Jump to content

Talk:Knights Templar/Archive 7

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8

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)

There are a myriad of theories available to discuss regarding the Templar Knights, perhaps the best way to discuss all of them is to have a general section regarding various theories that can be combined in a general sense as well as scholarly works which provide evidence for/against each theory? It is a difficult thing to write of the history of the Knights without coming into contact with speculation or pseudo-historical texts. This is just my suggestion to handle the various views, opinions, and theories. Iprocomp (talk) 04:29, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

…==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)
Personally, I agree that the Shroud has little to do with the actual organization, which this page is supposedly about. At most there should be passing reference to the Shroud and a link to the Wikipedia.org page regarding the Shroud. Iprocomp (talk) 04:24, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Surely the relevance of the Shroud is the possibility that it contains the image of Jacques de Molay? For details, see "The Hiram Key" and "The Second Messiah" (Christopher Knight and Robert Lomas) which theorize that the image on the Shroud of Turin is in fact that of the last Grand Master of the order, Jacques de Molay. Not sure why this is not in the article (it would be and more than a little ironic if true). As others point out, without this reference, the last paragraph does not fit properly. I'd add this info, but for some reason this article is not editable. Paulc4 (talk) 08:34, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I've read the Hiram Key, and it is a fascinating hypothesis (i personally love the book), but unfortunately some of the scholarship suggests that de Molay wasn't tortured at all, meaning that the Knight and Lomas hypothesis is null and void. I haven't had a chance to follow up on the Hiram Key's sources yet. Iprocomp (talk) 15:40, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
The conspiracy theories debate should not be placed within the Encyclopedia entry. They should be acknowledged and then forwarded to a seperate page of Templar Conspiracy for the crazies to visit. All connections to the modern Freemasons is simply retcon written to establish a history for freemasonry. Read Foucalt's PEndulum by Umberto Eco. Edgemaniac (talk) 19:32, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

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: [1][2] 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)
I believe "incorrectly" is absolutely not the appropriate way of putting it. Friday the 13th superstition had been linked to the day of the Templar Knights execution. Although I cannot link you to a web-site that confirms the link between the event and the superstition, the connection has been mentioned in the NatGeo documentary on "The Da Vinci Code". Therefore I am changing the wording to the following: "(a date which is sometimes linked with the origin of the Friday the 13th superstition, although there is no factual connection known)". Tudmotu (talk) 15:40, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't see the problem with rewording "sometimes incorrectly" with "arguably". It is clearly arguable and there is no concrete evidence for or against the claim. Regardless, it is a matter of opinion and a neutral ground should be found. Fattimus (talk) 15:04, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually, there is considerable evidence against the claim. Aside from pop culture works such as The Da Vinci Code, I am unaware of a single reliable source which argues that the origin of the term came from the Knights Templar. Multiple academic works that do study terms of this type, point out that prior to 1900 or so, there is not a single mention of the term "Friday the 13th" anywhere. The number 13 was definitely considered unlucky, as was the day of Friday. But the link between them is a recent phenomenon. If anyone has a (reliable academic) source saying otherwise, I would be interested in seeing it. --Elonka 17:23, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
I do hope we aren't considering snopes.com and about.com as 'academic works'. Everything that I have researched has not proved anything except that nothing was ever documented about a relationship between the two. This is why I agree with incorporating "arguable" into the sentence, as this topic is, and always will be, open to debate. It simply -cannot- be proven as fact or fiction. Fattimus (talk) 18:42, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Most of the academic sources I can find don't even bother discussing the Templar claim. For example, Western Folklore, Vol. 16, No. 1 (Jan., 1957) discusses Friday the 13th and offers a variety of possibilities, all pretty standard. JoshuaZ (talk) 03:17, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks JoshuaZ.  :) Would you mind adding that to the Friday the 13th article? The same editor that's pushing this POV here, is edit-warring there as well, and more sources would be helpful. --Elonka 03:26, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
About to head to bed so will do it in the morning. If you email me I can email you copies of the relevant pages and you can write it. JoshuaZ (talk) 03:36, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
Email sent. And thanks, I'd love to see any sources you've got on the topic.  :) --Elonka 03:41, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Historically speaking, there is no other plausible candidate for the origin of the superstition, other than the Templars. (Contrary to those who apparently want to try and refute every sentence of the Da Vinci Code.) As for the absence of evidence, that does not mean there is evidence of absence. Not to mention, even if the superstition originated relatively recently, that does not rule out that it was a reference to the suppression of the Templar Order. Especially considering the enduring popularity of the Order and the fact that there is absolutely no other candidate for the origin of the superstition. tcob44 22:58, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Please read Wikipedia:No original research, Wikipedia:Verifiability, and Wikipedia:Reliable sources, thanks. --Elonka 03:08, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Elonka. Unfortunately, it is a simple fact: There is no other candidate for the origin of the superstition. That is not original research nor unverifiable nor unreliable. Sorry, but I will continue to undo your "intellectual vandalism". Cheers. tcob44 23:30, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

The article in Western Folklore lists a lot of candidates and doesn't list this one. According to the article cited above "it appears to be the result of two superstitions converging". The article notes that Friday was considered to be unlucky due to the whole Jesus thing and then notes a number of dinners and parties in different cultures which had 13 guests and had ill-luck. JoshuaZ (talk) 03:35, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

tcob44: There is a previous consensus on this issue that it was treated correctly in the text prior to your editing. If you want to change the consensus for this bit, then you should present your arguments on the talkpage to convince other editors. I'm not sure how much background you have on Wikipedia, but just in case let me point you to two important policies: WP:CONSENSUS and WP:VERIFY. I'll crosspost this to your talkpage to make sure you see it. Please don't continue edit warring, or you may be blocked. Avruch T 03:42, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Consensus? A consensus of the intellectually-challenged, perhaps? Let me get this straight, a single 1957 article on folklore doesn't mention the Templars in regards to Friday the 13th, so this means that they aren't the origin of the superstition? Are you kidding?!? Do you actually have some plausible alternatives? And then you threaten to block me from editing out nonsense like this? Just a tad overboard don't you think? My sentence is accurate. The Templars are the most plausible origin for the superstition. I would appreciate your support in the quest for truthfulness on wikipedia instead of some form of revisionist history. tcob44 23:53, 27 October 2008 (EST)

I personally wouldn't be against tweaking the wording in some ways, but not to your preferred version. It seems there is no direct evidence either in support of or against a connection between Friday the 13th and this particular event in 1307. There are some pop culture references, however, so it may be appropriate to point those out while stipulating that there is no actual evidence of a connection. Still... if you continue edit warring over this, you will be blocked. Please don't edit in a way that is counter productive to your actual goal. The wording may be changed if you can reach a consensus on this page, but edit warring will virtually guarantee that your preferred version does not stick - and you will end up blocked. Avruch T 04:03, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Is this wording alright with everyone?

(a date frequently linked with the origin of the Friday the 13th superstition)

tcob44 23:53, 27 October 2008 (EST) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tcob44 (talk • contribs)

No, because I am unaware of any reliable source which makes such a link. Think of it this way: You are trying to make the case that an event in 1307 was the origin of this "Friday the 13th" superstition. Well then, wouldn't people in the 1300s, 1400s, 1500s, 1600s, 1700s, etc., have had it as a superstition, or at least referred to it as a bad day? If it originated in the 1300s, there would be some mention of it somewhere, in books or poems or stories or something. Instead, there's nada until the 1800s. Can you provide a single contemporary source, fact or fiction from that time period, which refers to a Friday the 13th superstition? A nursery rhyme, cave painting, anything? If so, then we can pursue it. If not, then the more plausible logical explanation is that this is an unsourced speculative connection which was made, hundreds of years after the fact, but with no basis in actual history. --Elonka 16:36, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Furthermore, the only sources we have for this claim that are remotely reliable sources, Snopes and Urban Legends both clearly think that the claim is unlikely to be correct. JoshuaZ (talk) 18:16, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Please don't lie and make false claims, Elonka. Either you are really stubborn about being wrong or you really don't understand anything I've written. Regardless, I'll be crystal clear for you.

1.) If the 1307 event is the source of the superstition, this does not mean that it is ancient. A modern group of 'Templar-o-philes' could have originated it in the last two centuries. Countless modern secret societies, spanning the spectrum from Freemasons to the Rosicrucians, have claimed to be the descendants from the Templars. Any one of these groups could have been responsible for the origin. Not to mention, the Freemasons happen to be the most widespread and influential secret society in history. This is why the superstition is "frequently connected" to the Templars. Google books will confirm this statement.

2.) You are correct, if the superstition did originate within a century after the 1307 event, it probably would have been mentioned in books or poems. But not necessarily. Regardless, the survival of these types of documents would be rare. Historically speaking, paper documents don't last more than a few centuries. That's not including the chances of their destruction or suppression. For example, the Roman Catholic church has literally wiped the history of their enemies off the face of the planet. Like the Cathars. Point in fact, had the Vatican not released the document which exonerated the Templars, the world would never had known the true history of the Templar trial. Never. And they were the largest, wealthiest, and most influential multi-national organization of their time. Yet most Templar experts acknowledge the fact that there is very little in the way of hard evidence about this organization. This is due to the fact that they were successfully suppressed by King Philip and the Vatican, despite their exoneration (apparently the Pope was pressured by Phillip.)

3.) Your *own sources* declare that tracing the origins of superstitions is "mostly guesswork". In addition, only "some experts" are convinced it is a modern superstition. These are your own sources, Elonka! How can you possibly make the claim "incorrectly connected"?!? Not to mention, if you'd bother to do a search on "Google books", you'd notice that there are dozens of historians and authors who "frequently connect" the Templars to the origin of the superstition. Not to mention the hundreds of books whose content is not yet on Google, written by both experts and amateurs, which make this same connection. To say "incorrectly connected" is incorrect and you know it. Your *own* sources declare simply that "some experts" believe it is a modern connection. Not all experts. Nor even a majority of experts.

4.) The bottom line is nobody knows the origin of the superstition. Plain and simple. Which does not rule out the Templars (a modern origin or ancient). And if you'd actually read your own sources, you'd notice that they don't even claim to have disproven the connection. (Mainly because they don't even have a plausible alternative historical date, ancient or modern). They merely state there is no documented evidence for the connection. Therefore, your statement "incorrectly connected" is still wrong. Sorry.

tcob44 October 28 2008. 3:37pm EST. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.19.97.2 (talk) 19:44, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I came across this article today and was shocked at the POV being put forth on Friday the 13th. The references cited were hardly academic and should be removed. The fact that both articles failed to acknowledge the Knights Templar as the OLDEST known, ill-fated event to have occured on that day, makes them less than objective.
The fact that the event is known to have occured on that day is historically significant and worthy of comment. Unless an earlier ill-fated event can be shown to have occured on that day, the Knights Templar is the best guess - if one must guess.
I suggest it be reworded to acknowledge it as the oldest date without reference to origin. BOMC (talk) 21:10, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Hence why I would simply like to see "sometimes incorrectly" replaced with at least "arguably". The latter is less polarized, and more accurately describes the debate.Fattimus (talk) 21:27, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to be the bearer of bad news BOMC and Fattimus, but if you try to change it, Elonka will have you banned from Wikipedia. Apparently, she thinks this is her article now and she had me banned for 96 hours for changing the wording of "incorrectly linked". Not only are her (so-called) sources weak, they don't even make the claim that she cites them for... Oh well, it's only wikipedia, right?Tcob44 (talk) 03:51, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I figured this out from the start, and would like to direct Elonka to Wikipedia:Ownership of articles. It's a shame he has to take it that far considering how small and simple of change is requested. Not to mention the validity of the requested change. I also suggest looking at Wikipedia:Etiquette and Wikipedia:Staying cool when the editing gets hot. Fattimus (talk) 15:17, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
Actually I think it was probably Avruch who banned you for edit warring, as he has repeatedly said he would.

No, he didn't ban me. Elonka had to get someone else involved who didn't know what was going on at all. Yet another sad example of wiki-politics. Tcob44 (talk) 20:52, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I find the term Friday the 13th linked to the Templars, highly implausible, but not impossible. That said, there is one factual thing here to consider. The Gregorian Calender. The Gregorian Calender is the modern calender (days, weeks, months, years, etc.) that most of the world uses today. It was established on 24 February 1582 by papal bull Inter gravissimas (see the Gregorian Calender article). That said the term would have been something different in the old Julian Calender, and would have had to make a 'jump' from the old calender to the new, in the process completely changing the catchphrase--close to 200 years after its purported initial conception. —Preceding unsigned comment added by KriticKill (talk • contribs) 15:50, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Kritic- Unfortunately, none of your points are valid. Perhaps you should do just a little research on the differences between the Julian and Gregorian calendars before you post next time. BTW- I'm really curious to know just what explanation for the origin of the Friday the 13th superstition you do find plausible? Hopefully your answer will help restore your credibility. Especially if you get the spelling right on your next post. Cheers;) Tcob44 (talk) 20:52, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

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)

  • The Chinon Parchment has been known since the late 19C, but the Vatican is spinning it for its own ends, with Dr Frale's help, and relying on popular ignorance. The absolution was granted only for confessions which Jacques de Molay and the others had made. They subsequently revoked their confessions (as having been made under duress): as a result, absolution was also withdrawn. The hype over the absolution has been an attempt at Vatican face-saving. Silverwhistle (talk) 18:22, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Frale's new book The Templars A Secret History Revealed, is an interesting however an unacademic look at the Templars. She makes many claims for example that the Templars initiation ritual was similar to fraternity hazing in a sense. It is excellent speculation but lacks much backing. The Chinon Parchment itself is worth mentioning because it shows that Clement himself had the courage to secretly initiate meetings with the Templar Command IE Molay. And it shows that he absolved them (however Temporarily) and gives us a look of Clement that he is not just a Pushover Pope, and that he would have absolved the Templars permanantly if Philip IV had not arrived with his army to force a resolution in the end. Edgemaniac (talk) 19:38, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

I would argue that this type of information would probably best be put on its own independent Wikipedia page, given that it wouldn't relate to the historical Templars. Iprocomp (talk) 20:47, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

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)

There's an article about it: Cross pattée. Miremare 17:27, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

historical accuracy

There is a statement that "the knights on their heavily armed warhorses would set out to gallop full speed at the enemy...", knights charged at a canter not a gallop, so they could remain in formation. I'm going to change that to charge. Master z0b (talk) 04:47, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Rebirth in... Ukraine!?

Recently there's been a signifficant movement of KT in Ukraine! Whats that about?? Btw the Russian Orthodox Church are openly calling them satan worshippers etc etc lol here's an interesting ROC propaganda 'documentary' http://cineplexx.ru/7/111-religioznye-sekty-svoboda-ot-sovesti.html (see part 3) --KpoT (talk) 06:41, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

There are lots of groups which claim to be Templars, or the descendants of the Templars. None with any proof of course. KriticKill (talk) 16:17, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Sodomy?

In my reading about this group, a key charge was sodomy. I was surprised that WIKI has no mention of this. There should be something in this article about that particular charge. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.160.108.190 (talk) 12:15, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Assuming you mean in your outside reading about this group, it may be that this is or was one of the common beliefs - that alleged sodomy was one of the justifications for the - err - sudden extermination of the knights. Perhaps nobody has yet found a reliable source that discusses and confirms the allegations. If you have one, by all means feel free to bring it out. --T-dot ( Talk/contribs ) 17:49, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Questionable source

There is a citation at the end of the article to a History Channel program. This may just be my History major's pedantry, but I don't know of any scholar who would consider The History Channel to be a reliable source on anything as potentially sensationalized as the Knights Templar. If you disagree, please let me know. Varlet16 (talk) 18:55, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Certain documentary channels or programs are often considered reliable sources. However, if there's anything in particular that is sourced to such a documentary, which you feel is incorrect, and you can provide a source which conflicts with it, we can definitely upgrade the source or look into reworking that section of the article. Was there a specific point you had a question about? --Elonka 19:18, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Misleading intro text

The following text is problematic as it seems to imply that the Pope was behind the arrests and torture:

Rumors about the Templars' secret initiation ceremony created mistrust, and King Philip IV of France, deeply in debt to the Order, began pressuring Pope Clement V to take action against them. In 1307, many of the Order's members in France were arrested, tortured into giving false confessions, and then burned at the stake.[7] In 1312, Pope Clement, under continuing pressure from King Philip, disbanded the Order. The abrupt disappearance of a major part of the European infrastructure gave rise to speculation and legends, which have kept the "Templar" name alive into the modern day.

However, as the article itself states, Philip was the villain. Is anyone opposed to editing for clarification?71.134.42.129 (talk) 01:07, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Thats the common analysis of it. Most of the accounts, I've read go like this and play with the details. Philip harbored a deep hatred of the Templars, as well as coveting their treasure. So he schemed, murdered, and manipulated his way to eventually controlling the Vatican, before forcing a reluctant pope Clement V to gut and disband the Templar knighthood at his behest. I see no reason to change the text. KriticKill (talk) 16:28, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
All that I am saying is that the article itself makes clear that Philip was behind the killing; therefore, so too should the intro (as it currently does). In its original form, the intro implied that Clement was behind the killings. That was misleading. The current version corrects that problem.LCP (talk) 22:05, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Historiography

This page could definitely use a historiography section about scholarship relating to the Knights Templar has changed over the years. Particularly relating to the accusations of witchcraft and maleficium brought against them. I am also intrigued by the complete lack of a "maleficium" page on wikipedia.org. (This is also something I will endeavor to create.) For the creation of a historiography section I will need actual scholastic treatments as sources to cite. I have a 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica but I have no sources dating earlier than that which give scholarly treatment to the trials of the Knights Templar. Iprocomp (talk) 23:56 26 November, 2008 (UTC)

The best source for the trial is Malcolm Barber's book, The Trial of the Templars. An updated second edition was published in 2006, and is an excellent work of scholarship which is frequently cited in other works. You can read some bits and pieces of it online, at Google Books.[3] Another excellent source is Barber's book The New Knighthood.[4] If you just want a quick overview though, I recommend Sean Martin's The Knights Templar: The History and Myths of the Legendary Military Order.[5] It's (relatively) short, and written in a more popular style, but unlike some of the other popular books about the Templars, it's actually got solid information in it. He does a fine job of distinguishing between the fact and the fiction. --Elonka 15:13, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
Awesome, thank you, I will add that to my list of sources. For now I've got the following sources;
BOOKS and ENCYCLOPEDIAS
Encyclopedia Britannica, 11 ed pub 1911.
Addison, C. G. "The Knights Templar History" New York; Macoy Publishing and Masonic Supply Co. 1912. (reprinted 1978)
Legman, G. et al. "The Guilt of the Templars", New York; Basic Books, inc. 1966.
Gilmour-Bryson, Anne. "The Trial of the Templars in the Papal State and the Abruzzi," Vatican City, Biblioteca Aposolica ::Vaticana. 1982.
Partner, Peter. "The Murdered Magicians: The Templars and their Myth," Oxford; Oxford University Press, 1982.
Newman, Sharan, "The Real History Behind the Templars", New York; Berkley Books, 2007.
JOURNAL ARTICLES
M.C. Barber, The Social Context of the Templars, Transactions of the Royal Historical Society, 5 no 34. (1984) p 27-26.
Anne Gilmour-Bryson. "Sodomy and the Knights Templar", Journal of the HIstory of Sexuality 7 no 2 (October 1996) p 151-183.
If anyone can suggest additional sources please let me know! --Iprocomptalk 12:45AM 30 November 2008 (UTC)
A really good book I found by Malcolm Barber and Keith Bate is called "The Templars" and it's a good source book. It has a fairly large section at the end of the book that is dedicated to the trials of the Templars and listing 15 articles under which the Templars were tried, acts such as sodomy that is not mentioned in the wiki page.. The translated primary sources are well written and provide a lot of information that is currently not held in the Wikipedia section for the Knights Templars. It also gives depositions of many of the Templars, including prominent figures such as Jacques de Molay and Geoffrey de Charney. Also, Pater Partner's "Murdered Magicians: The Templars and their Myth" has a nice section dedicated to the witchcraft accusations brought up against the Templars by King Philip's servants. The book is listed in the Further Reading section, but it would be a good source for a topic to be discussed on the witchcraft charges brought up against the Templars. In Frank Sanello's "The Knights Templars: God's Warriors, the Devil's Bankers" he notes that Henry Cornelius Agrippa resurfaced the charges brought against the Templars as witchcraft, rather than idolatry, but not many modern scholars seem attracted to his text. There is definitely a lot of scholarly work out there about the Templars and witchcraft but not much on Wikipedia. --Sdsguy
I definitely want to add a great deal about the Templars and Witchcraft. I have just acquired both Partner's and Sanello's books for use in the construction of my Historiography. Thank you for the recommendations. Also, I noticed that the search term "Maleficium" points to an musical album. Would it be more appropriate (in terms of this community) to also point "maleficium" to "witchcraft" or to create its own page? Personally, I would contest that "maleficium" deserves its own page, but I welcome the feedback. I am including this discussion of "maleficium" on the Templars discussion page because this is a term widely used to describe some of their activities and I believe it to be pertinent to this discussion. Iprocomp (talk) 17:25PM 2 December 2008 (UTC)
I have started the maleficium (disambiguation) and maleficium (sorcery) pages! Please visit these pages and tell me how they can be improved! Iprocomp (talk) 21:17, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Combining other Wikipedia Page

Is there any reason why History of the Knights Templar is separate from Knights Templar? Both pages really deal with the same issue. It would stream line a lot of searches rather than having two separate pages on the same topic. I wanted to see if there was a reason why before I combine the two pages and stream line them. Sdsguy (talk) 00:59, 3 December 2008 (UTC)Sdsguy

Knights Templar has the warning of "This page is 43 kilobytes long." & History of the Knights Templar has the warning of "This page is 40 kilobytes long." I'm sure some style guide (forget which one atta mo') has something about Article length in it. Dont get me wrong, I'm not opposing, just mentioning. Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 01:55, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Where do you see this warning section? I'm also unable to edit the page...is there a reason why?Sdsguy (talk) 02:35, 3 December 2008 (UTC)Sdsguy
Large pages give a warning once you have hit the "Edit this Page" button. I would suppose it would be to keep inline with whichever Style Guide it is (that I still cant recall). Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 03:04, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Initiation Rites

For being a Wikipedia Featured article page, it does lack an Initiation Rite subsection. Something I had in mind for the page is to list the various Initiation Rites and then how those rites ultimately led to the trials. As stated in the other discussion by Iprocomp, these initiation rites could easily be tied into witchcraft.Sdsguy (talk) 02:35, 3 December 2008 (UTC)Sdsguy

the Initiation Rites were held is _absolute secrecy_, that is why (if i recall correct) charges of witchcraft and heresy could be levelled and they not be able to defend themselves. Nobody could prove the charges wrong without being a Templar. Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 03:11, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Sorry I should have clarified, the initiation rites that they were accused of should be given it's own subsection. In the Arrests and Dissolution subsection, it mentions the false accusations in passing. The only other accusation that is mentioned is idolatry in reference to Baphomet. I did add the charges of the initiation rites with appropriate scholarly sources.Sdsguy (talk) 04:32, 3 December 2008 (UTC)Sdsguy

Professor Heinrich Finke

This scholar has apparently made a significant contribution to the study of the Knights Templar, however I have been unable to find his original works or even a translation of them (writing circa 1900). If anyone can help in this regard, it would be of great interest to me and the historiography project for this page which I am currently working on. Iprocomp (talk) 04:21, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Arrests and Dissolution Section Needs Revision

A significant portion of the arrests and dissolution of the Temple were the accusations brought against them, which are summed up as "heresies" and "false confessions of blasphemy." First of all, the exact charges levied against them are much more complex and deserve to be addressed. Second, there are other "facts" stated in this section which are not given a citation. Specifically: "false confessions of blasphemy" (The Chinon Parchment would seem to suggest that at least one of the charges was founded in reality), and "the elderly Grand Master Jacques de Molay, who had confessed under torture" (Some documents say he was not tortured at all). Also, the wording of some of this is awkward, such as "recanted their confessions." The sentence should read "retracted their confessions." Iprocomp (talk) 06:53, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Some of this detailed information would probably be better suited for the History of the Knights Templar or Knights Templar legends articles. The Knights Templar article itself is already at Featured status, which meant it went through multiple very elaborate peer reviews, and has the approval of the community. Which doesn't mean it's perfect, but it's probably best to check that you have consensus for any major changes. In looking at your proposals, you seem to be focused a bit on the sensationalistic aspects of the Templar trials. So if you want to expand something, I'd say focus on the Knights Templar legends article. --Elonka 10:24, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
I have to disagree about the accusations being brought forth against the Knights Templar as being sensational. This article, whether it is a featured article or not, lacks the most fundamental reasoning behind the dissolution of the Templars. If the topic happens to be "sensational" so be it, but to portray a NPOV, there needs to be a mentioning of the actual charges rather than lumping them together as "heresy" since that is such a broad topic and since some of the acts were not strict heretical acts. I personally think that it's ridiculous that there are multiple articles on the same source as well. Combining the articles would save Wikipedia space and would give others who are interested in the Knights Templar, as we all, one source to go to rather than multiple sources.Sdsguy (talk) 03:52, 9 December 2008 (UTC)Sdsguy

On "multinational corporation"

Mathsci wishes to remove the following sourced sentence; "The Order of the Knights Templar arguably qualifies as the world's first multinational corporation." The grounds offered are that it is "unencyclopedic anachronistic jargon."

I have reverted because two of the three elements of the reason are inapplicable, and no case has been made for the third. What is "encyclopedic" or "unencyclopedic" is, as usual, a subjective matter and is the sort of thing we reach a conclusion about via consensus. Please make your case on this point. As for "anachronistic"—the first examples of anything are rarely so labeled at the time. Take the realm of cinema for example. The movie now recognized as the first Western, The Great Train Robbery, wasn't called a Western until two decades after it premiered. Likewise for almost the entire realm of film noir. Yes, we're talking about a longer timespan here before the phrase "multinational corporation" appears, but the sentence is constructed with an awareness that the term was not in use at the time of the Templars: "arguably qualifies as the world's first". As for "jargon", the phrase "multinational corporation" is hardly specialized, obscure, or difficult for the average person to comprehend. It's not jargon.—DCGeist (talk) 22:27, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Agree with DCGeist. There are multiple reliable sources which have referred to the Templars with this language, and the term is also used in mainstream presentations about the organization. The term is adequately sourced, and relevant, so seems appropriate for inclusion. As a sidenote, Mathsci (talk · contribs) tends to show up at a lot of articles where I work as an editor and administrator, ever since I cautioned him about following another contributor. At times, over 50% of his contribs are Elonka-related (and sometimes this number climbs to 90%). So sometimes it's a bit difficult to assume good faith, especially when he uses confrontational edit summaries. --Elonka 18:13, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Please cite the references from the academic literature if that is the case. Do not cite a television documentary. The "dumbing down" language that Elonka is pushing is unscholarly. As for her attempted putdown, I am teaching a graduate course in mathematics here in Cambridge, taking up my previous fellowship at Christ's College, Cambridge. Here I know quite a number of eminent historians (the late J.H. Plumb was a personal friend). Please provide the academic references, rather than mudslinging. I was asked to provide evidence for two recent arbitration cases, one involving the Crusades (PHG). My evidence was taken into account by the AC. Since it is demonstrably not the case - and Elonka knows it - I have no idea why Elonka, on the basis of one edit to this article, now claims that 50% of my edits are Elonka-related. That unfortunately does not seem to be true at all. As I have said, I am extremely busy in real life and - as usual in the Lent term - on a wikibreak. I have some experience with medieval history on wikipedia and elsewhere. Elonka seems to have gone a little off the rails in what she thinks she can write, whether true or not. I will now give Elonka the advice that she has so often given to other editors: please discuss the content not the editors. Making personal attacks is not helpful. Mathsci (talk) 22:14, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Your personal credentials can't be verified and are, as a result, irrelevant. Whether you knew a historian has absolutely no bearing on the sourcing of this article, and I'm hard pressed to see why you bothered to bring it up. That you closed with "comment on the content, not the editors" is, I presume, an attempt to be ironic. Your history with Elonka (or her history with you, if you prefer) is well known and should not be rehashed on this page. Elonka should not have brought it up (as it is also irrelevant to the content question, which can and should be dealt with on its own), and I think anyone who occassionally reads this page would appreciate it if that element of this discussion ends here. Avruch T 22:43, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

very good... sorry —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kingpenguins2007 (talk • contribs) 01:55, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Two examples in publications that use that exact wording are:
The Templars and the Grail: Knights of the Quest by Karen Ralls ISBN 0835608077 page 13: "With such an extensive empire, the Templar Order was similar to a modern-day multinational corporation."
The Templar Papers: Ancient Mysteries, Secret Societies, and the Holy Grail by Oddvar Olsen ISBN 1564148637 page 9: "They were gifted diplomats, skilfull farmers and navigators, and they established the largest multinational corporation in western Europe at the time (serving as bankers to kings, amongst others)."
There may be more I stopped looking after the second.--Alf melmac 10:23, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

knights templar in various media through out the 20th and 21st century

Has any body mentioned the fact that the templar kights consistiently turn up in various media, such as, The Da Vinci Code, by Dan Brown. Assassins Creed, by Ubisoft. Also, in Indiana jones the last crusade. Now, i belive that this is an important fact as it is still on alot of peoples minds the fact that all these knights got slaughted, because they were so rich. --Assassinman (talk) 01:18, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

To Assassinman. The Templars appear alot because of the contraversy surrounding whether or not they found the Holy Grail, or if they survived an are some sort of evil sect secretly controlling the world. This is a load of rubbish. They were so rich because they worked the coffers well and were wise with there money. Early Banks. Liamr9983 (talk) 18:01, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Institution de l'Ordre du Temple

Institution de l'Ordre du Temple 1128 by Granet.

Feel free to insert this image into the article (Ceremony of the creation of the Order in 1128). Phg (talk) 19:18, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I have just recently read a book, fiction.

According to this book, it says that the original Knights of the Temple Mount while in France and England were actually from Jewish back grounds who settled in eastern Europe. At the time, there were 9-11 Knights who were sent there for the Crusades to save Christendom from the heathens and restore Christ as the true person and find Solomans treasure. One must understand, Jesus was Jewish first and fore most.They had rituals that were very similar to those of todays Masonic orders. Whether the truth ever comes out about the Knights Soloman treasure, the Ark of The Covenent, or the Cup/Mary is true, it is important to find out more of the legacy of the first knights. How does Rene de Anjou come into play as the King of Jerusalem at such a later date? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Earp,Wyatt (talk • contribs) 20:08, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Well...fiction is fiction,, although even some books about the Templars which claim to be factual are also mostly fiction. In any case, as King of Naples, Rene of Anjou was one of the potential heirs of the Kingdom of Jerusalem. See Kings of Jerusalem. Whether he knew or cared about that, I don't know. Adam Bishop (talk) 20:32, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Comment

the history told in here is not completed.the author should make a very detail research about the time line of the history . name of the Muslim warrior who recaptured bai'tul maqdis from christian was not told in here.The story in here also bias. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.82.91.104 (talk) 14:40, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Sodomy?

In my reading about this group, a key charge was sodomy. I was surprised that WIKI has no mention of this. There should be something in this article about that particular charge. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.160.108.190 (talk) 12:15, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Assuming you mean in your outside reading about this group, it may be that this is or was one of the common beliefs - that alleged sodomy was one of the justifications for the - err - sudden extermination of the knights. Perhaps nobody has yet found a reliable source that discusses and confirms the allegations. If you have one, by all means feel free to bring it out. --T-dot ( Talk/contribs ) 17:49, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
See the "Charges" section below... --Wikiscient 23:33, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

cleanup inline citations

I added a cleanup tag with this reason:

some inline citations mention names but not the specific year of the referenced publication. For example: there are at least four Barber book editions, but some cites mention only "Barber" and page number.

I have just looked at this April 11, 2007 version of the article that was promoted to Featured Article status and I see that one could guess the year of most of the "Barber" citations by the order in which they appear. However, I would not like to make these guesses myself, which I leave to better informed editors. -84user (talk) 19:24, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I have removed the maintenance tags, and added years to the citations. I also removed one "citation needed" tag about whether or not Kingdom of Heaven (film) refers to the Knights Templar. Per WP:V, specific sources are only required if information is "challenged or likely to be challenged", and it doesn't seem reasonable to me that anyone would challenge whether or not that film refers to the Templars. --Elonka 21:06, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Of course the film references the Templars, the issue is whether it is is relevant to the paragraph beginning "The Knights Templar have become associated with legends concerning secrets and mysteries handed down to the select from ancient times." There is no obvious source for the film being concerned with these at all -- and in fact I don't think it is. Simone Templar (talk) 21:19, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
That particular section was originally intended as a combination of Knights Templar legends and Knights Templar and popular culture,[6] though I see that the popular culture link got removed somewhere along the line. I'll go ahead and re-add it. --Elonka 22:54, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Friday the 13th revisited...

I think I probably muddled my back-of-the-envelope calculations on this, but is it really the case that "13 October" (according to the Gregorian calendar in effect now) is the "anniversary" of "Friday, 13 October 1307 CE" according to the Julian calendar in effect on that day of that year...?
In other words, wouldn't the "anniversary" of the events on that day more properly be commemorated on a different "day of the year" according to the different calendar system we now use to "enumerate" that day?
(See also: Talk:October 13#Re. the Knights Templar (1307) "on this day" entry)
Wikiscient 01:07, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I am unclear as to what you are proposing as an alternative? And then my next question after that would be, Do you have any reliable sources for that alternative? See also WP:No original research. If not, we should stick with the date that is most commonly used, which is October 13th. If, however, you can provide some sources which show that the anniversary of the arrests is recognized as a different date than October 13, we can definitely take a look at them. --Elonka 01:29, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps he means that it should be October 2 or something, since the Julian calendar skipped 11 days when it switched to the Gregorian? If so, then no, October 13 is still October 13, it was just that one year that was different. Adam Bishop (talk) 04:13, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Hmm, yes, well, that is more or less what I was saying.
My concern arose around considering the origins for the "Friday the 13th" superstition, which until yesterday I had myself always thought had to do with the KT persecution.
I got to thinking: well, if "Friday the 13th" is not really related then why consider "October the 13th" to be related? I mean: why "October 13" in the Gregorian calendar?
So, you see, "October 13" is not necessarily "October 13"... ;)
I haven't found the formal WP policy for this, but I guess I should really be taking this up on the List of historical anniversaries page or whatever. I guess it's a matter of which to consider important (academically speaking...;) about an "anniversary":
  • the "date" (ie., an arbitrary label), or
  • the "day" (ie. the "timing" of a recurring astronomical position in space of the Earth with respect to the sun)?
Which I'm not sure is an issue too relevant to further discussion here...
Cheers, --Wikiscient 17:31, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
But that's what I mean, Friday, October 13, 1307, is the same in both calendars. The other years don't retroactively lose 11 days (or whatever number). Adam Bishop (talk) 18:20, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
No: my point is that they are NOT the same. They have the same "name" if that is what you mean, but they refer to two different days.
I did find this precedent for the poinit I am making, in the November 7 article:
  • 1917 – Russian Revolution: In Petrograd, Russia, Bolshevik leaders Vladimir Lenin and Leon Trotsky lead revolutionaries in overthrowing the Provisional Government (As Russia was still using the Julian Calendar, subsequent period references show the date as October 25).
The October Revolution article uses the November 7 date throughout, and my own original research indicates that is the date it is now officially commemorated in Russia.
The october 25 article just has this:
  • 1917 – Traditionally understood date of the October Revolution, involving the capture of the Winter Palace, Petrograd, Russia.
Which is more or less what I am suggesting we do with the October 13 article as regards the Knights Templar.
Wikiscient 18:25, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
That's only because two places were using two different calendars at the same time. That was not the case in 1307; Friday, October 13, 1307, took place on a Friday because there was only one calendar in use then. There is no "old style" or "new style" in this case. Adam Bishop (talk) 19:26, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Well, er, no...
  • The storming of the Winter Palace, marking the start of the so-called October Revolution, took place on "October 25, 1917" as far as everyone involved at the time was concerned (see Dates of Adoption of the Gregorian Calendar). Later, everyone concerned decided to call that day "November 7, 1917." Same day, two different names (ie., "dates") for it.
  • Similarly, everyone involved at the time agreed that King Philip started rounding up the KT on "Friday, October 13, 1307." Now, though, that day is called "Friday, October 21, 1307" according to the naming scheme (ie., "calendar system") by which we all now agree to name days. To put it clearly: King Philip began rounding up the KT on Friday, October 21, 1307. That is the way to say it now because we all now assume the Gregorian calendar is used, unless otherwise specified. And that is how it ought to be properly stated in the article, unless you want to specifically state that you are using some other date according to the Julian system of dating -- or, for that matter, the Mayan system of dating, or whichever other now-defunct system you prefer.
Wikiscient 20:41, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
No no, look, the October Revolution took place in October 1917 when Russia was using the Julian calendar. They switched to the Gregorian calendar in 1918, and since October 25 in the Julian calendar was November 7 everywhere else that was already using the Gregorian calendar, they started using that date too. The point is, it was November 7, in other places. In 1307 there was only the one calendar, so Friday, October 13, is still Friday, October 13. Adam Bishop (talk) 20:47, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Look, I understand what you are saying but I do not think it is valid.
By the same (admittedly tongue-in-cheek;) reasoning, we could just as well say it happened on:
  • 11.4.4.10.2
  • Cycle 66, year 44 (Ding-Wei), month 9 (Geng-Xu), day 17 (Wu-Yin)
  • Prickle-Prickle, The Aftermath 2, Year of Our Lady of Discord 2473
without bothering to specify in the article that we mean "according to the Mayan Long-count, Chinese, and Discordian calendars sytems, respectively."
;) Wikiscient 21:00, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
I suppose the only way to solve this is to input "October 13, 1307" into the DeLorean and see where we actually end up. Adam Bishop (talk) 21:06, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
LOL, probably so...
Let's wait though and see if anyone else wants to weigh-in...
Regards, Wikiscient 21:09, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

(outdent)

Well: I think I have a good point, and a strong case to support it, but as my interest in the issue is entirely academic (ie., without any tedious regard for practicalities) and since I don't really expect to, in effect, "rewrite" all of pre-Gregorian history ("...Columbus sighted land on 21 October 1492..." and so on) -- I will, now, with a courteous nod to Adam, yield.
Wikiscient 10:00, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Let me take another shot at it..."old style" and "new style" dates can only exist after the Gregorian calendar was created in 1582, and then only for places where the Gregorian calendar was not immediately adopted (Britain, Russia, etc). In, for example, Rome, Thursday, October 4 was followed by Friday, October 15 in 1582. So what was October 3? Under your argument, October 3 would then become October 14, October 2 would be October 13, etc. But October 14 did not exist in Rome that year. There is no "old" and "new" style necessary for Rome because the calendar was switched immediately. However, in Britain, when they switched in 1752, Wednesday, September 2 September was followed by Thursday, September 14. But because they used the Julian calendar while Rome used the Gregorian one, all the dates between October 4, 1582 and September 2, 1752 in England need to be converted to the Gregorian calendar to find out what the equivalent date was in Rome. Thus, there was an October 14 in 1582 in Britain, and an October 13 and all the other dates missing in Rome, but in Rome October 14 was October 25. If it had been possible to travel between the two countries on the same day, you would have left Rome on October 25 and arrived in Britain on October 14, but it would actually be the same day, in an astronomical sense. If you asked someone in Britain on October 25 (by the Gregorian calendar) what day it was, they would have said October 14, because that is actually what day it was there. From 1582 to 1752, it was exactly the same. The years were (roughly) the same length, each day happened as usual, but the Gregorian calendar was 11 days ahead after skipping those days the one year the calendar was adopted. Does this make any more sense? So in 1307, when there was only one calendar, there can be no missing 11 days. If, on October 13, you could have gone from Rome to Paris in the same day, you would still arrive there on October 13, and it would still be Friday. If the Templar trial had happened in 1582, then there would be an 11-day difference. But the new calendar didn't exist yet in 1307. Adam Bishop (talk) 19:53, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
Or, to put it more succinctly, to say that the calendar is wrong by 11 days in 1307 is to say that those 11 days disappear from the entire universe, astronomically. This is obviously not the case. Adam Bishop (talk) 19:55, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
Okay, I think I understand better the nature of your objection, Adam.
Please note, in any case, that I have now agreed to drop the issue, and (for the moment;) I am no longer advocating any change in this article or any others on the basis of this issue. So right now I am just trying to better clarify with you what that issue was, okay? That understood:
"...the Gregorian calendar was 11 days ahead after skipping those days the one year the calendar was adopted."
You are saying, in other words, that
  • Julian Date = Gregorian Date - 11 days,
right? (It's hard to see how I could have "muddled" that calculation, though, as I mentioned I had probably done in my first post above, lol!;) In fact, though -- and this is an important point with respect to the issue I am trying to express here -- things are a bit more complicated (see Julian day#Calculation):
  • Julian Date = (1461 × (Gregorian Year + 4800 + (Gregorian Month − 14)/12))/4 +(367 × (Gregorian Month − 2 − 12 × ((Gregorian Month − 14)/12)))/12 − (3 × ((Gregorian Year + 4900 + (Gregorian Month - 14)/12)/100))/4 + Gregorian Day − 32075 +
Note, btw, that this formula is valid for all Julian dates as far back as 4713 BCE -- long before, that is, the "Julian calendar" itself -- to say nothing of the Gregorian calendar -- first came into "existence"! (When a particular day-naming-scheme is first "adopted" is, in other words, not relevant to the conversion to it (and from it) to (and from) some other day-naming-scheme...).
"...to say that the calendar is wrong by 11 days in 1307..."
But, you see, that is not what I am saying. No calendar system is "wrong," but all calendar systems are "arbitrary." What I am saying is that "we" (ie. most of us here at en.wikipedia.org and in the West in general) all now agree to use the Gregorian calendar system when speaking (informally, to be sure!) about dates.
Do you understand, though, why I am saying that, and why I think it really is an issue that (ideally) ought to be consistently (at wikipedia, at least) addressed?
Every Julian date maps one-to-one to a Gregorian date, in a "complicated" but consistent way -- and it is Gregorian dates that we are all now in this day-and-age tacitly assuming when we see dates mentioned in a "eurocentric" article ("historical" or otherwise) at English wikipedia...
Wikiscient 23:09, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
Furthermore, btw, re.:
  • "In, for example, Rome, Thursday, October 4 was followed by Friday, October 15 in 1582. So what was October 3?"
I think the pressing question, though, is: what happened to October 5, 1582? Right? Did it somehow disappear?
No. Consider:
...
and ...
  • October 4, 2009 in the Julian calendar = 17 October 2009 in the Gregorian calendar
Understand? No days got "lost." The "shift" in eg. Rome in 1582 (and at various times thereafter elsewhere) was just a shift between calendar systems. All "Julian dates" continued to exist, just as all Gregorian dates had always existed before that "shift." It is, perhaps, a subtle and confusing point -- confusion which actually did, indeed, cause rioting at the time, lol!
I suspect, Adam, in all honesty, that you may yourself still be suffering from that same confusion now...
Wikiscient 00:01, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
It looks like we are saying the exact same thing, but we're coming out with different conclusions for some reason. You know, if either of us had bothered to read further down the Gregorian calendar article, we would have found this statement: "For ordinary purposes, the dates of events occurring prior to 15 October 1582 are generally shown as they appeared in the Julian calendar, with the year starting on 1 January, and no conversion to their Gregorian equivalents. The Battle of Agincourt is universally known to have been fought on 25 October 1415 which is Saint Crispin's Day." (And likewise, October 13, 1307 is still October 13.) What you seem to be referring to is the Proleptic Gregorian calendar, which for some reason requires Gregorian dates to be extened backwards; I suppose this must have a useful function (what it is, I can't tell), but I don't think that's what we're dealing with here. Adam Bishop (talk) 01:44, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
Actually, the problem here seems to be ontological: what is the difference between what a day is and what a day is called? Or, perhaps, more epistemological: what is the difference between what is "universally known" and what is "universally agreed"?
Let's go back to:
  • "In, for example, Rome, Thursday, October 4 was followed by Friday, October 15 in 1582. So what was October 3?"
The sequence of dates in Rome in October 1582 went like this, where red text indicates what the day was generally agreed to be called, by Papal decree, in that place at that time:
  • Wednesday, 3 October 1582 in the Julian calendar = Wednesday, 13 October 1582 in the Gregorian calendar
  • Thursday, 4 October 1582 in the Julian calendar = Thursday, 14 October 1582 in the Gregorian calendar
  • Friday, 5 October 1582 in the Julian calendar = Friday, 15 October 1582 in the Gregorian calendar
  • Saturday, 6 October 1582 in the Julian calendar = Saturday, 16 October 1582 in the Gregorian calendar
The point here is that what "requires" Gregorian dates to be "extended backwards" is just the nature of calendar systems. You seem to think that when people "generally agree to use" a particular calendar system has some effect on what that calendar system is. A calendar system is just a scheme for naming points in time; and time, of course, extends both forwards and backwards from any given point along it (let's leave Hawking out of it for now, lol! ;).
What makes calendar systems arbitrarily "disagree," btw, is that they are trying to reconcile (at least) two different repeating cycles in time that do not perfectly correspond: in the case of "solar" calendars, for example, the period of Earth's rotation about the sun (a "year") is not, unfortunately, an integer multiple of the period of Earth's rotation about its axis (a "day"). There are various ways to deal with that problem; the Gregorian system is better at dealing with it than the Julian system, but both systems provide some scheme for naming all days in all years.
So:
  • "For ordinary purposes, the dates of events occurring prior to 15 October 1582 are generally shown as they appeared in the Julian calendar, with the year starting on 1 January, and no conversion to their Gregorian EQUIVALENTS." (emphasis added)
It's not that those "Gregorian equivalents" don't exist, it's just that for ordinary purposes at wikipedia we all agree not to show them.
This should really read more like: "The Battle of Agincourt is universally known to have been fought on Saint Crispin's Day, which by the Julian calendar in use by the participants at the time was 25 October 1415."
  • "(And likewise, October 13, 1307 is still October 13.)"
No: the day that Philip started rounding up the KT is still the day that Philip started rounding up the KT. At the time, all those involved agreed to believe that that day was called "Friday, 13 October 1307." We can still agree to call it that too, if we like. Or, depending I suppose on how ordinary our purposes are, we could all agree now to call it "Friday, 21 October 1307." The "name" of that day, though, is not what is important about it.
I hope all this is beginning to help you understand better what it is I've been trying to say here, but (*sigh*) let me know if not...
Wikiscient 14:19, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

(outdent)

This is interesting enough academically I suppose, but I’m unclear as to the relevance. It is my understanding (and Adam has also alluded to it) that for dates prior to 1582 we use the Julian date, as would contemporary documents; and for after 1582, by and large we use the Gregorian. Where it gets confusing is when the local dating system was still on the Julian, like in England, and in that case we use both, differentiating with (NS) and OS. The important point is that dates used in sources are explained, and comparisons (say between dates in French and English documents) given.
But for this instance it isn’t an issue; the date in Paris was the same as the date in Rome, ie 13 October, so ther is no reason at all to put the Gregorian date. On the point “we could agree to say 21 Oct”, well, we could; but the fact of the matter is, we don’t. Moonraker12 (talk) 16:21, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

PS You mentioned above the discrepancy in 1307 would be 11 days: the difference between Gregorian and Julian dating increases by about 1 day every 100-odd years, and in 1582 the difference was 10 days,so in 1307 it would have been 7 or 8 days. (see here). Moonraker12 (talk) 16:34, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Right, I think we're just using 10 or 11 as an arbitrary number for the sake of argument. Wikiscient, I think I do understand. I think you are looking at the date from the actual position of the Earth and the Sun in the solar system; since the Julian calendar got that wrong, if we correct the date to show where the Earth actually was that day in 1307, based on the corrected Gregorian calendar, it would be the equivalent of the Gregorian day October 21 (or whatever day). Is that right? I was not looking at the date on such grand astronomical terms. Adam Bishop (talk) 17:20, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
Well I am very glad to hear it, Adam , and I hope you will find the time, Moonraker12, to read through my discussion with Adam above on the points you mention!
I'm going to consider the issue "resolved enough" at this point, though, unless either of you (or anyone else) would like any further clarification about it all...
Regards, Wikiscient 23:22, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Friday the 13th, again

I've removed this interjection:
"..(or possibly correctly, since related Masonic information was only given verbally until the most recent century - thus Snopes and other such sources would have no knowledge of this)"
from the statement
"On Friday, October 13, 1307 (a date sometimes incorrectly linked with the origin of the Friday the 13th superstition) [3] [4] Philip ordered ..."
This was discussed at length a while ago (see above) and the current text is the agreed version. Also, the position that the superstition is recent, and unrelated to the KT is referenced, while the suggestion is linked is purely speculative. If anyone has a reference attesting to the age and origin of the superstition, they should bring it here.
Is it worth putting an invisible note (<!-) referring future editors to the discusions here? Moonraker12 (talk) 16:01, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I removed "(a date sometimes incorrectly linked with the origin of the Friday the 13th superstition)[5][6]" because UrbanLegends.about.com and Snopes.com are not reliable sources. --Edgemaniac (talk) 05:36, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I restored the sentence and sources, because they have already been extensively discussed, and are acceptable in this case. See also the discussion at the FA nom. --Elonka 15:49, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Charges

Further to the "sodomy" section above, I thought that was one of the charges too, but if there's no source to confirm it, then fair enough. However, surely there must be a source that says what the charges actually were? The article currently says that the order was charged with "numerous heresies". Is that really the best that reliable sources can offer? Miremare 18:04, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Agreed - it has certainly been discussed at length in the talk page archives, and it has been referred to in popular television programming (eg: History Channel specials on the topic of the knights etc.), but it seems to be presented as a theory, more than established fact. That said, it probably deserves at least a mention of it in the article. It should not be too difficult to find a source (History.com?) that mentions it was at least a theory. It is discussed as one of several "trumped-up charges" at History of the Knights Templar#Fall --T-dot ( Talk/contribs ) 18:35, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
But of course the apparently "authoritative" source about the entire affair is already cited throughout the article: "Malcolm Barber, The Trial of the Templars. Cambridge University Press, 1978. ISBN 0-521-45727-0."
According to Barber, the (long!) list of accusations breaks down into about seven main categories:
Google has it online: Barber, Trial of the Templars, p. 178.
Wikiscient 21:28, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Intro-clarification

I think the very last part of the introduction section should be a little more obvious; 'The abrupt disappearance of a major part of the European infrastructure gave rise to speculation and legends, which have kept the "Templar" name alive into the modern day.'
Mohamed Magdy (talk) 15:37, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Round buildings

Are the round/octagonal buildings associated to the Knights inspired by the Holy Sepulchre or by the Dome of the Rock? --Error (talk) 12:59, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Temple Church in London, at least according to the article, was inspired by the Holy Sepulchre. But since the Holy Sepulchre (in its current form) was built by the crusaders, it's possible that it was inspired by the architecture of the Dome of the Rock. Or maybe by eastern religious architecture in general, since round/octagonal churches were a typical Byzantine construction. Adam Bishop (talk) 18:11, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Arrests and dissolution

I was interested in the use of language in the arrests and dissolution paragraph where it states that 'it was generally agreed that the charges were false' In other aspects of the article evidence of individuals opinions were backed up with translations from scripts. However when the phrase 'it was generally agreed...' appears there is no factual evidence. I would like to know who generally agreed this? and from what source is their evidence to back up the claim of general agreemance on the matter? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.41.112.33 (talk) 03:44, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Reformation of the Poor Fellow-Soldiers of Christ and of the Temple of Solomon ( knights templar)

i believe that now that pope Benedict XVI has released that the knights templar were infact inocent for their supposed crimes that the order should be reinstated or even recreated. the world today is in need of a universal group of humble knights and monks that care for the inocent andf the needy rather than the pointless pursuit of money. people are in need of a shield to protect them from injustice and evil. And so i believe it is time that they knights templar return to help lead us into a new age.- J.D october 2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.211.155.252 (talk) 23:06, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

You are welcome to your opinion, however, this is not the place for general discussion of the merits of the knights...this talk page is for discussion of improving the article. You may be better served by finding a chatroom or bulletin board type forum related to this topic. The use of the Talk page should be restricted to discussing the encyclopedia article, not personal beliefs about the topic or activism regarding it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.65.34.46 (talk) 13:44, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

they are still hereMannix Chan (talk) 07:25, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I consider this section to be confusing and badly written. It also contains a number of tendentious statements. I may be wrong. Please comment. Everybody got to be somewhere! (talk) 01:19, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

In all honesty the article seems to dismiss a lot, with out any real proof of it's own. If you choose to dismiss any of what the order or others proclaim please provide proof. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.205.176.1 (talk) 00:55, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
I've reworked the section a bit. Though if anyone desires to add more information about the Templars and Freemasonry, a better article to add this information to is Knights Templar (Freemasonry). --Elonka 14:52, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Acts in the Name of

Should there be a section on people who commit acts in the name of or apparently representing the Knight Templar. Example the recent horrific mass murders by Anders Behring Breivik 99.228.20.90 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:31, 25 July 2011 (UTC).

Check here: Knights Templar and popular culture. --Elonka 21:38, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Neo-Templars

I understand that there's a lot of attention on the Templars right now because of the tragedy in Norway, but let's please be careful about rewriting the historical article. I see that there is a new section entitled "Neo-Templars", but this is giving undue weight to this term. Just because it's used in a couple of sources, does not mean that it's worth titling an entire section on it. --Elonka 23:05, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree, there is very few scholarly uses of the term, and in truth we're going to see a lot of buzz words come up in the next few months and it isn't Wikipedia's duty to keep track of all of them while scholars decide which will be embraced. PeRshGo (talk) 07:17, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
I do see the term being used in some books, but I wouldn't call it a "common" or "universal" term. For example, the leading authority on the Templars is the scholar Malcolm Barber, and I haven't been able to find the term in any of his books. I couldn't find it in anything by Piers Paul Read, either. Peter Partner appears to have used it three times in Murdered Magicians, but as a general kind of adjective in a few cases, not as a sweeping category. --Elonka 14:54, 30 July 2011 (UTC)


The term Neo-Templars has been the accepted norm used by Templar historians to describe modern Templar organisations for decades (to categorise them as pseudo-Templars). I have provided examples of authors and books that use the term Neo-Templar in the main article. There should be no problem over this at all. It certainly is not a "controversial" issue. It seems strange that on Wikipedia the term is not allowed to be used, while at the same time being used universally by historians in their books outside of Wikipedia. The term was borrowed from the French Néo-Templiers and simply means "New Templars" Lung salad (talk) 15:04, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not against the term being used, but I do not think there is support for saying that it's "commonly used" or a "universal" term. I'm also concerned that someone feels so strongly about this that they are willing to edit war to make the term as a section header. Better would be to engage in collegial discussion with other editors, and try to find a way to use the term that reflects consensus thinking. See also WP:UNDUE and WP:CONSENSUS. --Elonka 15:12, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

See for example Christopher Partridge, Encyclopedia of new religions: new religious movements, sects and alternative spiritualities, and James R. Lewis, The Order of The Solar Temple: The Temple of Death - both Partridge and Lewis are recognized scholars. They use the term Neo-Templar in their respective books. Lung salad (talk) 15:23, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Partner did use the term Neo Templars in a general adjective way, and while this was probably used in a negative way, authors like Robert Lomas also use the term Lung salad (talk) 15:30, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
How about Stephen Dafoe or Christopher Hodapp's terms? I'd also point out that having done a Google Books search for "neo-templar", the word doesn't appear with any frequency at all any earlier than around 20 years ago. Peter Partner may be scholarly, but Knight & Lomas, Baigent, Leigh, and Lincoln, etc., are not, and Partner's Knights Templar & Their Myth is a reprint of his earlier work Murdered Magicians, which is about the myth, not the reality, oof the Templars. MSJapan (talk) 17:25, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
That's because researchers on the original Knights Templar 1118-1308 do not concern themselves with the revived occult versions of the Order dating from the 17th century onwards - so it's hardly surprising that Malcolm Barber does not use the term Neo Templar, commonly used in France since at least Albert Lantoine, Histoire de la Franc-Maçonnerie Française: la Franc-Maçonnerie chez elle (1925).Lung salad (talk) 13:35, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
Lung salad, I'm sorry, but your statement about Barber is not correct. In fact, Barber has an entire chapter entitled, "From Molay's Curse to Foucault's Pendulum" where he discusses the post-Order phenomenon, including groups such as the Freemasons, and he doesn't use the term "Neo-Templar" once. --Elonka 14:34, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
Sorry to tell you this Elonka, but Malcolm Barber's specialist subject matter is Knights Templar 1118-1308, and his non-usage of the term does not discount the fact that Neo-Templars is the normal terminology used by 'most' of those scholars who research the subject matter of occult Templar groups dating from the 18th century onwards. Put simply, those scholars who decline to use the term Neo-Templars are vastly outnumbered by those who do. 20:47, 31 July 2011 (UTC)Lung salad (talk) 20:50, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
You say so, but Elonka didn't see it, and I didn't see it, despite having looked for it. Also, you can't discount Barber because you think that what he wrote wasn't a main part of his work (which is what you're saying); a whole chapter on-topic is certainly not a throwaway reference. Are you sure your sources are established scholars and not selfpub so-called "New Age"/"occult" writers on blogs and such making a case for their own groups? MSJapan (talk) 16:37, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
(outdent) I dislike leaving things unfinished, and to that I end, I have procured and read Partner's The Knights Templar and Their Myth. The term "Neo-Templar" is used twice on page 136, once in a endnote appearing on a previous page, and does not even have an index entry. It is not made clear as to the scope of what Partner is referring to with the term, as he refers to Chevalier Ramsay, Le Forestier, Nodier, de Chambure, and Montagnac as "dealing with Neo-Templars", which would be a span of works over 100 years separated.
It also used by Partner more frequently over the span of three more pages, particularly in reference to the lineage of the Templars of Fabre-Palaprat when Chalet split from them, and his group eventually became the Johannite Church and disappeared in 1840.
As a note, other than apparently not sourcing (or bulk-sourcing) large chunks of text, Partner also makes a factual error - he claims there were "Templar Lodges" in the US in 1769. This is not true, and I can't imagine that Henry Coil, from whose Comprehensive View of Freemasonry (1976) Partner draws, is wrong, when Turnbull & Denslow said the degree alone was practiced in 1769 in regular Lodges, over 20 years earlier. MSJapan (talk) 00:50, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
Two points: The term Neo-Templars is (present tense), and has been (past tense), in universal usage in France [7]. It means what it says - "New Templars" - so when you find the word Neo-Templars used in the English language it is more than often used by those scholars writing about post-1308 Templar occult groups who use French primary sources. No, I was not citing Lomas et al as "experts" but rather as an example that the terminology was in use by those conspiracy theorists who took the claims made by Neo-Templars seriously. It is used in the English language by both serious historians and conspiracy theorists. Now that's clarified, the second point - Malcolm Barber raced through New-Templars in his book The New Knighthood chapter at break-neck speed, mentioning only Hund and Co. superficially. Most of the chapter concerned is devoted to the popular notion of the Knights Templar found in English literature. Most of which has been used in one of Helen Nicholson's recent books, BTW. Lung salad (talk) 21:29, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
  1. ^ "Friday the 13th". snopes.com. Retrieved 2007-03-26.
  2. ^ David Emery. "Why Friday the 13th is unlucky". urbanlegends.about.com. Retrieved 2007-03-26.
  3. ^ "Friday the 13th". snopes.com. Retrieved March 26, 2007.
  4. ^ David Emery. "Why Friday the 13th is unlucky". urbanlegends.about.com. Retrieved March 26, 2007.
  5. ^ "Friday the 13th". snopes.com. Retrieved March 26, 2007.
  6. ^ David Emery. "Why Friday the 13th is unlucky". urbanlegends.about.com. Retrieved March 26, 2007.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Knights_Templar/Archive_7&oldid=1190132603"