Talk:Knights Templar in Scotland

Untitled

Hi Hetar

This article is medieval only. This material is different from the article you re-directed to which is post suppresion.

--SKT1314 15:30, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Merge

We seem to have two articles here, which should probably be merged into one:

• Scottish Knights Templar
• Knights Templar in Scotland

I recommend that we merge both into the latter name, so as to be consistent with another article, Knights Templar in England. Does anyone else have any thoughts on this? --Elonka 23:54, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Good suggestion, supported. Steve Zissou 17:18, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

On no account. This is about the mediaeval order, and the other article is about the modern order. Any connection between the two is speculative. --Quaerere Verum 15:29, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Merging should not take place

Merging should most certainly not take place; these items are very separate and should not be linked.

There are two templar movements in Scotland and this is the smallest, but neither have any direct link with the historic Order of the Temple founded in the 12th century. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.12.13.92 (talk) 20:20, 14 March 2007 (UTC).

How are you distinguishing the difference between "Scottish Knights Templar" and "Knights Templar in Scotland"? --Elonka 20:38, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I cannot speak for the previous user, but it is clear that the modern groups refer to themselves as "Scottish Knights Templar" - see http://www.scottishknightstemplar.org - the mediaeval order in Scotland were just that: Knights Templar - and this article is about them? There is a lot of discussion on the other article, but not this one. The articles should not be merged. --Quaerere Verum 15:37, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

In order to have separate articles, I'd want to see that there were outside references which made a clear distinction that the modern orders (Scottish Knights Templar) were even sufficiently notable to have their own page. Otherwise the modern orders should be included as a sub-paragraph on the medieval page, since that's the subject that is most clearly referenced. --Elonka 18:24, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Looking at this website, http://www.scottishknightstemplar.org , it seems clear that they are a sub-chapter of the SMOTJ organization. As such, a link to that site could be placed on the SMOTJ page, but I don't believe that the Scottish chapter is notable enough for its own Wikipedia article. --Elonka 18:32, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

This is probably the wrong place for discussion. The other article (Scottish Knights Templar) is about the modern organizations, and this article, like its English counterpart, is purely medieval. The website cited by Elonka is just one group, and there seem to be at least distinct 5 groups listed with links - I will probably get this wrong but they are:

1. http://www.siol-nan-gaidheal.com/templar.htm

2. http://www.templarhistory.com/mts.html

3. http://www.skt.org.uk

4. http://www.scottishtemplarknights.info

as well as:

5. http://www.scottishknightstemplar.org

This would seem to be a phenomenon worthy of its own article, and looking at Knights Templar in England, there seems to be some precedent for keeping it medieval only, so I withdraw my previous vote. --Steve Zissou 14:22, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I would be willing to support separate pages, if we could come up with titles that made the clear distinction between the medieval order, and the modern phenomenon. But right now "Knights Templar in Scotland" v. "Scottish Knights Templar" is too confusing. --Elonka 17:23, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Medieval Knights Templar in Scotland and Modern Scottish Knights Templar? Better be prepared for arguments from those who still believe they are one and the same, though? --80.239.99.135 09:45, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

"Knights Templar (historical) in Scotland" vs. "Scottish Knights Templar (modern groups)" ? Blueboar 14:10, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I make no comment on whether or not they should be merged as I dont know enough on the subject. However, if not, the article introductions should make it very clear that they are about different things, preferably in the first sentence. At present this is not stated, leading to confusion and merge tags. Thanks, Edward Waverley 09:53, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Is it acceptable for romantic enthusiasts to quote pseudo-history websites -Sinclair Quartermain for example -as evidence in support of assertions? The claim that the Templars were afforded sanctuary in Scotland after their supporession is an 18/19th century fabrication as far as scholars are aware....there is no record or narrative evidence from the middle ages to indicate that this was the case. Chris Brown.

Mr Brown's a grumpy bear!--Lonely Bear 19:27, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Dr. Brown IS a grumpy bear...nonethelss, there really is no medieval evidence to support the stories of Templar surival in Scotland, nor of their receiving sanctuary from Robert I, nor of any connection with Roslin chapel. The tales were written in the 18th-19th centuries and have been re-heated more recently, but they are just stories. Quoting Victorian novels and romances - or hobbyista websites - is not the same as providing evidence. If valid contemporary evidence existed surely the Templar enthusiasts would be more than happy to share it with scholars? CB —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.43.68.251 (talk) 17:14, August 24, 2007 (UTC) I see that - for example - the 'evidence' cited for the claim that Bishop Lamberton (incorrectly described as 'Guardian of Scotland' - a post he had not held for more than a decade by 1312) offered protection to the Templars consists of extermely unreliable romantic websites and a book by pseudohistorian and conspiracy theorist Laurence Gardiner, but no medieval record. Presumably because no such record exists. What is the point of a Wikipedia entry if the information offered is simply untrue? If Wikipedia is to be a valuable resource than it must surely have reliable information rather than the wishful thinking of romancers ¬¬¬¬ Docbro. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.143.58.56 (talk) 15:34, August 28, 2007 (UTC) Small Text

Unreferenced edits

Moved from User Page: Dikkat (It was not in the correct place) --Dikkat 09:31, 1 September 2007 (UTC) Hi. I'm not at all sure that I am writing this in the correct place, so please feel free to advise me accordingly. I do not know why my corrections to the Templar page are continually 'reverted'. I merely point out that there is no MEDIEVAL evidence, either from record or narrative sources to support various claims made on the page. If such evidence exists then it should be made available to historians and palaeographers. The 'references' cited in support of those claims are not at all valid. Citing the unsubstantiated staements of Victorian roamncers or the websites of enthusiasts simply is not evidence. I note that none of the 'citations' come from the work of reputable scholars (academic or independent) such as Professors Barrow, Nicholson, Duncan or Cowan, or from Drs. Boardman, Reid, Yeoman, M. Brown, Watson, Broun, Finlay, Young, or from any of the many reputable independent scholars who are a blessing to Scottish medieval history. Is it really conceivable that these men and women who have studied medieval Scottish documents all their working lives are less well-informed than people who have written pseudihistories based on speculation and wishful thinking? If Wikipedia is to be taken seriously (and it is such a great idea) then it needs to be reliable. Suppose a student were to refer to Bishop Lamberton as offering sanctuary to the Templars? Or describe him as Guardian of Scotland in 1312? He or she would - obviously - lose marks. Is it fair to put them in that position? 86.148.99.213 17:02, 30 August 2007 (UTC)Docbro

If you (Chris Brown?) User Talk:Docbro support your edits with reliable sources you would then improve the article instead of looking like sock puppetry with so many IP addresses for single issue edits to this and associated articles. As an open source encyclopedia, we have to rely on verifiable material rather than information from editors. .--Dikkat 09:31, 1 September 2007 (UTC).

I note that none of the Templar 'fans' has yet to provide an example of medieval record or narrative evidence to support the Templar survival claims. If evidence exists it should be provided, however citing unsubstantiated assertioss from websites and 18-19th century romances does not cosntitute valid medieval evidence. The repeated assertion that bishop Lamberton (incorrectly described as being Guardian of Scotland in 1312 - one wonders what King RObert would have had to say about that!) offered his protection to the Templars is backed up by what exactly? I am not aware that any medieval historian has seen any contemporary document to support this. Is there a charter or letter from Lamberton to bear out the assertion? I doubt it, becasue if it did I'm pretty sure that it would have come to light at some point in the last hundred years or so. Is there any reference to such a thing in any of the collections of Scottish medieval texts? I have not examined every early 14th century Scottish document in existence, but I have read a great many (lots in 'Calendars' etc, and a good many originals in LOndon and Edinburgh) as well as gaining a pretty thorough acquantance with the very extensive scholarly literature on medieval Scotland in the course of preparing my Ph.D.. I have yet to encounter any medieval evidence or reputable scholarly analysis which would indicate a Templar survival. I'm not clear about what is meant by 'different IP addresses'. Every alteration I have ever made to Wikipedia has been made from this computer and no other. Verifiable sources? Well....on the one hand we have the work of many fine scholars of the period (Barrow, Duncan, Nicholson, M. Brown, Watson, Barrell, Yeoman, Young to name but a few) none of whom seem to have ever given the slightest credence to Templar survival; on the other we have unsupported assertions from enthusiasts who have signally failed to provide anything in the way of valid supporting material from the middle ages. Obviously one cannot prove a negative - that is to say that no documents exist, only that hey have not come to the attention of scholars. Equally it is unreasonable to claim a factual basis for Templar survival unless valid medeival evidence can be produced. We may be able to 'verufy' that a particular website or romantic writer saya this or that, but have those authors provided verifiable evidence to support their statements? Not so far. I do not say that the Templar tale is necessarily invalid in itself, merely that no valid material has been produced to support it, that the story flies in the face of informed analysis and that no reputable scholar gives it the time of day. If medieval evidence (as opposed to assertions on websites and the like) can be produced and verified by palaeographers and historians I will be only too happy to revise my position accordingly, but in the meantime it would be better, surely, if we stuck with what we actually know about Scotland in the later middle ages rather than what romantics would like to have been the case. Referencing specualtive, unsubstantiated staements by conspiracy theorists, romatics and psuedohistorians does not strengthen the case for Templar survival, it merely shows that one has read those statements and that one is prepared to citre them uncritically 81.156.60.100 15:37, 1 September 2007 (UTC)Docbro

Interesting to note that these edits are now signed "Docbro", "Dr Chris Brown", when it was previously signed "CsinC". [1], [2],[3]and[4]. What has changed, I wonder? 217.44.85.35 10:49, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Benn a while csinc worked here! Still no sign of medieval evidence, but I notice that a number of items have been dropped from the page, presumably due to the lack of medieval evidence to support them? If such evidence existed it is not necessarily the case that it would be found in the pages of the more accesible collections of medieval documents realting to Scotland (RRS, RMS, CDS, Stevenson' s 'Documents' and the like, but it is pretty much unimaginable that it would not have come to light through the extensive studies of documents conducted by medieval historians and palaeographers over the last hundred years and more. Templar survival in Scoltand would va e been most remarkable for a variety of diplomatic and politcal reasons and would have provided a fascinating topic for many a scholarly thesis or dissertaion; indeed a sound historical examination of such evidence would - by the standards of historical publishing anyway - probably be a bestseller, one wonders, therefore, why no-one has taken it up. The utter lack of medieval evidence wight be the reason! 11:08, 4 September 2007 (UTC) None of the 'references' on the main page consitute anything that could be considered as medieval evidence; they may tell you what a website builder or writer thinks, but they do not provide any verifiable contemporary material; that is to say record or narrative writing from the early 14th century This lack of material must surely be the reason that none of the great scholars of medieval Scotland (such as Duncan, Barrow, M. Brown, Watson, Nicholson, Barrell, Reid, Galbriath, Simpson, Prestwich, Young, etc. etc.)have given their support to 'Templar survival'. On the other hand, between them, these scholars have written extensively and with great skill and perception on pretty well every aspect of Scotland in the later middle ages. Is there a great conspircay of historians who have a vested interest in hiding Templar acitivity from the wider community? If so, what would hey hope to gain? docbro81.156.59.149 13:26, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Many of the references are from pulished books? None are given by you 81.156.59.149 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) --Alithea 13:37, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

None of the references are from serious pieces of work; how do you give a references to a documents that do not exist. On the other hand I am aware that there are no references to indicate Templar survival in any of the very extensive published collections of medieval documants relating to Scotland such as Regesta Regum Scottorum, Register of the Great Seal, Calendar of Documents Relating to Scotland, Stevenson's 'Documents' Rotuli Scotiae or the Chamberlain's Rolls, nor in any of the unpublished documents at Kew or Register House which I have seen, nor in any that have been referred to in discussions with scholars deeply immersed in the subject, nor in any of the piles of secondary work (published and unpublished) that I have consulted. If medieval evidence exists, let's all see it. I would willingly exchange one pair of eye-teeth for such a bombshell of a document, and I expect any number of Scottish medievalists would feel the same way. It is true that absence of evidence is not the same a evidence of absence, but if there is no evidence to support the contention of Templar survival what exactly is that contention based on? ---docbro —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.156.59.149 (talk) 13:52, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

In your opinion. Wikipedia is not about individual opinions, it is collaborative verifiable,WP:NPOVwork by groups of editors. You cannot edit without providing support for your edits. --Alithea 14:14, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Who, then, gets to decide what is or is not verifiable? Does this mean that the declaration that Lamberton offered the Templars protection is verified because someone once said so? If there is a medieval documant to support that declaration I would very much like to see it, as would every medieval scholar in Scotland. Are we to accept that Lamberton was Guardain of Scxotland in 1312? Again, if the documentation exists then ethere are lots of seriously skilled scholars who would love to have a look at that becasue it would have very important implications about the relationship between Robert I and the Papacy and Robert's relationship with some of the senior members of the political community. If, on the other hand, the evidence does not exist to support the contention, then the contention shouild not be presented as fact. Thus if the page read 'it has been suggested by...... that Lamberton offered ...' then the entry is perfectly valid - assuming that the writer cited did actually express that opinion. There is no question that the writer would have been incorrect, but he/she made the suggestion. However the piece does categorically describe Lamberton as 'Guardian of Scotland', which is not the case.-----docbro —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.156.59.149 (talk) 14:35, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

The article linked to other Wikipedia articles reads Bishop Lamberton of St Andrews, Guardian of Scotland 1299-1301 not 1312, supported by references. --Alithea 15:31, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

It now gives dates ro Lamberton's Guardianship,,,which is an improvement to the site and therefore a good thing. However the source cited does not give a reference to contmporary documentary evidence, it merely makes an assertion. If the main page of the cite read aomething along the lines of ...it has been suggested.... that would be perfectly reasonable, however until such time as valid evidence is presented to support the premise that Lamberton offered protection to the Templar order it is still just a suggestion. It is not impossile that Lamberton did offer his protection, but it should be seen as being extremely unlikely since it would be very much contrary to the diplomatic interests of Robert I given the importance of his realtionships with Philip of France and the Pope. Further, what would Lamberton or Robert have to gain by offering sanctuary? The serices of a handful of men-at-awrms would not be worth the risk of offending France or the Papacy.¬¬¬¬docbro —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.43.70.24 (talk) 16:01, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Keep it the article as it is ¬¬¬¬docbro —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.44.85.252 (talk) 20:19, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Just to record, because the revision history of this page is temporarily not working, the original and correct title of this section, and what it discusses is "Dr Chris Brown" and his unreferenced edits to the article. Someone, presumably the user who signs "Docbro" keeps changing the title to reflect his/her interpretation of those edits, probably with the intention of changing the meaning of the section. Without citations they are of no value to Wikipedia. --213.158.197.203 15:37, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

It is impossible to cite evidence of a negative for obvious reasons, however it is still the case that NO medieval evidence has been produced to support the variouys contentions that I - and others apparently - have deleted. This is not a question of my interpretation, merely an observation. Of course one has a preference for evidence over assertions that are not supported by contemporary evidence...what else would one expect from a historian? If medieval evidence exists to support the contention that bishop Lamberton offeref protection to Templars then why not cite that evidence? If there are any reputable scholars of medieval Scotland who support the contention then why not cite them? Presumably such scholars cannot be cited because they do not exist. Come to think of it, if the supporters of the Templar stories are so sure of their beleif, why have they failed to engage with the scholarly community, producing their evidence or - at the very least - a credible analysis? the reason that I keep deleting the claim that Lamberton offered the Templars sanctuary is that the claim is not supported by anything in the way of actual evidence that has been examined by palaeographers or historians.-----docbro.

It is possibly relevant that in John of Fordun's Chronicle of the Scottish Nation edited by W F Skene ISBN 978-1897853054, a major source of Scottish mediaeval history, there is no mention of the Templars. Dr Chris Brown is a Scottish Mediaeval Historian, author amongs others of William Wallace: The True Story of Braveheart ISBN 0752434322. Despite the lack of references to support edits to date, we should respect and welcome his contribution. --Quaerere Verum 05:56, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Talk-page, not a discussion forum

This page is to discuss the article, and not the subject matter. It is not a discussion forum. Please consider this before adding further comments. --Quaerere Verum 05:33, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I was heavily involved with one of the worst offending "Scottish Knights Templars" groups whose websites have been responsible for churning out some of the most arrognant statements concerning the survival of the Knights Templar in Scotland. During the entire period of my involvement not one scrap of anywhere near remotely credible evidence could be produced by those making the claims to confirm the continuation of their "Order" from the medieval one but, instead, copious amounts of photocopied entries from extremely poorly-researched Victorian works and complete misrepresentations of extracts of Hospitaller documents were flung in my direction as "proof."

I agree with a statement above, IF Wiki is to be a credible and reliable source then all mention of this ridiculous "continuing Order" debate needs to be scrubbed and replaced only with the facts which, as it happens, are contained within numerous historical documents and texts and happen to make very interesting reading on their own without the need for any ego-driven aggrandisement. If any neo-Templar gets annoyed at this then all they have to do is to bring one document to the table which proves all the researchers and all the academics wrong. Let's face it, if they are to be believed, this shouldn't be too difficult if they are sitting on what must be vast archives dating back to the 14th century.

This page should be kept apart and not merged with that covering the Order in England but it needs to be completely redone removing all the unsubstantiated entries and claims, the bulk of which are merely products of over-active imaginations, and stripped back to only the proven facts. 86.141.251.119 (talk) 18:12, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Possibly pointy nomination for deletion

This article was nominated for deletion on 25 January 2008, and the result was WP:Speedy Keep. Here, for the record, is the archived discussion. --Sannhet (talk) 22:28, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

There was no reason for "speedy keep". Please read WP:Speedy Keep first! Page is not "policy", I´m not banned or vandal, and I don't withdraws the nomination. Yopie 16:11, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Well now, you've gone right past point 1, "No-one other than the nominator recommends that the page be deleted"? The debate is closed for that reason, and reverting the WP:AfD tag only leads to the closed debate. This article is part of the Knights Templar series, if you really think these articles are not needed, why don't you take up your cause there, instead of singling out this article for no purpose obvious other than disruption after the deletion of your article Pseudo-orders, archived discussion? --Frank Ness (talk) 17:19, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Yopie, it is not possible to keep the WP:Afd open. It is closed, in accordance with Wikedia's articles for deletion process. The result was Speedy keep, possibly pointy nomination. Now, perhaps you can give a credible explanation here why you put an established, referenced and cited article for deletion. If as you put it "No one need article about extinct order in one country. With this direction there can be "Knights Templar in Ireland", or "Order of St. Stanislaus in Sweden"", then can you explain why have many editors contributed to a Knights Templar Series? Will you try to have the series deleted, because somehow you saw the deletion of your article Pseudo-orders as a plot by the dead hand of an extinct Order? --Quaerere Verum (talk) 20:24, 27 January 2008 (UTC)