05:12, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

1. pretty sure the Templars followed the Cistercian (sp?) rule (don't remember if that was mentioned in the article).

It was based upon the Cistercian rule - their rule was largely developed by St. Benedict - but was expanded into the original Latin Rule to cater to the military order's specific needs: and later added on and expanded into the French Rule, which mainly expounded on the matters of managing the order - most of the daily routines were set in the original Latin Rule of 1129, or 1128, depending on whose calender you use (standard or French, which had their new year a few months into the standard year).DonaNobisPacem 05:12, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

As I mentioned, these points require fact-checking and sources, but I am very sure that it is accurate (although perhaps trivial) and have indicated where I was less than sure. The original(s) author is invited to use this content if they desire. Sources for the above include R.C. Smail "Crusading Warfare", Ian Heath "Armies and Enemies of the Crusades", and the Osprey Men-at-Arms series; although I would have to go back and re-read them, it was a long time ago, and they weren't on-hand when this was written. --cgothard

About the See also section

According to Wikipedia rule of thumb: 1) if something is in see also, try to incorporate it into main body 2) if something is in main body, it should not be in see also and therefore 3) good articles have no See also sections. --Loremaster 23:35, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Removal of paragraphs

I've removed the following since it seemed tangential in the history section:

On April 20, 2006, ABC's Good Morning America ran a profile on the Knights Templar as part a series on secret societies. Robin Griffith-Jones, Master of the Temple Church in London - a noteworthy Knights Templar historian - criticized the Knights' portrayal in films such as Kingdom of Heaven as being bloodthirsty, pointing out that though they were warriors, they primarily wanted to keep peace and that they respected Muslims, even to the point of having warm, friendly relationships with them in some cases.

In fact the Knights Templar often petitioned for peace with the Muslims. This led to accusations of cowardice and such, leading the Knights to have to convince their detractors otherwise with new acts of bravery in battle.

Maybe someone can find a way to stick this in here in some form or another article? JoshuaZ 02:24, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

DAB rationale

People looking for information on the novel entitled Knight Templar aren't likely to think of going to the Templar disambiguation page. Since it's an almost exact match I think it's fair to include a dab reference here in lieu of there being a 2-item disambiguation page at Knight Templar which is once again a redirect here. 23skidoo 01:02, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

You raise a good point, especially since it's been pointed out that there are at least two books with the name Knight Templar. Accordingly, I have changed the page at Knight Templar into a disambiguation page, which I think addresses everyone's concerns. Please take a look and let me know what you think? --Elonka 21:41, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

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 Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zonk43 (talk • contribs) 16:59, July 31, 2006

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.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.242.210.33 (talk • contribs) 04:05, October 6, 2006

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 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.8.248.2 (talk • contribs) 10:09, October 13, 2006

yeah that is just davinci code nonsense which people are trying to stick into this article —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.107.109.66 (talk • contribs) 13:57, October 13, 2006

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". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.144.80.68 (talk • contribs) 21:05, January 29, 2007

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

Fixed. --Elonka 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? --Elonka 19:48, 30 January 2007 (UTC)