This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | → | Archive 8 |
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:
Thoughts? Elonka 20:12, 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)
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)
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)
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)
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 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.
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)
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:
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)
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)
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. -----
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)
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)
"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)
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)
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.
---
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
This is from memory and desparately needs sources, but I am pretty sure that the following is accurate:
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
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)
I've removed the following since it seemed tangential in the history section:
Maybe someone can find a way to stick this in here in some form or another article? JoshuaZ 02:24, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
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)
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
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
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
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)
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)
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)
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)
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
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:
Does anyone else have thoughts on this? -- El on ka 19:48, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | → | Archive 8 |
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:
Thoughts? Elonka 20:12, 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)
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)
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)
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)
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 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.
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)
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:
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)
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)
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. -----
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)
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)
"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)
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)
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.
---
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
This is from memory and desparately needs sources, but I am pretty sure that the following is accurate:
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
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)
I've removed the following since it seemed tangential in the history section:
Maybe someone can find a way to stick this in here in some form or another article? JoshuaZ 02:24, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
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)
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
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
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
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)
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)
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)
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)
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
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:
Does anyone else have thoughts on this? -- El on ka 19:48, 30 January 2007 (UTC)