Talk:Knights Templar

Commanderies Map Request

Commanderies Map Locations

FA concerns - bad sources

Several of the sources used in this older FA do not seem to be sufficiently reliable, especially since this subject has attracted some fringe views.

• "Stephen A. Dafoe. "In Praise of the New Knighthood". TemplarHistory.com. Archived from the original on 26 March 2017. Retrieved 20 March 2007." - this appears to be someone's blog
• We shouldn't really be using snopes for an FA, FA sourcing is suppose to be higher standard
• This article uses the History Channel a lot - it's now considered unreliable due to publishing all sorts of fringe stuff; so we really shouldn't be using it to site stuff in a FA when the subject has attracted sizable fringe views
• I don't think urbanlegends.about.com should be used
• "The Order of Christ and the Papacy". 6 May 2008. Archived from the original on 6 May 2008." - from jvarnoso.com. What makes this high-quality RS or even RS?
• What makes medievalwarfare.info RS?
• Red Wheel Weiser Conari mainly just publishes New Age/occult stuff, I'm not convinced books published by it are a sound source for this subject.
• "Clausen, Daniel (2021). Templar Succession: Establishing Continuity 1307-Present. Codex Spiritualis Press. pp. 21–61. ISBN 979-8465277525." - doesn't appear to be reliable, possibly fringe
• " Louis Charpentier, Les Mystères de la Cathédrale de Chartres (Paris: Robert Laffont, 1966), translated The Mysteries of Chartres Cathedral (London: Research Into Lost Knowledge Organization, 1972)." - what makes this RS? RILKO looks pretty fringy
• "Isle of Avalon, Lundy. "The Rule of the Knights Templar A Powerful Champion" The Knights Templar. Mystic Realms, 2010. Web" - doesn't appear to be reliable
• Newman mainly writes fiction, what makes her high-quality RS for this article?

Someone way more familiar with this subject than me should also give this a run-through to make sure this isn't giving undue weight to fringe viewpoints and is adequately representing scholarly consensus. Hog Farm _Talk 15:00, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

• Doesn't look great - the sources are variable, but seem generally (from memory) to reflect modern historians' views. The main problem, it seems to me, is the very skimpy account of the order's history in the Middle East when at the height of its importance, a big hole in the middle of the article. The early rise & later fall are dealt with in far greater detail. Some of the phrasing seems iffy too - they weren't monks & the order shouldn't be called "monastic". Would need a deal of work I think. It averages over 4,000 views pd, so it would be good if it can be improved. Johnbod (talk) 04:52, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

  The issue is that in the history of my people, we spent a lot of time and effory leading people of our trail. So the historians (credible sources) are literally the ones we polluted. To ask a modern historian about us as Knights Templar is to ask a modern historian to tell you what lies we told to protect ourselves from ignoring and opposing kings and the church. Genuinely, the ONLY way you will learn the truth about the order, especially after the fracture, is through Templar historians. 125.253.40.117 (talk) 05:09, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

• Thanks for the great list, I'm reviewing now. As regards snopes.com and urbanlegends.about.com, at the time they were worth including because of the issue with the "Friday the 13th" (incorrect) association with the Templars. It's difficult to prove a negative - There are no reliable sources that state the Friday legend originated with the Templars, but plenty of unreliable sources that do. Even our own Friday the 13th article doesn't seem to tackle it. And our Knights Templar in popular culture article uses the same Snopes and Urban Legends sources. I haven't looked recently to see if any reliable scholars have decided to publish about this, so if anyone else knows of a good source to prove the negative, that would be very helpful. --Elonka 17:35, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Knights Templar

[moved from Wikipedia talk:Be bold]
Quote: While the "Roman Church" has been used to describe the pope's Diocese of Rome since the Fall of the Western Roman Empire and into the Early Middle Ages (6th–10th century), the "Roman Catholic Church" has been applied to the whole church in the English language since the Protestant Reformation in the late 16th century. Further, some will refer to the Latin Church as "Roman Catholic" in distinction from the Eastern Catholic churches. "Roman Catholic" has occasionally appeared also in documents produced both by the Holy See, and notably used by certain national episcopal conferences and local dioceses. This article identifies the Templars as founded in 1119 sometime before the Reformation, yet states it was a Catholic Military Order. Saying it was "Endorsed by the Roman Catholic Church" feels imprecise. Would prefer the church to be called the Christian Church as it would be identified at the time and Christian Military Order. Shanno52 (talk) 15:50, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Hierosolymitanis/Jerusalem in the name

The infobox's Latin title for the order ends in "Hierosolymitanis," which wiktionary says means "of Jerusalem." But, that's not mentioned anywhere in the intro text or "Name" section. If it was part of the full name, perhaps that should be included in the English somewhere. SSSheridan (talk) 11:29, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

This is almost completely incorrect.

As a Knight Templar Grand Master and a descendant of the Rolland line, I must correct numerous inaccuracies. The authors and editors of this page rely on biased sources and guesswork.

Our history has been intentionally concealed. We evaded the Inquisition for centuries by spreading false narratives, ensuring our true nature and activities remained hidden.

To suggest we were a "French military order" is incorrect. We were not loyal to any single nation but were soldiers of God’s army, dedicated to His divine mission across the entire Earth. We considered the rule of kings over us irrelevant, which led to significant conflicts with secular and ecclesiastical authorities.

The claim that the Roman Catholic Church dissolved us is also incorrect. While they proclaimed our dissolution, we did not form under their mandate but were merely recognized by them. Their declaration did not end our existence; it marked the beginning of our concealment—what we call "the fracture." We continued to operate in places like Portugal and Scotland, defying the dissolution and maintaining our order. However, we lost communication with each other, meaning that each sliver of the fracture started forming different rules and ways of hiding. Even we Templars are still looking for others of the fracture to reunite. We don't even know the story of all our segments, so there is no way you can.

The statement that Templars were arrested, tried, or absorbed into other orders overlooks those who persisted, especially in Portugal and Scotland, significantly. The use of “were” implies a past tense, but we are an enduring and current entity.

The assertion that there is no clear historical connection to modern organizations is actually a testament to our successful concealment. If such evidence existed, we failed in our efforts. That said, yes, different churches did create different "Templar" groups in their orders—and they can do it today—but that does not mean we are or are not in that group. We could be.

We continue to seek the whereabouts of all fragments of our order, and relying on books by those who do not understand us is misguided.

You do not know us. If you WANT to know about us, ASK US. Don't assume as your "historians" do. Ask our historians.

Deus Vult,

Shannon Smith Militi Templi Sigillum Militum Xpisti

125.253.40.117 (talk) 05:03, 18 July 2024 (UTC)