Talk:Knights Templar (Freemasonry)

message: I think we may want to separate US and UK Templar info either on the same page as was done for the York Rite or make two separate pages as the info seems to be mixed in at random and makes the article difficult to read. PeRshGo (talk) 23:52, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: UK & US

message: I noticed that someone attempted to change the name of this page to Knights Templar (Freemasonry).  I have reverted the move, since the current name (Freemason degree) was one that was established in 2006 by consensus.  See Talk:Knights Templar/Archive 4#Templar disambiguation - Page rename proposal.  If there is strong feeling that the name is inappropriate, we can of course re-discuss the matter, and if there is consensus to move the page to a different name, we can definitely do so. But until then, we should keep it at its current name. --Elonka 20:03, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Page naming

message: It should be noted that you must be willing to defend the Christian Faith.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sir Kesterson (talk • contribs) 21:41, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: While the changes you made to the main page are fine as the wording is still in line with Grand Encampment policy I think standard interpretation would be that if you "profess a belief in the Christian Religion" you are then a Christian. The Grand Encampment's motto is even "Every Christian Mason should be a Knight Templar." And as I assume that you are the same individual who challenged the statement on the York Rite page as well I'll say the same thing that was concluded there. Though local Commanderies may interpret the rules loosely, that doesn’t change the rules themselves. PeRshGo (talk) 22:46, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: However, while I agree with your POV, isn't I think standard interpretation would be that if you "profess a belief in the Christian Religion" you are then a Christian equal to original research, via synthesis?--Vidkun (talk) 23:22, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: As Wikipedians it's our job to summarize and interpret in encyclopedic fashion. If I read a sentence that states that you must be a member of the Masonic fraternity and profess a belief in the Christian Religion to join an organization I feel that writing the organization is open only to Christian Masons would be a reasonable summary. This is because being a Christian can be easily described as someone who believes in the Christian religion. PeRshGo (talk) 23:56, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's WP:synth.  The source doesn't explicitly say "open only to Christian Masons" but "profess a belief in the Christian Religion".  I agree with your summary, here in discussion space, but not in article space.--Vidkun (talk) 01:05, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: And that's why I didn't revert his edits. PeRshGo (talk) 01:16, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The situation in England is quite clear - this Order is open only to those Freemasons who profess the Christian faith. As far as I am aware, the same is true in the USA, and the above is merely an exercise in splitting hairs. Timothy Titus Talk To TT 14:19, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

text: My American Commandery only permits professed Christians to membership as well. In fact many of us are practicing and active members of our respective Christian congregations. Simply put to receive York Rite Christian orders and not be a Christian is almost hallow in nature and without merit. Christianity is the very center of the orders and to come in not being a believer is like just "going through the steps" because of ones curiosity. Why become a knight if you are anything but a Christian, Commandery Easter Service, Christmas Parties, Church Services, Holy Land trips. Nothing there for anyone who is anything other than a mason who is a Christian.  Its like being a Knights of Columbus and not being Catholic. Christus Rex!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.229.67.81 (talk) 03:03, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not Exclusive to Christian Freemasons 

message: I'm actually in the masonic knights templar myself. Sorry for the bad article, I never knew those other guys existed. However the logos are misplaced. The cross pattee as a symbol of the independent body should therefore be next to Knights Templar as an Independent Body, and the cross and the crown as a symbol of body within the York Rite should therefore be next to Knights Templar as a part of the York Rite. Align them to the right if you want. 
Also on the right hand side you got "part of a series", then a picture, then another "part of a series". It would make more sense (and look better) to lead with the picture then have both "series of" beneath it.
Third, the current introduction is almost entirely worhtless to someone who isn't a mason. Information about the masonic Knights Templar is not clear anywhere on the web. Almost the entire thing talks about its name. If the name is important enough to have its own ssection then fine. If I, a member, confused my own organization with the International Knights Templar, then we should include something " the masonic knights temmplar should not be confused with..." 
Fourth, the title "Administration" does not appear to talk about anything administrative, but how the two bodies are organizied. 
Fifth this paragraph :
"This body is modeled on the historical Knights Templar and hopes to carry on the spirit of their organization. Throughout history it has been claimed that Freemasonry itself was founded by the Knights Templar or that the Knights Templar took refuge in Freemasonry after their persecution. The Grand Encampment of the United States acknowledges the existence of these theories, but states that there is no proof to justify such claims.[2]"
does it apply only to those in the York Rite, or also to the independent bodies. If it applys to both, then I think it be in the introduction. 
Finally, can we get a picture of someone in his dress uniform as the main picture? It would look a lot better then that tiny cross  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.3.41.68 (talk) 18:30, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi again. Yes indeed, and they're not the only ones. I am personally aware of at least four organisations styling themselves 'Knights Templar' (including the one of which you and I are members). I'm happy to have a look at those pictures, but I must repeat what I said on your (corporate) talk page - Wikipedia is viewed on so many different types of computer, through so many different browsers, in so many different resolutions, that we need to adopt norms for style rather than seeing what "looks good" on our own computers - because it will look very different to another viewer on a different computer. I don't agree with you about the lead paragraph. It is very descriptive - of course it must include the full formal name of the organisation. I note you want to change "affiliated with Freemasonry" to "affiliated with Freemasonry and Christianity", but, with respect, this is wrong. Our organisation of Knights Templar IS affiliated with Freemasonry, but it is not in any formal sense affiliated with Christianity or with any Christian church - although we do state that membership is only open to members of the Christian religion. Regarding your other points, I think we have all tried to be careful to keep this article international, and not give it an undue weighting towards any one nation. Words like "administration" may have slightly different resonances in different countries, but I don't think its use here is unusual. The "dress uniform" to which you refer is an American thing. For Masonic Knights Templar in Europe, and indeed most of the world, there is no such thing, and nothing even remotely similar. I appreciate you want to put information about the lack of direct connection with the medieval Knights Templar, but we already have that information very clearly in the article, in the section about the Knight Templar degree. The overview is about the whole of the "United Orders", and not only the degree of Knight Templar (Knight of the Temple). Timothy Titus Talk To TT 19:17, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rewriting for clarity

message: Sometimes I'm led to believe in this article that "knights templar" is the collective name of all three or four orders put together. Other times I think that a Knight Templar is just one order (order of the temple) found in a larger system of three or four degrees. So which is it?
jsinger123
--132.3.41.68 (talk) 14:21, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a common issue with masonic bodies in general. Royal Arch Masonry for example is called Royal Arch Masonry, or "chapter" despite the fact it in many jurisdictions includes a lodge of Mark Master Masons, lodge of Past Masters, lodge of Most Excellent Masters, AND the chapter of Royal Arch Masons. It appears to just to be a Masonic custom to refer to bodies by their final degree. PeRshGo (talk) 03:05, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I absolutely agree with the above. Certainly in the British way of organising things most Masonic 'Orders' have multiple actual Degrees or Orders within their system. Personally I think we make this exceedingly clear in the Knights Templar article. This is why we give the full title of the Order in the lead paragraph, and mention the different constituent Orders. We also go on to provide individual explanations of each Order within the system. Historically there have been literally thousands of different masonic degrees and orders, many now defunct. It is not surprising that over time many of them have become connected together under joint management and administration, in processes which are well documented historically. Timothy Titus Talk To TT 03:22, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

text: Wikipedia naming conventions favor a subject's common name over their full or more accurate name. PeRshGo (talk) 17:40, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  confused about the Order 

message: why there is no mention that people who join this ordre are the real masters of the world ? - they rule in secrecy and create a kind of "private club" that hinder others to get higher positions  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.154.85.42 (talk) 02:35, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: That's because this is an encyclopaedia, dealing in facts, for rational people. It is not a forum, dealing in wacky conspiracy theories, for crazy people. I hope that answers the question. Timothy Titus Talk To TT 08:46, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: RULERS OUT OF SHADOW

message: I've filled out as much early history as I could find, and removed the "history needed" tag. It is polite to admit that there is still a big gap between where I've left off and the evolution of the various Templars today. I sort of run out of steam about 1815.Fiddlersmouth (talk) 23:36, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Very good start to the history section. It’s going to be difficult to balance all the contradictory information out there, but thanks for being the first person to really give it a shot. PeRshGo (talk) 23:21, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Long time replying, due to dead hard drive. A LOT of this stuff is going to teeter on the edge of OR. The best we can do is give the refs and try not to interpret. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 01:09, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  History still needed. 

message: I am a member of the commandery The title of Degree of St Paul or the Degree of Malta are not worked within the York Rite system in the way a laymen would think the 1,2,3rd degrees are given in the basic craft lodge (most if not all members of the York Rite dont have a problem making the differentiation). Simply put in both the EU and US tradition the "grades" given within the Commandery system of membership are called Orders. I dont think its very necessary to split the Masonic Templar page into a EU/UK or US versions. While there are some differnces (mostly titles and names, and in the way we dress) both organizations are in full amity and share essential prerequisists to each others membership. To split the page in such a way would be more confusing than it already is to outsiders. 
Which brings us to another problem is the reference verification in Wiki on a masonic page or any other page where certain details of an organization are only truly known by its members. How to you make an annotated reference on knowledge that not only is confidential but hundreds if not thousands of years old. Truth is you can't and the subject seems to counfound those tunnel vision, deer in headlights thinkers who try to pidgeon hole every subject they come across and call themselves intellectual. Profs make you cite references to make sure your paper is not a rant or that you actually read the matierial. instead its been used to hem in free thought making rather lazy and ineffective instructors and teachers looking only at the reference matierial rather than what the student wrote.   — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.216.166.126 (talk) 04:24, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi. I've moved your comment to the bottom of the talk page, in accordance with agreed practice on Wikipedia - please always add new comments at the bottom of the page or section to which they refer. Also, do please sign your posts. You seem to be responding largely to a very old comment (posted in 2009) perhaps because you're reading the page "upside down" (as if the newest comments are at the top - which they aren't). In any case, the current form of the article is according to consensus. Despite your opinion, there are very considerable differences between the American and European forms of Knight Templar Freemasonry. Not just the way we dress (which is very different, but superficial), but more importantly the whole concept of KT Masonry being part of a rite (the York Rite) is normal in the US and totally alien to Europe. Additionally the US version has an entire extra degree which doesn't exist in Europe. We have dealt with this by giving details of both systems on a single page, which I think makes it very clear that this is the same organisation, but worked somewhat differently on the two sides of the Atlantic. As for your final point, I don't think most of us find any problem in this area - Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, where we record facts about an organisation. An esoteric essay would not be appropriate here, so there is no conflict. Timothy Titus Talk To TT 14:24, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Orders or Degrees

message: Looking above it seems I made similar suggestion back in 2009, but none the less I’d like to see if I can reignite a discussion on creating Grand Priory and Grand Encampment pages for the specifics of the individual bodies. This page remains very difficult to read due to the conflicting information included about the two largest grand bodies. I just had to remove an infobox which would have seemed to imply this page is just about the Grand Priory. There is no shortage of resources available about the both of them. It may be time they got their own pages. I was thinking about writing a Knights Templar Eye Foundation page anyway, and it seems to reason a Grand Encampment page would go along well with it. If may however, be too large of a subject for me to reasonably take on alone. PeRshGo (talk) 16:43, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Grand Priory & Grand Encampment Pages 

message: I must agree the title and much of the verbiage is confusing and conflicting. At least four decades separate the last record of the Templar’s and the emergence of Free Masonary? Another poster was chastised for a lack of histical knowledge! Free Masons have no more lineage to the Templar’s than do serveal groups that use the Templar name today! Templar’s were, at their premise, Warrior Monks! (unsigned)
:I've moved your comments from the top of the page, and given them their own section.  This is a protocol that all Editors must follow, for obvious reasons.  You also need to title your section, and sign your contributions, in order to maintain a comprehensible structure.  Also incorrect spelling, grammar errors and format errors serve as indicators of a lack of competency and credibility.Tym Whittier (talk) 21:45, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Untitled IP Comment (moved from top of page to it's own section)