Talk:Caynton Caves

Synthesis regarding Templar dispute

The doubt cast on the Templar connection seems to rely on improper synthesis. We have very old references used (including one from 1935) that might not have much bearing on the particular context. If modern scholars doubt the Templar connection, then we should quote them. StAnselm (talk) 19:01, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

That wasn't my text and I'm not against removing it - but where are the sources that "say the interior carvings include two Templar crosses", and are they reliable? I'm not aware of any academic sources that claim a Templar connection, so it's highly unlikely that any modern scholars have considered it. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:31, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

It was in the Shropshire Star, and I doubt it is reliable. And it's very vague: "Some people say it may have been associated with the Templars as the interior carvings include two Templar crosses and because of the group’s affiliation to St Mary Magdalene". So I didn't add it to the article - but it was enough to remove the contrary unsourced assertion. StAnselm (talk) 19:45, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

The Templar crosses claim refers to Ludlow Castle - in a quite different part of Shropshire - not the caves. "Within Ludlow Castle is an early Norman chapel dedicated to St Mary Magdalene. Some people say it may have been associated with the Templars as the interior carvings include two Templar crosses..." There are plenty of media sources in the past couple of days that assert a Templar connection to the caves, but I haven't been able to track down where the claim was first made, and I haven't seen anything to give it any credibility. Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:05, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Oops! My mistake - I misread it. In any case, we would still need a source for the lack of iconography. StAnselm (talk) 20:35, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Why do you think the Snopes link is irrelevant? It directly concerns the caves. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:02, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

The irrelevance lies in the snopes article being about whether the caves were "secret" rather than the Templar connection (which of course is the main thing to debunk). StAnselm (talk) 22:14, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

But this article is not about the Templar connection. It's about the cave, and about how the cave has been reported. How can an article about the cave not be relevant? Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:19, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

I agree it's relevant. Interesting issue as to whether we can use something by a reliable source if it's from a blog. Doug Weller talk 07:57, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

That question arises in relation to the Ashley Cowie quote, later removed. As Cowie is regarded as a respected author in this field, in my view his opinions can be included as opinions, per WP:BLOGS. Mind you, his article needs a lot of work. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:32, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

No, WP:BLOGS says "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications" (emphasis original). Cowie is certainly a real historian, an has published in the field (which I think we have to say in terms of the quote is "the Knights Templar") BUT those publications were not published by "reliable third-party publications": The Rosslyn Matrix by Wicker World and The Rosslyn Templar by Luath Press. StAnselm (talk) 11:00, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Luath Press seems to be a reputable independent, but non-academic, publisher, and I'm sure that a "former Wick fishmonger and now leading symbologist" meets all the required criteria for reliability. Possibly. An alternative source for countering, or at least downplaying, the Templar claims might be the now-revised BBC page here, which in its latest version refers to "local legends" and says "the rumoured connection between the caves and medieval knights seems unlikely". Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:49, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Well, I thought the history.com article was fine. Luath is small and local - it does not appear that Cowie's work on the Templars was subject to peer review and scholarly evaluation. StAnselm (talk) 20:20, 11 March 2017 (UTC)