Talk:Knights Templar/Archive 4

message: I removed "the day that started the legend of Friday the 13th,".  The origins of Friday the 13th being viewed as a Very Bad Day are not known well enough to (for example) point at any specific event as its source.
:::::::—-- That Guy, From That Show! (talk) 2006-02-16 03:59Z
: Thanks, I moved it over to Knights Templar legends.  --Elonka 04:52, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Please consider the Gregorian Calendar, the Julian calendar, etc. Also, here's some calculating tools , which does alculate it to be a Friday of the <U>Julian</U> calendar... [User:Grye|Grye]] 22:48, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Friday the 13th reference 

message: What should the article title be, for this article?  Any names can be suggested, but the leading contenders seem to be:  Knights Templar, Knights Templar (medieval order), Knights Templar (military order), and Poor Fellow Soldiers of Christ and the Temple of Solomon (a vote for this last one is probably easiest to say as "Full name").  Please vote below, thanks.  -----
* Knights Templar (medieval order) -- I'm actually in support of any title that is not simply "Knights Templar", because I think that that one is the most confusing.  But if I had to choose one, I would say to call it the medieval order, or the full name at this point. --Elonka 23:13, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, the consensus is clear.  I have requested admin assistance via WP:RM. --Elonka 21:56, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Straw poll - Page renaming 

message: Admins: Consensus for the move of this page to the title Knights Templar has been reached, as seen above. I will go ahead and start updating the secondary links -- please go ahead and take care of the move as soon as is practicable.  Thanks. --Elonka 22:14, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It has been moved (I'm not sure what you were doing with the redirect, I would have had to delete it anyway). I suppose someone should fix the double redirects now...Adam Bishop 01:30, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks!  The redirect was temporary, while I was sorting out some of the other Templar pages.  I'll go ahead and finalize everything now, thank you for your help!  --Elonka 02:38, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 

message: Hi, I've just received a comment on my user talk page about the category changes I implemented.  It wasn't my intention to cause controversy and, from the note that had been on the :Category:Knights Templar, this seemed to be a needed change.  Here's what I did: I created a subcategory :Category:Medieval Knights Templar and moved articles that were specific to the Medieval period into it.  This appears as a subcategory under :Category:Knights Templar.
I hadn't any idea that this could be viewed as controversial, so if someone objects please state the reason and how I can accommodate your concerns.
The reason I implemented this was as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Middle Ages task force.  Medieval warfare in general had been poorly organized at Wikipedia: important categories were underpopulated or nonexistent, numerous battles and other articles hadn't been categorized.  Some obvious categories hadn't even existed, such as :Category:Medieval weapons.  Since the Knights Templar were an important part of Medieval history, and since it didn't make any sense (to me) to include Harry Truman under a subcategory of :Medieval warfare, I implemented what I thought was a routine change.  It seems I may have stepped on some toes here.  Please accept my apologies. Durova 20:44, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Durova, thanks for popping in.  I think the issue that might be most controversial, is leaving :Category:Knights Templar to the Freemasons, since the general consensus here seems to be that the primary meaning of the term should be for the Medieval Order, and not for the Masonic degree.  My recommendation (as I mentioned on the Category talk page) is that we make another subcategory :Category:Masonic Knights Templar for the Freemasons, and basically leave the :Category:Knights Templar category empty except for the subcategories :Category:Masonic Knights Templar and :Category:Medieval Knights Templar.  That will make it easy to check, if some other editor on Wikipedia adds an article to Knights Templar, for us to spot it and make sure that it gets changed to the appropriate subcategory.  We still need to figure out how to get the articles themselves properly named, but that's probably the clearest way to handle the categories.  Anyone else have an opinion?  --Elonka 20:55, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Anyone who wants to create a separate subcategory for freemasons is welcome to do so.  It sounds like an excellent idea.  Not something I'd have the time to detour and do on my own, though.  I'll spend a little time on the articles in the subcategory I created: correcting Wikilinks, looking for images to import from other language editions of Wikipedia, and other basic housekeeping.  Please let me know if there are other sensitive issues I should be aware of.  Regards, Durova 21:10, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Apology 

message: I think the link with the Priory of Sion deserves at least a mention in the legends section of this page (especially the Instance of the Cutting of the Elm in 1188 seeing as something happened here even if it is in dispute exactly what)
:If you can provide a source (I don't really know anything about the Cutting of the Elm, even after googling it), I would invite you to add something to the legends section (you can wikilink it to the Priory of Sion article) - generally, the Priory of Sion is not taken seriously by most historians/academia, so I believe it should be kept to the legends section.DonaNobisPacem 06:30, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  No mention of important topic 

message: So why isn't this page at Knights Templar? This is clearly the best known subject at that name; Knights Templar (disambiguation) should link from here.--Cúchullain t/c 06:38, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That exact topic is currently being discussed.  See "Straw Poll" above, and cast your vote!  --Elonka 16:13, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oops, didn't see it. Thanks!--Cúchullain t/c 23:53, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Article name

message: With all the work in separating the Templars into historical, legend, modern orders, etc - it seems to me the external links on this article should stick to the historical.  Links to modern day orders, legends etc belong on the applicable pages, which can be linked to under "See Also."  Do I find agreement amongst my fellow editors?  If so, I shall delete the current external links to modern orders...DonaNobisPacem 07:47, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I fail to see the reason why they belong, so I would agree. -- Domino theory 08:32, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree, external links to modern orders should be moved to the other pages (Legends, Masonic, etc.) as appropriate. --Elonka 17:21, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links 

message: This is from memory and desparately needs sources, but I am pretty sure that the following is accurate:
# Although military fashions changed thoughout the period, for the majority of their existence Templar knights wore a white surcoat with the red templar cross in the center and a white mantle (cloak) also probably with a templar cross over the heart.  [this should/could probably be dated exactly].  They didn't wear a habit into battle (like the Hospitallers did until mid 13th century when they too adopted the surcoat), perhaps they wore the habit when not fighting.  [clarification is needed here because early in the article habits are mentioned later in the article surcoats are mentioned]
::I think the use of the word habit is an editorial mistake here...the mantle and surcoat are the only references I have seen in checking on this.DonaNobisPacem 05:12, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed that this is crucial to point out - the fall of one fortress (I'm having a blank on the name - Al Attain? - was due to the abandonment of the fortress by the numerous local turcopoles used to man the fortress (in the hundreds, compared to the small number of knights and slightly larger number of seargents at the fortress)DonaNobisPacem 05:12, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I know they frequently negotiated their own treaties, much to the chagrin of crusading kings and local feudal lords - one such treaty resulted in the public humiliation of Templar officials by King Frederick of Germany after they negotiated a treaty he had no knowledge of and was opposed to (he made them, in front of his troops, march barefoot and then publicly reverse their negotiations before a Muslim emissary). DonaNobisPacem 05:12, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

text: In Barber's book (and I think Peter Partner's as well), he speaks of them owning armour and weaponry, a few horses (the Masters and other officials were entitled to more), a few pack animals (the number depending on rank within the order) and the right to a number of pages (again depending on rank).DonaNobisPacem 05:12, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

text: It was based upon the Cistercian rule - their rule was largely developed by St. Benedict - but was expanded into the original Latin Rule to cater to the military order's specific needs: and later added on and expanded into the French Rule, which mainly expounded on the matters of managing the order - most of the daily routines were set in the original Latin Rule of 1129, or 1128, depending on whose calender you use (standard or French, which had their new year a few months into the standard year).DonaNobisPacem 05:12, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trivial Errors and Trivial Addendum 

message: According to Wikipedia rule of thumb: 1) if something is in see also, try to incorporate it into main body 2) if something is in main body, it should not be in see also and therefore 3) good articles have no See also sections. --Loremaster 23:35, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  About the See also section 

message: I've removed the following since it seemed tangential in the history section:
: On April 20, 2006, ABC's Good Morning America ran a profile on the Knights Templar as part a series on secret societies. Robin Griffith-Jones, Master of the Temple Church in London - a noteworthy Knights Templar historian - criticized the Knights' portrayal in films such as Kingdom of Heaven as being bloodthirsty, pointing out that though they were warriors, they primarily wanted to keep peace and that they respected Muslims, even to the point of having warm, friendly relationships with them in some cases.
: In fact the Knights Templar often petitioned for peace with the Muslims.  This led to accusations of cowardice and such, leading the Knights to have to convince their detractors otherwise with new acts of bravery in battle.
Maybe  someone can find a way to stick this in here in some form or another article? JoshuaZ 02:24, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of paragraphs 

message: People looking for information on the novel entitled Knight Templar aren't likely to think of going to the Templar disambiguation page. Since it's an almost exact match I think it's fair to include a dab reference here in lieu of there being a 2-item disambiguation page at Knight Templar which is once again a redirect here. 23skidoo 01:02, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You raise a good point, especially since it's been pointed out that there are at least two books with the name Knight Templar.  Accordingly, I have changed the page at Knight Templar into a disambiguation page, which I think addresses everyone's concerns.  Please take a look and let me know what you think? --Elonka 21:41, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: DAB rationale

message: There is an inconsistancy in the dates noted in this article concerning the year that Pope Clement disbanded the Knights Templar. This article states that this occured in both 1312 and 1314. To the best of my knowledge, 1312 is the correct year. However, I am not positive about this and am researching this to be sure before I make an edit.
The correct year that Clement IV disbanded the Knights Templar was 1312, the 1314 date is incorrect. --Trusilver 23:09, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Disbanding of the Knights Templar

message: What is the bit in 'Legends' that mentions "OCMTH-IFA SMOTJ-SKT"? What does this acronym stand for? It looks like vandalism to me. --Surturz 22:44, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A somewhat wading web search turns up Priory of St. Michael & St. George of New York City; now I suspect that that is a mix of 'fact', half-truth and brain warping 'balderdash', so I'll leave it to someone else to actually read it in detail! There doesn't seem much else to link the alphabet soup and the various characters. I'm not an expert on the subject, so I'll leave it someone else to stamp it out, and provide critical appraisal. Or, you could pay $70 to go to a cold chicken buffet to find out the 'true inner mysteries'. Kbthompson 01:58, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

text: A wise move, I feel. Kbthompson 15:26, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  OCMTH-IFA SMOTJ-SKT ?? 

message: VANDALISM? - What's this bit about how "the knights liked to play with swords and throw them at tables" under the section about the disbanding of the order? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.163.0.38 (talk • contribs) 17:45, January 30, 2007
: Fixed. --Elonka 19:50, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Vandalism

message: Currently a large portion of this article is "Places associated with the Knights Templar."  However, there are few references, and most of the locations are redlinks.  Personally, I think that this detracts from the overall quality of the article, so I'd like to talk about changing this.  Possible courses of action are:
* Remove all of the redlinks and poorly-referenced sites, keeping only the most notable examples.
* Move the list to its own page, "List of places associated with the Knights Templar", and then only mention a few of the more notable (and referenced) ones in the main article
Does anyone else have thoughts on this? --Elonka 19:48, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Changing the "Places" section