Talk:Knights Templar

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Featured article star Knights Templar is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on October 13, 2007.
Archive
Archives

Contents

[edit] This Article Needs Less Bias in Choice of "One True History"

Speaking of the Knights Templar invariably leads to a barrage of convoluted inquiries involving assorted conspiracy theories. It is a difficult subject to write of. However, I was suprised to find that I felt underinformed after reading this article; due to the lack of alternate theories elaborated. It seems that 'One True History' has been written here; and I beleive most, if not all, scholars would agree that the Templars' history is a very difficult area where fact, lore, and misinformation are terribly entwined. Many would further state that it is very difficult to present 'one true account'. On these grounds alone, I do not feel comfortable with one single explanation here being stated as fact. I strongly feel that, at least, the most prominent or most cogent alternative histories should be touched upon and referenced in any text dealing with this subject. This is overall a well-written article. It is only in the fact that, whether one beleives A B or C, there are divergent "True Histories" of the Templars, and to only present one as a True Account, is equal to presenting only one of the more divergent theories as True Fact. I would very much like to see an article of greater scope on this subject, as there are differing- yet equally factual histories and it is a disservice to History to choose which story is the One True History, esp. without referencing the others with some degree of respect. --Αγαθος και Σωφος, Σωφος και Καλος, Καλος και Αγαθος (talk) 20:24, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Upcoming peer review

Company's coming.  :)

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

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

[edit] Request for expansion

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

[edit] Good article

Clearly written, well-referenced, and richly informative article passes GA criteria with room to spare. A few initial thoughts on areas calling for work as this fine article moves toward FAC:

  • Membership/Size: How many Knights Templar were there? "[E]ach knight had some ten people in support positions," says the article. Not quite clear--are the "support positions" (a) sergeants and serving brothers, with chaplains ranking seperately; (b) sergeants, serving brothers, and chaplains; (c) sergeants, serving brothers, and non-Templar employees; or (d) or...? In sum, how many members of the order were there, and how many Knights per se?
  • Membership/Demographics: Mostly French, like the order's founder? From all over Europe? Who joined, exactly?
  • Distribution: "Each country had a Master of the Order for the Templars in that region," says the article. What countries were those? All of Europe? Just Western Europe and the Holy Land? "[T]he Templars had become a part of daily life in Europe. They managed many businesses," says the article. So there were substantial business (non-military?) units of Templars all over the place? Where?
  • References/Further reading: Standardize style. Add retrieval dates for online sources. Make it purty. And make sure best sourcing possible used for every cite.

Battle on. Best, Dan.—DCGeist 10:29, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Will do, thanks!  :) --Elonka 01:00, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
I learned a lot reading the article. In a couple of places the tone was a little too informal for an encyclopedia, like "the tide turned against them." Steve Dufour 06:54, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Hmm, I kind of like it, and have heard that type of analogy in other Templar sources. For example, in the History Channel documentary Lost Worlds: Knights Templar at the 46-minute mark: "Despite the web of fortifications, by 1187, the tide was turning against the Templars. Their great enemy Saladin swept through the Holy Land, grabbing town after town from the Christians. Ultimately, he captured Jerusalem." Does anyone else have an opinion on whether the "tide" analogy is appropriate for the Wikipedia article? I think it's worth keeping for the "brilliant prose" requirement towards FA status, but if the consensus is that it's too informal, we can definitely pull it. --Elonka 04:05, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
I think it's fine. However, I'm open to hearing suggestions that are contribute to more formal yet brilliant prose. --Loremaster 22:08, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I think I've got all of the above suggestions covered. Can anyone think of anything I've missed? --Elonka 18:23, 26 March 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Semi-automated review

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

  • Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.[?]
    • There are no months or days linked except Friday 13th, which is relevant, some instances of nth century and 1n00s appears, but are unlinked.--Alf melmac 12:23, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Please make the spelling of English words consistent with either American or British spelling, depending upon the subject of the article. Examples include: honour (B) (American: honor), armor (A) (British: armour), harbor (A) (British: harbour), offense (A) (British: offence), organize (A) (British: organise), recognize (A) (British: recognise), ization (A) (British: isation), isation (B) (American: ization).
  • Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
    • Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”
      • I cleared all but one "some" - various is used three times, each time I can see why. There are two "number" - one in the lead, which might be better as a figure - "safety of the thousands(?) of European pilgrims" instead of "safety of the large numbers of European pilgrims", or descriptively - "safety of the swathes of European pilgrims".--Alf melmac 13:18, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, SmallPotatoes 20:29, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I think we're getting close to FA nom. Think we should go for another formal Peer review, or straight to WP:FAC? I'm seeing some other articles starting to jockey for the October 13th timeframe, so I'm thinking we might want to go the latter route and try to expedite things, but what do others think? Are we ready? If there's consensus to proceed, I'll submit the nom, but if anyone can think of a reason to hold off, please speak up!  :) --Elonka 18:27, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
eeep, decision time tick tock tick tock erm, I'd still like to see those vague terms addressed and look at the Templar legacy section with the three photos again and do something there, then takes a deep breath submit to FAC.--Alf melmac 21:10, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
I think that the remaining "vague" terms are justified. As for the Templar legacy section, what is it that bothers you about the photos? Would you rather that we moved them into the main text? --Elonka 04:01, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
It may be just me, but it has a low text to picture ratio, I can see the reason for including the photo of Temple Church, the text relates how many names have 'temple' extant. I can't see the reason for the inclusion of the other two clearly. As it's an aesthetic issue, I'm not overly concerned about it though.--Alf melmac 11:39, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
That last re-arrange did the trick, comparing the two, it was a visual break to the flow of the article, that's nicely fixed now.--Alf melmac 23:42, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Glad you like it! Alright, I have submitted the formal nom: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Knights Templar. I've worked on FAs before, but this is the first time I've ever actually submitted a nomination, so I'm excited! I'm also confident. We've got a nice piece of work here, and everyone who's worked on the article deserves to be proud. :) --Elonka 01:31, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Early archiving

Now that the Lordknowle situation is resolved, it's my recommendation that we archive all of the related threads, to clear up room on the talkpage, and help us get back to our primary job of raising this article to FA status.  :) I'm willing to handle the archive, but I wanted to ensure that there was consensus first, so that there are no concerns that things are being "swept under the rug." These are the sections that I'd like to move:

  • Red cross pattee
  • Cross pattee reference
  • Cross shape
  • Inappropriate external link
  • Two wrongs?
  • Apologies

Does anyone else have thoughts on whether or not these threads can be early-archived? --Elonka 19:55, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't see it as being swept under the rug, it'll still be there in the archive so I can only see positives to early archiving this.--Alf melmac 13:15, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Proposal has my support. Kbthompson 14:43, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Done. Anyone who wants to review those threads, please see /Archive 5. --Elonka 04:00, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Templars in Popular Culture

I don't normally like sections dealing with "X in popular culture", but in the case of the Templars it would be very useful to disentangle the historical Templars from popular beliefs about the Templars and reactions to popular beliefs about the Templars.

In the latter case, I would definitely include Umberto Eco's Foucault's Pendulum, where in discussing the kinds of people one encounters in publishing, one of his characters defines lunatics as follows:

The lunatic ... doesn't concern himself at all with logic; he works by short circuits. For him, everything proves everything else. The lunatic is all idée fixe, and whatever he comes across confirms his lunacy. You can tell him by the liberties he takes with common sense, by his flashes of inspiration, and by the fact that sooner or later he brings up the Templars.

This article, as I read it, doesn't fit Eco's definition of lunacy, but admitting that it's out there seems an important part of dealing with the templars. --SteveMcCluskey 13:47, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Mea culpa. OK, I see what you've done by hiding the popular culture in a very effective section on Legends and relics. I'll do something to work in that passage from Eco. --SteveMcCluskey 14:02, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
If those who've been working on this article think it doesn't belong where I put it, It could fit nicely at the head of article on Knights Templar and popular culture.
BTW, does anyone know the source for the alleged quotation from Eco in that article, "If somebody brings up the Templars, he is almost always a lunatic." I'm not familiar with it in that form.--SteveMcCluskey 14:29, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
LOL! That's a great quote. And yes, I think the best place for it would be at the top of either Knights Templar and popular culture or Knights Templar legends.  :) --Elonka 17:38, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Glad you enjoyed the quote from Eco; I've taken your advice and moved it to Knights Templar legends. If you haven't read it Foucault's Pendulum is an enjoyable read with good insights on academic publishing and the Templars. SteveMcCluskey 03:06, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 700-year anniversary

I've officially requested the date of October 13, 2007, for the article's "mainpage" date, since that's the 700-year anniversary of the arrests. And yes, I know I'm doing this a bit early (since we're not at FA status yet), but the calendar was filling up, and I wanted to make sure we got in the placeholder for October 13. I also needed to write a brief 200-word summary of the article, so I'd appreciate if folks could read what I came up with at the requests page and let me know what you think. We still have plenty of time to come up with a new one.  :) --Elonka 00:34, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Query on Organisation

This bit from the Organisation section needs revising:

the knights, wearing white mantles and equipped as heavy cavalry; the sergeants, drawn from lower social strata than the knights and equipped as light cavalry

The mantles bit--covered very clearly elsewhere in the section--should be replaced with a phrase summarizing the social strata from which the knights were drawn in order to parallel and clarify the description of the sergeants. Were the knights all of noble birth? Mostly nobles, along with some rich members of the mercantile class? Or what?—DCGeist 00:51, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Fixed. Knights were required to be of "knightly descent." I've reworked the section a bit, let me know if you need any other factoids.  :) --Elonka 03:20, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 'Nother query (or deux)

Please verify and cite that there were "approximately 15,000 Templar Houses around Europe," per the Fall section. Given the statistics presented, that would make it between 1 and 1.3 Templars per Templar House--not impossible by any means (hired squires or such could have run certified Templar Houses), but unusual enough to call for verification.

See also my edit summary accompanying the change(s) I made, raising the matter of where the Templar headquarters relocated after the Order's Holy Land positions were lost.—DCGeist 06:34, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

After the fall of Acre, the Templar headquarters was moved to Limassol, in Cyprus.(Martin, p. 113) As for the 15,000, I agree that the numbers don't seem to be matching up, so I'd say we should tone down that number to "thousands." I don't think that the Pope invited the Templars to Lyons in 1306/1307. I think that's probably a confusion with the 1274 Council of Lyons, another time that the current Pope was trying to merge the various Orders. On October 13, 1307, Jacques De Molay was arrested at the Temple in Paris.(Martin, p. 116). I think it's best to stick with the "invited to France" wording until/unless we can find a more detailed reference. --Elonka 08:03, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
OK, I've made the relevant changes (I confess I was mentally putting Cyprus in the Holy Land--oy--but it is a little hard to track anyway, so reiterating it at the mention of the letter delivery seems helpful). By the way, here's the line I was referencing from History of the Knights Templar:
[The Templar-backed Cyprus coup in 1306] probably made Philip particularly uneasy, since just a few years earlier he had inherited land in the region of Champagne, France, which was the Templars' headquarters.
So that's incorrect, yes? It was never the location of their headquarters, but simply where the Templars (I'm now presuming) had some land endowed by founder Hughes de Payens and a particular concentration of wealth because of his ties there?—DCGeist 08:34, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
My understanding from the context was that it was the French headquarters, though perhaps the source meant to imply "base of operations," as you suggest. If you think the information should be challenged, by all means please remove it or reword the sentence until we can find a better source.
Also, I removed the word "Cyprus" from the section about Pope Clement's letter, for this reason: Jacques de Molay traveled a great deal, so it's not entirely clear where he was at the time that the letter was sent. The best I've found so far is that he was definitely "in the East," because I found a mention of him "arriving in the West" per the Pope's invitation. If somebody has a better source which actually puts de Molay in Cyprus (or shows that that's where the letter was sent to), then by all means please speak up.  :) --Elonka 14:40, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Congratulations

It's official! As of today, the Knights Templar article is now officially at featured status, and is considered one of the finest articles on Wikipedia. This makes it one of about 1,300 featured articles, out of the English Wikipedia's 1.7 million! Our next goal is to have it listed as "Today's featured article" on the Wikipedia Main page on October 13, 2007. That will be the 700-year anniversary of King Philip's arrests in 1307. I encourage anyone who has opinions on this to participate in the discussion at the FA date request page.

The article has come a long long way since its early stub version in 2001. Everyone who's worked on it deserves to be proud. Well done! :) --Elonka 16:02, 12 April 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Shroud of Turin

This article is faulty in that the last reference, which in the text mentions carbon dating, refers to an article on microbiological dating. Many recent investigations into the authenticity of the Shroud of Turin do, and they really are meta-analyses at this point, use much better scientific data and reasoning.72.76.237.197 05:01, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, what does the carbon dating for the Shroud have to do with the knights of the templar. Though it may be true that the relic was in the Templar possession is it necessary to include information about the Shroud? The origins of the Shroud of Turin is very controversial itself. If you take a look at the Shroud's page you will see many scientists using both carbon dating AND microbial analysis have shown mixed results on the origin of the Shroud. To maintain a NPOV I will delete the last sentence and its article reference. 68.109.197.246 20:52, 20 May 2007 (UTC)Steven

What's wrong with one sentance? I've noticed a lot of people on Wikipedia get really worked up over a few words that don't matter if they are there or not. I'm worried about the health of some users that spend hours debating over one arbutary sentance. --JRTyner 20:42, 13 October 2007 (UTC)


The shroud is fake Christ would look like a jew not an English nobleman as i think it possible to be an image of King Ritchard.this of course is my own opinion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.209.69.104 (talk) 12:46, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I presume you are referring to King Richard I of England ? By ancestry, Richard was French not English and how would he have anything to do with the shroud of Turin? If I had to make a guess on the identity of the person the shroud represents,I would say St.Anthony of Padua as the face shows very noble features and Anthony was of a noble Portuguese family.jeanne (talk) 07:09, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] superior design

heh.. "superior design" is of course a personal value judgment, a style issue, which is subjective, which is why we have a MOS guidelines, to stop pointless and endless style wars which have no "right" answer other than personal aesthetics.. but the image placement rule is there for a reason, to align the text and the header, so the header is not floating off in space away from the body of text. -- Stbalbach 04:49, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Heh heh. Dropping in on an article and trying to enforce MOS guideline minutiae, rather than respecting the judgment of the long-term editors of the article who have arrived at a design scheme that best serves (i.e., "improves") Wikipedia, which they have diligently maintained per Wikipedia:Ignore all rules policy is, heh heh heh, an even grosser personal value judgment. There were—surprise!—no "pointless style wars" until the MOS Hot Fuzz dropped in. The image placement guideline (not even a "rule," as you misleadingly describe it) is there for a reason: to provide some guidance to people who don't have a clue. The editors of this article clearly do have a clue—those with a clue themselves might take its Featured Article status as evidence. Having a clue: it's so n-i-c-e.—DCGeist 01:16, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
If it's actually breaking anything in a particular browser, I'll like to know of it so it can be fixed.--Alf melmac 11:26, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] British v. American spelling

I've noticed that we're getting a lot of edits trying to change the spelling of "organisation" (British spelling) to "organization" (American spelling). Personally, I prefer American spelling, but I'd like to bring up the issue here to check consensus. Many of the sources that I've used for this article used American spelling, and as one of the key contributors, I guess I get some say in the matter. Originally the article did use American spelling, and as I was expanding it, I continued to use American spelling. Then partway through the push to Featured status, someone changed it to UK spelling, and I went along with it since, well, we had plenty of other things we were disagreeing about, and it wasn't worth fighting a battle over. ;) I can really see making a case for going either way, but since it keeps getting challenged, I personally think that switching the article to American spelling would be wise, and would probably help decrease the edit-warring. Or, we could just try and find more neutral words to use, such as "Structure" instead of "Organization." What do other people think? I'll go along with consensus, with my main goal here being that we have as stable an article as possible. --Elonka 20:01, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Sounds perfectly reasonable. The connection between the Knights Templar and England was real, but does not seem significant enough to mandate British spelling based on article content. As you explain, switching to American spelling seems the best way to maintain the article's stability and thus serve its readership.—DCGeist 20:53, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
erm, I'm the one who changed it, at the time of edit, it was a mix of both. I have no preference whatsoever for which one, happy to set the spell check to either and make the edit.--Alf melmac 20:59, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Looks like consensus to me.  :) Let's proceed. --Elonka 17:42, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
swearing at his spellchecker which refused point blank to change default and swopped back to UK at each click. Done.--Alf melmac 21:20, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Must have missed some with that darn thing, thanks.--Alf melmac 21:54, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks Alf! Now we just have to wait and see if we start getting edit wars going the other way...  ;) --Elonka 21:55, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
This is stupid. The guideline I remember said that the spelling once assumed shouldn't be changed at all (except if the subject matter requires it). If you let yourselves be guided by "edit wars", the result will be US spelling everywhere, because US users are much more numerous than UK and Australian ones, and a lot of them will tend to change automatically to US spelling simply because they can't tell UK spelling from a misspelling. --91.148.159.4 18:13, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
I thought "organization was the British spelling. Moonraker12 12:15, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Nope. -ise and -our (colour, labour, savour, etc.) words are British, -ize and -or words are American. Canadians like myself are tending to use -ize far more often than -ise, but most have not yet abandoned our -our spellings. Although I have heard that -ize is slowly creeping into British spelling now as well. Lexicon (talk) 13:58, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Actually the Oxford English dictionary has always prefered -ize while other British dictionaries prefer -ise. Both forms are acceptable British usage though house styles tend to pick one. I believe Oxford University Press publications favour -ize for example.... WjBscribe 14:09, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Last Christian control of Jerusalem?

"The Crusaders retook the city in 1229 (without Templar help), but held it just briefly. In 1244, the Khawarizmi Turks recaptured Jerusalem, and has since never been under Christian control."

What about when the British captured Jerusalem in 1917 during World War 1? And the subsequent British Mandate of Palestine? The British may not have been occupying it "for Christianity", but were a Christian nation nevertheless. Miremare 23:26, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, I've removed it myself, but I don't know whether the following reference was in relation to that particular claim or the sentence as a whole, because I don't own the book, so someone please remove the reference if necessary. Miremare 00:02, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for bringing this up, and you're right. I was checking my source material last night, and the more accurate statement might be, "would not again be under Christian control, until 1917 when the British took control from the Ottoman Turks." Or maybe, "was not again under Christian control until the 20th century, when the British took it from the Ottomans." Or does anyone else have a suggestion for better wording? --Elonka 17:28, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
A very bad idea. The medieval European states were truly Christian in the sense that they considered Christianity to be the most essential basis of their existence and were fighting for what they saw as a Christian cause. Their being Christian was highly relevant in the context of the Crusades because these were religious wars. The British in 1917 were basically a modern secular nation, and the fact that most of Great Britain's population was Christian was irrelevant for their engagement in WW1 and capture of Jerusalem. Would you say that Pearl Harbor was attacked by Shintoist forces, or that Iraq is currently in Christian hands? --91.148.159.4 18:26, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
They weren't doing it AS Chritians, but the British (even now, and certainly more so in 1917) were predominantly Christian, so saying Jerusalem would never again be under Christian control is simply misleading, as those doing the controlling in 1917 were doing so on behalf of a Christian nation. Miremare 19:32, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
How about, "would not again be under Christian control, until the wars of the 20th century"? Or if not, please feel free to suggest alternate wording. --Elonka 22:56, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Here's how it's worded in God's War: A New History of the Crusades, p. 771: "...[the Khwarazmian Turks] attacked Jerusalem on 23 August [1244], easily overcoming the feeble defences, killing any Franks they found and desecrating the Christian Holy Places. Christian rule in the Holy City was ended, not to be revived until the ending of Ottoman rule in December 1917 by a British army." --Elonka 08:26, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
I think Elonka's suggestion a few messages above is just right: "would not again be under Christian control, until 1917 when the British took control from the Ottoman Turks." As we see, in meaning and tone it closely parallels the reputable quote just provided. As a nonobscure fact, I think it is more appropriate that we use our own phrasing (e.g., Elonka's suggestion) than a quote. As a side note to 91.148.159.4, you and I might not think of Iraq as currently being in Christian hands, but I assure you, millions and millions and millions of people do.—DCGeist 08:35, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Any of those sound fine to me. :) Miremare 17:13, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Mongols

I've temporarily removed the following information, pending some other sources. It looks interesting, but since it's sourced to what's effectively a blog post in French, I want to make sure that we have some more reliable sources before we put it back in. Please accept my apologies if it appears I'm being a bit over-zealous here -- unfortunately we regularly have "additions" from those who are promoting Freemasonry, and since the article's currently at FA status and heading for the mainpage next month, I want to make sure we keep things as shipshape as possible. Can anyone else provide further sources? Thanks, Elonka 23:42, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

and from around 1298, the Grand Master Jacques de Molay entered into a Franco-Mongol alliance with the Mongol ruler Ghâzân, and fought against the Mamluks.[1] Together, they defeated the Mamluks in the Battle of Wadi al-Khazandar in December 1299. They took Jerusalem by surprise that same year,[2][3] but soon had to abandon it again. With the death of Ghâzân in 1304, all hopes of reconquering the Levant had to be abandonned.

  1. ^ "L’ordre du Temple et son dernier grand maître, Jacques de Molay, ont été les artisans de l’alliance avec les Mongols de Perse contre les Mamelouks en 1299-1303, afin de reprendre pied en Terre sainte." Alain Demurger, Master of Conference at Université Paris-I, author of « Chevaliers du Christ. Les ordres religieux militaires au Moyen Age » (Seuil, 2002), « Jacques de Molay. Le crépuscule des Templiers » (Payot, 2002) « Les Templiers. Une chevalerie chrétienne au Moyen Age » (Seuil), in an interview with Le Point Source
  2. ^ Source Templis.fr
  3. ^ "Ainsi, Jacques de Molay reprend Jérusalem en 1298 (qu'il conservera jusque en 1300)", Centre de Développement en Art et Culture Médiévale, Les Croisades, Hervé Husson et Fabian Müllers

[edit] Request for comment

I would appreciate opinions at Talk:Franco-Mongol alliance#Painting, to discuss whether or not Jacques de Molay was part of a force which re-took Jerusalem in 1299. Most books agree he didn't, but there is evidently a painting hanging in Versailles, which says that he did.[1] Opinions are requested. Thanks, Elonka 07:49, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

(followup) This dispute has continued, and includes questions about such things as whether or not the Templars were present at any kind of re-conquering of Jerusalem in 1299/1300. A formal RfC has been filed, and opinions would be appreciated at Talk:Franco-Mongol alliance#Request for comment. --Elonka 09:50, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Unfortunately this continues to drag on. There is currently an ANI thread: WP:ANI#POV-pushing by User:PHG and an AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mongol conquests and Jerusalem. Interested editors are invited to comment. --Elonka 23:17, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Disputed statement

An anon is edit-warring to add a statement to the article,[2] based on a phrase in a BBC article that says, "However, many of the confessions were obtained under torture and knights later recanted or tried to claim that their initiation ceremony merely mimicked the humiliation the knights would suffer if they fell into the hands of the Muslim leader Saladin."

I strongly dispute this "Saladin" claim:

  • Saladin died in 1193, over a hundred years before the trials, which were in the early 1300s
  • I have not seen any other sources which make the "Saladin" link to the trials
  • There were a couple knights who recanted and said their actions were a type of obedience test, but let's keep in mind that:
    • They were under torture, and would have said anything
    • To my knowledge, only two knights said anything like this.
    • To my knowledge, they didn't say anything about Saladin, since he had died multiple generations earlier.

Helen Nicholson inThe Knights Templar: A New History (p. 215) says, "In the nineteenth century the French scholar Jules Michelet suggested that the charges involving the denial of Christ and other abuses during the reception of Brothers to the Order actually referred to an obedience test. Michelet and later scholars surmised that the Brothers were told to deny Christ either to ensure that they would obey every command they were given, or because if they were captured by the Muslims they would be put under pressure to deny Christ, so the performance at their reception was to prepare them for this. This theory is based on the testimonies of two Templars during the trial. But it does not stand up to examination. If the Templars wanted to test new Brothers' obedience, they could easily have found a difficult test which did not involve denying the very purpose of the Order -- the service of Christ."

In short, though the source for the "Saladin" statement is a usually reliable one, the BBC, in this case I'm afraid that they just got it wrong. Unless someone else can pull up a reliable peer-reviewed source which uses the name "Saladin" in this context, I say we keep the phrase out of the article. --Elonka 04:08, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

The argument you make that the BBC has incorrectly introduced the name "Saladin" is a strong one; however, this is the source being used in the citation. Perhaps we can come closer to the language of the source while avoiding the dubious mention of Saladin thus: "...many Templars recanted their confessions, saying that their "blasphemies" had been ceremonies evoking the humiliations they would face if captured by their Muslim adversaries."—DCGeist 06:11, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Actually I dispute more than just the "Saladin" claim, I dispute the entire sentence. I spent hours last night going through every (reliable) Templar book I have, and though I've got extensive detail on many of the confessions (denying Christ, urinating on the Cross, etc.), I've got nothing about this "mimicking the humiliation" claim. It's my opinion that this is some sort of misconception that came from one of the many pseudohistorical works about the Templars. I did check the footnotes on Nicholson's book, which said, "For discussion of these theories see Partner, The Murdered Magicians, pp. 153-5; Forey, The Military Orders, pp. 231-3". I don't have access to the Forey book at the moment, but I did check Peter Partner's book, where he went into some depth about the 19th century historian Jules Michelet. In a nutshell, Michelet did an excellent job of compiling details about the Templar trials, but said nothing about Saladin or a "mimicking the humiliation" claim. Quoting Partner about Michelet: "He thought that he could interpret the renunciation of the cross as a symbolic ceremony which had at first been conceived by Orthodox Templars, either as a version of the renunciation of Christ by Peter or as a reflection of the sacred comedies of the Feast of Fools."
For more info, you can scan through Michelet's book yourself, Le Proces des Templiers, which has transcripts of the Templar trial. If anyone can find the name "Saladin" in there, I'm interested in seeing it.[3]
To put it another way, if a BBC article said something like, "The Templars, known to be protectors of the Grail", would we be required to put that info here in the Wikipedia article just because the BBC said it, even though it's been thoroughly debunked by multiple scholars? My opinion is that we need to abide by WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE, and if we have a statement that's made by one source, but not backed up by any other sources, we should probably just avoid it altogether. Especially since we're coming up on "FA-Day" this weekend, I'd rather that we erred on the side of accuracy than tolerance. --Elonka 16:43, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
OK. So what we have is a decent source--the BBC--whose claim is not supported by multiple superior sources that go into the subject in much greater detail. The weight of the available evidence supports neither the anon's language, nor, it would seem, the previous language about "forced conversions to Islam." If I have read your references correctly, many Templars recanted, only two of whom made reference to mimicry of forced conversions. The veracity of those specific and apparently unrepresentative statements is debated. In this light, the relevant sentence should probably be trimmed to simply this: "Once freed of the Inquisitors' torture, many Templars recanted their confessions." The following "vaticanbook" citation should be cut--the citations of the superior Martin and Barber sources at the end of the short graf are certainly sufficient.—DCGeist 17:19, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Pretty much, yes. I can also come up with a great deal of info that refutes the "forced conversions to Islam" accusations. Anyone that's a Muslim has some pretty clear behaviors (like facing Mecca to pray five times a day). There are no sources which affirm that the Templars were accused of such behavior. Instead, the charges against the Templars were pretty much identical to most of the other "heresy" charges of the day. Nothing unusual, except for the "bearded head" part. Everything else was basic "trumped up charge" boilerplate. :) --Elonka 17:28, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Why do you assume that ceremonies have to reflect the reality of whether someone is alive and how they behaved? They're ceremonies, not newsreels. 67.168.53.206 01:53, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I'm not understanding exactly what you're referring to? --Elonka 02:04, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
I imagine the anon is suggesting, reasonably, that the fact that Saladin was long dead does not mean he could not have been a significant reference in Templar rites a hundred years later. Obviously, many religious rituals--from passion plays to Passover seders--evoke people and events from long ago. What is important here, again, however is the fact that the BBC's mention of Saladin is not supported by multiple superior sources that go into the subject in much greater detail.—DCGeist 03:24, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] So who here is going to buy one?

Documents about the heresy trial of Knights Templar discovered in the Vatican's secret archives are being published in a limited edition - with an $8,377 price tag. --arkalochori |talk| 23:18, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I saw that yesterday. What coincidental timing to have this article featured on the main page! --Midnightdreary 16:32, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Indeed. I don't envy the person who attempts to add that while the article is on the main page. 1of3 17:02, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Is that price right? —Preceding unsigned comment added by JRTyner (talk • contribs) 20:33, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Yes, this is a very rare opportunity and a unique glimpse into history. --arkalochori |talk| 07:44, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Congrats

Thanks to all for a most informative, interesting and well illustrated article. I enjoyed it very much and learnt a lot. I hope the changes/suggestions I have made are considered constructive and in the spirit they were made. Good luck, I know the next few days may be rather busy ;-). --Slp1 01:54, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, and yes, the edit history of the article has been somewhat chaotic this weekend because of the mainpage mention.  :) We've been doing our best to revert vandalism and fix some other inaccuracies that have worked their way in. If I inadvertently removed someone else's good faith changes, I do apologize -- feel free to re-insert the information now that things have calmed down a bit.  :) --Elonka 19:14, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Well-written and well-referenced without getting tedious. Kudos to those responsible.
Peter Isotalo 09:17, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Demise of Templars Remindful of Purge of Soviet General Staff

When I first heard the story of the witchunt that destroyed this Order, it brought to mind a similar piece I had seen about Stalin's liquidation of the Soviet General Staff during the Great Purge in the 1930s. "Nest of Traitors Exposed!", they were in league with Satan all along etc etc. Tom Cod 03:24, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Christian" Military Group?

Ok... While this was a military group within Christianity, I would have to say it is far from a Christian military group. The Crusaders, and especially the Knights Templar were a Western (Roman Catholic Church) group and not associated with the Eastern Orthodox Church. Some of the statements and references in the article make it appear as though it was representative of all of Christianity rather than soley Western Christianity. I propose a change in the language in some of the article to instead reference them as Western or a Roman Catholic group rather than Christian (which suggests it was Western and Eastern)--KCMODevin 03:31, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

More properly a military monasterial order under the pope in Rome. In short a (Rome) Papal Military Order. Transnational, and based on Rome-Catholic rules. Said: Rursus ☻ 16:31, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] they were a major theme in gabriel knight

this great game. Gabriel Knight 3: Blood of the Sacred, Blood of the Damned --Leladax 10:44, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Protection

This article should defintiely be protected for vandalism right now —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kheg k (talk • contribs) 18:15, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree, however, the policy on Wikipedia is that when an article is on the mainpage, it's there as a representative of Wikipedia the "encyclopedia that anyone can edit." Which means that the page has to be editable.  ;) This does unfortunately mean that Featured Articles are prime vandalism targets, but it only lasts for about a day, and it's easy enough to put things right again.  :) --Elonka 19:20, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Friday the 13th

The article said, re the arrests on a Friday the 13th in 1307:

(a date linked to the origin of the Friday the 13th superstition, though some doubt the validity of factual information),[1][2]

Neither of the references support the view that the superstition is actually linked to the events of 1307; it is a modern attribution. The article on Friday the 13th mentions this. I propose to delete the above and insert:

(In recent times this fact has been cited as the origin of the superstitious belief that Friday the 13th is unlucky; but there is no evidence that this superstition existed before the early 20th century, let alone connected with the events of 1307.)

I discuss this here as my suggestion has been challenged. Pol098 18:35, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

as cited from the Friday the 13th article:
No historical date has been verifiably identified as the origin of the superstition.
So there is no recourse to remove this quote - instead, to sufficiently word it as to ensure that it does not include a citation. The listed sources do NOT disprove this claim, by the way - which is also mentioned in the above article. The superstition - as evolved - is modern day, but based on historical belief and stigma. The idea of Friday the 13th existed BEFORE the 20th Century (also mentioned in the above article). Rarelibra 18:42, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Would anyone who cares to express an opinion please see the Friday the 13th article (as it existed at this moment, anyway) and the references, rather than comments here. "some doubt the validity of factual information" is meaningless; factual information is factual, and valid by definition, and that's an end to it. But there is zero factual information. Pol098 18:56, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
reference added for your benefit. Rarelibra 19:03, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
The 3 references Rarelibra added (once corrected) at most assert with zero evidence, sometimes as an urban legend, that Friday the 3th is linked to the events of 1307. Some specifically say that Friday the 13th was not reputed to be unlucky before the 19th century. www.rosslyntemplars.org.uk and www.illuminatiarchives.org don't appear to be reputable sources. So there is still no evidence whatsoever of a link between the superstition and any pre-20th century events. Pol098 19:38, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
The original wording of the Friday the 13th section was that the date was incorrectly linked to the superstition. However, because the Templar article is currently on the front page of Wikipedia, the wording is getting yanked this way and that, especially on that particular line. I'll re-add the word "incorrectly." --Elonka 19:40, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
I hadn't realised I'd stumbled into a can of worms; I'll stay out. None of the other edits I made to this article have been contested. In my opinion, either no mention at all of Friday the 13th, or at most a brief comment that it's not related, is required. Pol098 12:22, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
I agree with "brief comment". I've set things right again, and now that the article is off the mainpage, things should be a bit quieter.  :) --Elonka 19:21, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

You haven't set anything right. There are - count them - NO reliable resources as to either the origin nor the "20th century" theory about this involvement. So the wording should still be left as possibly, not incorrectly. Rarelibra 13:28, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't mean to be argumentative here, but the correct phrasing for the Wikipedia article is really "incorrectly", not "possibly." We've already discussed this at the FA nom. I've also again removed some of the other extremely unreliable sources: [4][5] These are effectively hobbyist websites and should not be used as sources in Wikipedia articles. I'm open to reviewing other sources if you have them though. Look at it this way: If you want to prove that "Friday the 13th" dates back to the time of the Templars, please provide a source (any source!) which affirms that the term was used, anywhere. To my knowledge, though "Friday" was considered unlucky, and "13" was considered unlucky, there is nothing in print which shows "Friday the 13th" until the 1800s. It's not a term that shows up in Folklore dictionaries, or newspapers, or even private diaries. It is therefore incorrect to talk about it even being "possibly" linked, unless you have a reliable source that proves otherwise. --Elonka 15:56, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry if it appears that I'm jumping into this thread, but I highly recommend removing the reference to superstition completely. The main article does not make any reference to superstition, so why make an attempt to refute it? In addition, the refutation, even if worded blandly, is false; the article on Friday the 13th makes no factual assertion that disproves the link. I will probably go in and delete this if no one disagrees. Having those parentheses in this article with the useless reference sounds clumsy in an otherwise good article. 99th Percentile 17:21, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to see the information kept. It's one of the most common "Urban legend" questions about the Knights Templar. If we remove it, we're just going to have people constantly adding it back in. The information that's there has been vetted at the "Featured Article" review, and I feel is appropriate. --Elonka 18:45, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. The material is of significant informative value to readers. Keep it.—DCGeist 19:35, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Better the devil we know. If its cut out we'll have this problem (and discussion) the next 50 times its added. Makes most sense to leave it up as is. --Tefalstar 01:28, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vindication

The Knights Templar have recently won official vindication: http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSL093422320071012. Someone write it up and add it to the article. SoulSkorpion 02:27, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Already included. Also it is not an official papal act, just redemption in the world's eyes, as the truth comes to light. --arkalochori |talk| 07:52, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Right, the historians already knew about this stuff. To my knowledge most of the actual text on these "secret documents" has been well-known for scholars for over a hundred years, as it has been published by scholars such as Michelet. What this new publication does though is to provide actual images of the documents rather than just transcripts. Plus of course there's the Chinon Parchment, but even that has been known about for several years now. The main thing that it has done is to prove that the Pope did formally absolve the Templars of heresy, but even without that document, we still already knew that the Pope was aghast at what King Philip was doing. Anyway, I find the current media blitz kind of amusing. The world thinks that the Vatican has released "secret documents" from their archive which no one knew about. But in actuality, historians have already been in the archive, seen the documents, and written books and articles about them. What this recent publication has done though is to make the documents available to more historians in other libraries and universities around the world (if they can talk their bean-counters into shelling out the $$$ for a copy). Now if only we could get fiction writers like Dan Brown to write fiction based on real history instead of pseudohistory, we'd be set.  :) --Elonka 16:04, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Founding date and sources

Editor Zara1709 recently added the following text to the lede: "[It was founded] in 1118." This text came accompanied by a citation:

Nicholas Goodrick-Clarke, The Occult Roots of Nazism, p. 60. Goodrick-Clarke touches this topic, since at least two new Templar Orders were founded in Germany and Austria around 1900, the Ordo Templi Orientis, and the Ordo Novi Templi by Lanz von Liebenfels.

I have removed this text and cite, as they contradict the well-sourced and well-established main text of the article. If this newly provided source is correct and the information it provides has been referenced accurately, the main text would obviously have to be edited. The essential question before us appears to be, Which source is more reliable on the matter of the Templars' founding: Goodrick-Clarke's The Occult Roots of Nazism or Piers Paul Read's The Templars?—DCGeist 03:46, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Piers Paul Read. Though it is true that there is some dispute about the exact founding year, so I feel that "around 1119" is the most accurate reflection of the consensus of modern historians. --Elonka 15:22, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Ok, I did not find the date in the main text on the first glance. Goodrick-Clarke is sometimes not completly excact, but this is the first real error in the book. I would like to have the text in the reference tag back in, though; There seems to be no article that debates the link betwwen the Templars and the 'new' Templar Orders. Zara1709 15:31, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
I also added a link to the Strict Observance article. You might want to move this paragraph to the article on the Knights Templar legends. Zara1709 15:39, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Chinon Parchment

Guess what folks - all references to the Chinon Parchment are a FALSE ALARM. Why? Simply because everything concerning it rests upon AN INTERPRETATION of the Latin Text by Dr Barbara Frale who re-discovered the document - and what she wrote in Journal of Medieval Studies (edited by Malcolm Barber) was not a description but an interpretation - and not all Templar scholars agree with Frale's interpretation of the text - rather, they see the Chinon Parchment as being just another primary source document on the Templars that contains absolutely nothing new. Time will reveal all when a succession of Templar scholars will weigh-in with all the published facts in response to Frale's misinterpretations. There is more than one Chinon Parchment; there are important primary source documents relating to the Trial of the Templars in Oxford that complement what is contained in the Chinon Document discovered by Barbara Frale. Forget about the Chinon Document being "unique" because it is no such thing. Of course the Vatican is promoting Frale because in so doing it is producing publicity for the forthcoming volume that will contain the Vatican Archives on the Templars.

wfgh66 —Preceding comment was added at 21:15, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Seals

The Knights Templar Seal page contains several images that are so dark as to be practically useless. Does anyone have replacements that might be a bit more visible? I'm leaving this note here as the page itself doesn't seem to be very active. Miremare 15:07, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Accusations made against the Order/ Witchcraft in legend

This page discusses the arrest and dissolution of the Knights Templar but does not contain the accusations made against them charging them for their arrest. I posted on this and referenced the scholarship but the addition was taken down. The charges brought against the Templar are an important feature when trying to understand their arrest. Does anyone have any thoughts about the matter?

I have also added to the post the historiograhpy of Templar witchcraft... (i.e. why do some believe the Order uses witchcraft? where this notion came from and how has it changed over time leading to the current popular view of the brotherhood? How were accusations of idolatery made against the Templar transformed into magic practice?) Again, my addition was brief and I will try and add on to it in the upcoming weeks while citing reliable scholarship. Any ideas or information added would be helpful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.6.171.90 (talk) 16:20, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to say, I think this shouldn't be in the Knights Templar, since there is so much speculative writing and fantasy around this topic. Better put it in Knights Templar legends. If there's too much speculation in Knights Templar, the article will soon swell up and be impossible to maintain. Said: Rursus ☻ 16:42, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Richard de Bures

I consistently find sources on the Templars showing that de Bures was never Grand Master. Conversly, i struggle to find many sources which vouch for him. Can anybody offer discussion on this? Thanks,--Tefalstar (talk) 19:11, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

So nobody can bring an opinion forward on this? --Tefalstar (talk) 19:28, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Modern Day Usage

You could add a place for modern day usages of Knights Templar

Books/Movies: Da Vinchi Code Video Games: Assassin's Creed

just a suggestion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.170.199.73 (talk) 17:47, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Croix Patee

What's the Croix Patee? It was some kind of Templar symbol, but I dunno... Wakata —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.85.120.61 (talk) 00:06, 23 May 2008 (UTC)