Talk:Knights Templar/Archive 5

Red cross pattee
I'm uncomfortable with using the term "pattee" to describe the Templars' cross. The majority of my sources describe their symbol as simply "red cross." The only sources that seem to use the word "cross pattee" are either hobbyist websites, merchandise websites, or Freemason sites. As such (especially because of the commercial merchandise angle), my recommendation is that we remove the term. Does anyone else have an opinion, or can anyone provide a reliable source which uses the "pattee" term? --Elonka 16:23, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * see Cross pattée, and (associated with the Royal Arms of Denmark) for  more general use of the term. The more general description seems to be splayed cross. I think you're right to treat the term with suspicion, in this case it might have some merit. I think the person adding it may well be knowledgeable, but may also be pushing a personal agenda, and that is where the line has to be drawn. Ah, I see you can get a Templar t-shirt (do they come free with 100 edits to this page?). Kbthompson 16:45, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I've been checking my references, and can find no use of the term "pattee":
 * * Barber, The New Knighthood, page 66: "According to William of Tyre it was under Eugenius III that the Templars received the right to wear the charcteristic red cross upon their tunics, symbolising their willingness to suffer martyrdom in the defence of the Holy Land." (WT, 12.7, p. 554. James of Vitry, 'Historia Hierosolimatana', ed. J. Bongars, Gesta Dei per Francos, vol I(ii), Hanover, 1611, p. 1083, interprets this as a sign of martyrdom).
 * * Martin, The Knights Templar, page 43: "The Pope conferred on the Templars the right to wear a red cross on their white mantles, which symbolized their willingness to suffer martyrdom in defending the Holy Land against the infidel."
 * * Read, The Templars, page 121: "Pope Eugenius gave them the right to wear a scarlet cross over their hearts, so that the sign would serve triumphantly as a shield and they would never turn away in the face of the infidels': the red blood of the martyr was superimposed on the white of the chaste." (Melville, La Vie des Templiers, p. 92)
 * So, I recommend that the term be removed, unless it can be shown in reliable sources that it's a common way of describing the Templars' emblem. --Elonka 12:58, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Another source of interest says that the Cross Pattee was the emblem of the Portuguese Order of Christ, a successor order to the Templars. This may have been where the confusion came from. --Elonka 13:46, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I think the expression should be removed until someone makes a good case for it to be restored. --Loremaster 22:10, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Cross pattee reference
There is no 'personal agenda' here at all, and I resent the insinuation. It is quite simple, and is a matter of simple heraldic terms, which is something that those Wikipedians in America appear to have very little knowledge or won't listen to those that have.

There is no definition in heraldry for a "splayed" cross. Most terms in heraldry come from the French words, e.g. argent, chevron, gules, vert, etc. - with me so far??? The 'splayed cross' was chosen as it was different to the Latin Cross or the Cross of Lorraine (indented arms), or the Amalfi cross - later the Maltese. Eugenus allowed the Templars to choose the colour argent (red) to signify the blood that they were prepared to shed for their cause.

The definition in heraldry of a cross that has wider parts to the arms than at the centre is 'pattee' after the French term meaning 'paw' - the wider part was described as looking like a paw.

I think having a debate over one word in the definition summary panel is REALLY over-egging the pudding and is going to start making this whole article look over-dramatised if EVERY reference is queried to such a detailed level. I have not seen such nit-picking on many other articles.

Also, considering that I have my own coat of arms (properly conferred by the College of Arms) which features the cross pattee (of the last) I knew a lot more about the history of this device than most people in a country that doesn't even have a recognised system of heraldry.

I have a lot of information to start putting onto this site to help enrich its content and fill in the details to help it achieve its top grading, but I will be blasted if I am going to have every single contribution questioned.

Finally, the Glossary on the English Templar Order's website was constructed using reference material supplied by many academics who actually know this subject, including myself who holds a PhD in it and has studied the subject for 26 years. I don't consult with other academics, and the Order's own archives for the fun of it. Lord Knowle 18:00, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

P.S. I notice that nobody has questioned addition of the word mantle - i.e. the correct term that has been used for centuries - or would someone like a reference to when that term was first ever used in a) the English language (and proof thereof), b) that the Templars actually used the term, and c) that it's not spelt incorrectly despite the various morphing of words through history??? Or am I now being pedantic??  then Touche.  Lord Knowle 15 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you for that clarification, and I don't think anybody is trying to discourage you from contribution. I'm sure you have much to add, and I've said so. The criteria here though, is very much: no individual research, ie the material has to be available in published, dare I say in peer reviewed form? It is actually an advantage that many editors don't have the benefit of your experience, as then additions and terms that may seem obvious to you, can be made clear and independently referenced. I'm afraid there is much nonsense written about the Templars on the web, and wiki editors are anxious not to add to the weight of it. Not unnaturally, this creates a group of overly suspicious people to anything that goes too far from already established information. As I'm sure you know from your own research that in order to establish a "fact", you need to triangulate from independent sources. This was just the process going on here. Your own sense of humour, is perhaps not an asset. Kbthompson 18:19, 15 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I'd like to echo Kbthompson's concerns. Also, please be aware that there is currently a major scandal going on, elsewhere in Wikipedia, about someone with a faked PhD. If interested, go to http://news.google.com and search on "Essjay", or check here: Essjay controversy. But regardless of someone's credentials, we still have very strict verification requirements here.  See Attribution.  If anything is challenged, it can be taken out of the article unless a verifiable source is provided for that information.  And yes, that can go right down to the word "mantle," if anyone genuinely has a reasonable challenge.


 * A further concern comes up whenever it looks like someone's primary purpose on Wikipedia is to promote their own organization or website. Even with the best of intentions, this can result in a Conflict of Interest.  See WP:COI. To avoid a perception of COI, it's best to spend time working on other less controversial parts of Wikipedia.  In the case of the Knights Templar, there are many books about them, and it should be easy enough to help with other elements of the article.  For example, how about expanding the section on the battles that they were involved with, or include more biographical information about some of the lesser-known GrandMasters?  Anything like that would be very helpful and appreciated. --Elonka 22:45, 15 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes I do have a very dry sense of humour, because I object to this ever-increasing pomposity and attitude on Wikipedia that the people who may have 'started' the entry seem to think they then own it for the life of the entry, and thereafter in perpetuity. They shoot down anybody who dares to come and contribute (even in an educated and rational manner) to 'their' article unless it fits with their mantra and so-called standards, that (let's face it) are not standard at all across Wikipedia, as the whole system is nowhere near mature enough to have such standards. It is a sort of pontificating attitude, looking down on people who actually know more than they do, as if we have somehow outraged their precious article by daring to try and help it develop.
 * continued... If people want to think that they have somehow 'arrived' merely because they have achieved the dizzy heights of being an admin or editor on Wikipedia then, I'm afraid, they really have got their priorities in life completely wrong. But, I guess with some people who have very little else, such an 'honour' means the World. It's the old simily with parking attendants of 'I've got the uniform on, so you can call me God'.
 * I have not at any time tried sabotaging the entries, and have merely contributed factual and well-known established history and I think far more energy has been expended on discussing this ONE point than the real battle that needs to be fought at the moment, which is the continued inane vandalism from anonymously-IP-addressed visitors. That's where the real criticism should be aimed at the moment, not at highly-quailified historians who have more historical and inside knowledge about the Templars than most of the colonial authors could shake a stick at. Let's face it, the average Templar know-all from across the pond - thousands of miles removed from where that history actually took place - is reading a few books bought from Amazon and looking up all sorts of 'research' sites on the Internet. We are over here living and breathing this stuff every day, and involved in the Order to a far greater extent than most of the other 'authors' on here could dream of.
 * With the sole aim of trying to educate the less-informed by adding and enriching the entry, we are then treated with some sort of arrogant 'how dare you interfere with MY page' mentality. Imagine how these so-called American 'experts'(?) would feel if I started editing the pages on the US Constitution, or Stars and Stripes - there would a justifiable hell-to-pay demand.
 * It seems that Wikipedia was a good idea - however, the practicality of trying to make it workable, when amateur historians start simply regurgitating stuff they have read in books, doesn't work so well in reality. Ah well, we'll see how things pan out - it was worth a shot anyway.
 * In the meantime, perhaps you ought to know that the History section on the English Templar website was co-written and double-checked by two of the esteemed authors that are so liberally quoted on all matters relating to the Templars on Wikipedia, and in the Reference links for this very article.
 * By the way, the cross showing in the Knights Templar series box is not the correct one, but I won't start on that yet, as that will, no doubt, cause even more consternation and disbelief. But I just thought that you might like to know. If you would like a correct Templar cross (not the Amalfi/Maltese variation), then please say so, and I will be happy to oblige.
 * BTW, we have loads of 'missing' information on some of the less well-known GMs, and accounts of the battles, but I now fear that any attempt to start publishing this - as was our plan for this year - will be subjected to the same nit-picking, and we really don't have the time to start giving a three-point triangulation verification process on everything that we're happy to put into the public domain. It's odd isn't it - so-called academics and scholars want the goodies to be the first to get their books/articles out, but then aren't flexible enough to start acknowledging that historical documents are now being made available - 'cake and eat it' springs to mind. which is odd, considering the references to many books on these entries that are actually acknoeldged, even amongst academics, as theories in their entirety, and not hard-fact historical tomes, but merely sometime own interpretation of history - yet there are quoted as the gospel truth.  Hmmmmmm.
 * Lord Knowle 23:10, 15 March 2007 (UTC)


 * quote-'it looks like someone's primary purpose on Wikipedia is to promote their own organization or website', well that just about sums it up!!!
 * In case it had skipped anyone's mind, 2007 represents a significant anniversary in the history of the Order, hence the willingness to start releasing more info. A case of 'can't win' against such prejudicial and pre-ordained dogma springs fleetingly to mind.
 * We'd better take mantle off then, as it's not mentioned in some books, and some books don't even mention the fact that the Templar cavalry rode horses, so we need to delete horses as well... and nobody actually filmed them building Temple Church, so get rid of that while we're at it.
 * As to the correction of 'cross' to 'cross pattee' being considered (quote) a 'controversial' matter, then boy, something really is completely out of perspective... I though all the MM stuff was the controversial stuff... how wrong was I in getting that assumption so incorrect.
 * Lord Knowle 23:17, 15 March 2007 (UTC)


 * LK, Wikipedia really isn't the place to be releasing new information. Wikipedia is only supposed to be used to summarize information that has already been published. If you want to release new info, a better venue would be an article in an academic journal, or via your own website. As for what can be included in the Wikipedia article, it's really very simple: It doesn't matter what I think I know, or what you think you know, it's a matter of what either of us can prove, using verifiable sources that either of us can check.  Please please read Attribution.  And, for what it's worth, I like that we disagree, as this kind of conflict is actually what produces some of the highest quality articles on Wikipedia.  :)  So, let's roll up our sleeves, line up our sources, and figure out what we agree on.  That'll make for a great article!  And for anything that we disagree on, but that we can both back up with reliable (but disagreeing) sources, well, I look forward to the debate.  :) Seriously, I want you to help with the article, I'm not trying to keep you out of it.  But I also want you to back up your claims with sources that I, or any editor, can lay our own hands on, to verify their reliability.  --Elonka 23:33, 15 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Having just re-read this entire article, I have counted over 78 instances where I could just as easily insist on a ({fact}) reference citation to be added or included, but I haven't because most of them are well-known fact, as is the 'issue' about the description of what a Templar cross is actually called in heraldic terms - it would be petty and pedantic behaviour if I did. But, it IS important that the cross is described properly in its proper heraldic term, and not simply 'red cross' - a cross means just about any variation of two lines cutting the axis of each other - even a swastika is a form of the sun cross. Heraldry defines shapes and patterns in exacting and specific terms to distinguish them - th whole system wad developed to ensure that any heraldic artist could execute the blazon in exactly the same way. It is interesting (albeit hypocritical) that the picture shown on the left is of a Templar Knight with a cross pattee on his tunic, and not a red (latin, lorraine, amalfi, maltese, etc.) cross - so who's going to pull that picture off, despite it being a well-known assumptive picture of the artists perception of what a knight looked like. Added to that, the beauceant shown could be argued by some as being the incorrect one - there is evidence to show that one commandry had the white on the top.
 * As to starting WWIII on arguing the toss on every article put on here, I haven't the time or inclination - I have a life outside Wikipedia. I also think that this article is going to look very messy with contrasting sources of information (if any exist) - it already looks daft having reference numbers 15 and 16 effectively contradicting each other as to the source and explanation for the mantle cross. Again, two different authors' interpretations and views on an edict written many centuries ago.
 * If you don't want the help as previously offered, then fine... We'll release the info via other sources, and the Wiki articles will look very out of date very quickly.
 * In the meantime, the cross with the bevelled ends is WRONG, as in NOT RIGHT, as in INCORRECT, and takes a lot of credibility away from the article by having such a basic error within. Lord Knowle 00:03, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


 * LK, can you provide a source, aside from personal websites, that uses the term "pattee" in reference to the Templar cross? I have been searching avidly for one, but have not been able to locate anything.  Is there a book of heraldry which uses the term? --Elonka 21:15, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes there are, and I have updated the reference with two 'independent' references - we have found about another 19 if you really want them. In the meantime, I think you need to stop acting like some sort of 'official' policewoman to this page until such times as you show credible proof that you are indeed the majority shareholder in Wikipedia. It is extremely rude and bad form to arbitrarily remove constructive additions to any page without so much as a by your leave. But, as stated above, there are plenty of people who don't like taking advice from people who do know their history because they sometimes deem it as a sort of threat to their own standing, and others might think them less for it - which isn't actually the case, but that's usually down to some sort of confidence or inferiority problem.
 * You do not 'own' this page, and you ought to stop acting like you do. I also think that it is highly hypocritical for you to go about removing all references and links to our published history section on the Grand Priory's website, whilst using them for your own research purposes in the background - yes, we have matched various IP addresses, and the computer names on the stats engine.
 * Either don't use the material on it, or acknowledge that there's a lot on there that can be used for the benefit of readers of this online and 'OPEN' (as in not owned by you) encyclopedia.
 * It does make me wonder precisely what some people's agendas actually are, when people are trying to help create a credible and informative page only to have 'amateur' historians (who clearly don't know anything about heraldry or half the Templar history) act as censors all the time.
 * And the cross image is STILL incorrect, despite three postings to that effect - there is a considerable difference between paty (pattee) and enhendree. :::But you probably know better...
 * Lord Knowle 11:56, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
 * LK, your comments would have more weight if you were able to present them without resorting to personal attacks. Please read WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL and try to adopt a more professional tone, thanks. --Elonka 18:43, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I likewise believe that you your own edits would have more weight if you stopped deleting/editing or reverting totally accurate and historically sound additions to this article. But there again, what do I know about heraldry, after all, I'm only a Fellow of the College of Arms, but I suppose that counts for nothing compared to someone who's profession is writing computer games. Maybe I should write a self-promoting entry page on my life, career and publications, but there again, I don't think that I could be so vain or conceited. :-)  Lord Knowle 19:13, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Lordknowle, comment on contributions not the contributor. Thanks.--Alf melmac 20:33, 18 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I would love to continue adding to the article only but, unfortunately, I am being subjected to constant criticism and unnecessary and arbitrary editing questioning my knowledge in this subject area. As such, I find it necessary to equally question the need for such behaviour and equally question the authority by which some people choose to steamroller my text input. Or is it a case that some people are allowed to question integrity and other's aren't? I would love to be inlightened as to the official Wiki policy on how one becomes elevated to a position where they can snip and erase contributions by their own say so. In the absence of any such policy, one can therefore only presume that the number of edits perfomred in total on a massive variety of subjects counts against holding a Batchelors, Masters and Doctrine in the very subject to which I am contributing. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lordknowle (talk • contribs) 20:53, 18 March 2007 (UTC).
 * Lordknowle, you have read the rules already, the removal of material that is not easily cited is covered by policy, as is the requesting of facts, the multiple inclusion of which you decided was a valid edit. As yet I haven't checked whether your requests for apply to data that can be easily checked or not. Your credentials are irrelevant in the argument, facts, or rather cites, are the basis for arguments here, not claims of knowing better.--Alf melmac  21:04, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Cross shape
I've been continuing to investigate the "shape of the cross" issue, and there still appears to be no one specific shape for the Templars' cross. Every source that I've checked, refers to it simply as a red cross. Reliable video documentaries tend to use a variety of cross shapes. Granted, some of what they're using is for newly-created costumes. But they also show crusader art from the Templar era, and even in those, a variety of cross styles are used, ranging from angular to rounded to the standard Christian symbol with the long vertical bar. The most common usage that I've seen is this one:

Heraldric sources vary. I've found none that specifically refer to a "pattee" cross in reference to the Templars, though there is reference to a "Crusaders Cross" pattern, as is seen on this image of Godfrey of Bouillon

Here's a lithograph of the last Grand Master, Jacques de Molay:

See also this image from the cover of Histoires des Templiers.

I've checked LK's source of Historia rerum in partibus transmarinis gestarum, William of Tyre and "Introduction to Heraldry", W H St.John Hope, but was unable to find any reference to a Templar Cross Pattee in either of them. LK, perhaps you could provide page numbers? The "Historia Rerum" is available online, at the thelatinlibrary.com. Please provide a link to your exact source? According to mine, at section 12.7 (as was quoted by Barber), in "CAPUT VII. Ordo militiae Templi Hierosolymis instituitur" the mention is, "Postmodum vero, tempore domini Eugenii papae, ut dicitur, cruces de panno rubeo, ut inter caeteros essent notabiliores, mantellis suis coeperunt assuere, tam equites quam eorum fratres inferiores, qui dicuntur servientes," which I translate as meaning "crosses of red cloth."

In summary, the Knights Templar were known to use a variety of different cross shapes, and I still believe that it would be incorrect to label them as strictly using the cross pattee. --Elonka 19:44, 18 March 2007 (UTC)


 * The image of Godfrey shows what is known as the Patriarch cross, sometimes also known as one of the Caravaca designs. It is often confused in heraldry as croix treflee and the croix recroisetee. I don't know which version of Hope's book you're reading, but is has a very clear description of the pattee. It's obvious that you have some hang up with not wishing to acknowledge the cross pattee, but I still believe that to just write 'red cross' is incorrect as most people's interpretation of a cross is the Latin cross or St George's cross with equidistant arms. The pictures on this article show that this was not the case, hence the possible confusion to anyone (who doesn't know the subject in detail) who visits for information. Perhaps it might be better to write 'White robe with a red cross (of a pattee design)' There! are we all happy now? or would you like me to quote the OED's definition of robe v mantle??? :-)  Lord Knowle 20:45, 18 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I would balk at deducing from artworks of known subjects, even if period, as although likely, I would be unsure that the artist was either aware of blazon or represented the design precisely. I think the inclusion does hang on a reliable cite in this instance.--Alf melmac 20:50, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, which reliable cite are you referring to? There's no reference to the pattee in William of Tyre, and in Hope's "Introduction to Heraldry", the only reference to Templars in the index is to page 35, which again says nothing about a cross pattee. --Elonka 20:59, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
 * No, sorry to you for not making it clear, as yet there has not been a reliable cite for it being specifically pattee, the request for verification has been made, I hope it is possible to find one, as that will please all sides.--Alf melmac 21:12, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm not sure of the veracity but middleages.org.uk gives "1146 The Knights Templar order adopted the 'cross pattee' - a splayed red cross as their emblem".--Alf melmac 21:23, 18 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you Alf. Correct, 1146 is the commonly accepted date. My original correction to the article was simply that the red cross should be defined in more exact heraldic terms. As you no doubt know, 'splayed' is not such a term and therefore the proper heraldic description was added. However, one esteemed American expert on the Knights Templar took exception on me trying to get the article a little more accurate and went off on one to the point that has left me seriously wondering!! Anyway, her personal attacks on me aside, you will notice that I have ammended the little summary box with a suitable phrase that, I hope, is acceptable to all, based on the Templar Cross image that she has insisted appears in the article - she can't have it both ways, surely??? I am happy to concede that a visitor without knowledge of heraldic terms may not know what a cross pattee is, therefore by putting it in this new sub-bracketed format adds further information that they may look up under another Wiki entry, if they so wish. Now, can we all possibly go back from DEFCON level 1 and get on in getting this article to A Grade... or are there more libellous insinuations about my degrees forthcoming. Lord Knowle 21:36, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I am certain that the listing at middle-ages-org.uk is incorrect -- an assumption made by the creators of the website, that has no verifiable source. I can point to multiple books that make no mention of the cross pattee, and list it simply as "red cross." There are actually very few documents which remain from that era, and most of what is known about the Templars comes from three historians:  William of Tyre (d. 1186), Michael the Syrian (d. 1199) and Walter Map (died c. 1208).  The most extensive documents come from William of Tyre (all of this information is from Barber's book, The New Knighthood, page 6). The insistence that the Templars only used the "Cross Pattee" seems to be a modern invention, and I think we should absolutely avoid listing it as the "only form" of the Templar cross.  Now, one way we could potentially compromise on this, is to say that the Templars adopted a red cross, and that there were various versions of it used, including the Cross Pattee.  I could live with that. --Elonka 21:39, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I note in KNIGHTS TEMPLAR INTERNATIONAL NEWSLETTER O.S.M.T.H. Issue 4: October 2004, which is available as a .doc on the web here that they now have "unification of regalia" - see the section on Regalia and which gives "France has now completed the implementation of OSMTH international decisions regarding the unification of regalia, and the Cross pattee is now the only cross worn on the capes and the only one handed to newly invested knights." so at least their current practice can be cited.--Alf melmac 21:48, 18 March 2007 (UTC)\
 * For the modern order of Templars sure, but this article is about the medieval order. It's a common public confusion.  The OSMTH is a modern order, founded in 1804, based on the traditions of the medieval order.  I'm fine with listing the Cross Pattee at the OSMTH webpage, but we shouldn't enforce that symbol on the medieval order, because it's incorrect. --Elonka 21:53, 18 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Now I'm really confused... earlier above you stated - the Templars adopted a red cross, and that there were various versions of it used, including the Cross Pattee. Now you're saying that we shouldn't mention the cross pattee [quote] because it's incorrect. ???!!!??!?! Does not compute in my book. Lord Knowle 22:22, 18 March 2007 (UTC)


 * What I am saying is that in every reliable source that I have checked, the description of the medieval Templar cross is "red cross", not "cross pattee." The Templars used a variety of different cross styles, some of which were "cross pattee" style, but many of which used other shapes. I am opposed to including language in the Wikipedia article which tries to state that the "cross pattee" was the official medieval Templar cross, because it wasn't.  It was just one style of cross which was used among many, from the mid-1100s to the mid-1300s. I believe that where the confusion comes in, is that in the 1700s and 1800s, some modern Templar organizations were founded, which tried to copy some traditions from the medieval order.  Some of these modern orders have claimed the "cross pattee" as their official symbol, which is fine.  But let's not confuse the symbols of the modern orders, with the symbols of the medieval order.  The medieval version just used a "red cross", in various forms. This particular Knights Templar Wikipedia article is strictly about the medieval version of the order.  There are other articles which deal with the modern orders, such as Sovereign Military Order of the Temple of Jerusalem and Knights Templar (Freemasonry).  So this article, about the medieval order, should just use the term "cross", rather than trying to force a heraldric definition of "cross pattee" on the medieval order, when no such definition ever existed. --Elonka 06:10, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I strongly agree with Elonka based on the solid case she has presented. --Loremaster 22:14, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Inappropriate external link
I've noticed that is repeatedly inserting a link to his own website, http://templars.org.uk in the Knights Templar "External Links" section. Rather than continuing to edit war about this, I thought I'd bring it up here. In my opinion, though I appreciate the amount of work that Lordknowle has put into the website, including it at the Knights Templar article is inappropriate because:
 * 1) The link does not comply with WP:EL, since it contains unverifiable original research
 * 2) It is bad form for LK to be inserting a link to his own website
 * 3) The organization is a subchapter of a modern order that is not directly affiliated with the medieval organization
 * 4) A better place for the link would be at the SMOTJ article or the Knights Templar in England article (where it's already listed)
 * 5) Including the link causes confusion, because the modern order has different rules and symbols than the medieval order

As such, I feel that the link should be removed. Does anyone else have an opinion on the matter? --Elonka 22:00, 18 March 2007 (UTC)


 * The allegation of being an apparent SPA account is denied in its entirety and is clearly just another petty attempt at discredit. Note well Wikipedia's own guidelines - Please note that any other use of this tag is highly discouraged as it can be interpreted as a personal attack that may lead to action being taken against you My account is NOT a single purpose one, as I have contributed to the other subjects that I know about or are involved with on a business basis - this can be verified by reference to my contributions on a few other subjects. Unfortunately I don't have the time to write loads about everything, so I write only on a few selected subjects that I do know about. I find that this works better as I don't pretend to know little about loads of every subject under the sun. However, I am very up on one or two selected subjects to which I do contribute. Any further attempts to cite me as a SPA user will be referred accordingly.


 * This is obviously now just a personal thing as some sort of getback, as there are plenty of references to templarhistory.com and other websites within this article that have no accreditation whatsoever - yet they are freely quoted. Alf mentions medieval websites with no comeback, so I think this is getting just a little petty. Your own self-promotion entry on Wikipedia includes a link to your own personal website, so pot, kettle, black, and calling are words that spring fleetingly to mind. The Grand Priory website has been updated and republished to give anyone on the Internet a series of pages aimed at providing historical research on the Templars, both medieval and modern. That research has been put together by several academics, including some of the authors listed in the booklist on this article and are acknowledged in the Templar World as just about the most knowledgable there are. Trying to diss a website's entry just because of personal grudge is quite childish.  More importantly, the website is not my personal website anyway (unlike your self-promotion and book advertising site), it is published on behalf of the Order and offers a further reading section where we include a list of books that almost matches the references on this article book for book - are you likewise stating that those books are also invalid references. So, to start being arbitrarily selective as to how the same historical information can and can't be referenced by visitors to Wiki and other Internet reference sites is, in my opinion, nothing but a personal dislike issue. What gives you the autonomous right to start dictating to people which sites are in your personal favourite list when you freely quote other unsubstantiated websites. Sorry, but your argument contradicts itself, and doesn't stack up.  Lord Knowle 22:22, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The fact of the matter is that you putting a link to your own website is easily a Conflict of Interest and as such should not be allowed. If someone else adds the link, and think it has relevance we can rediscuss it at that time, at the moment though it seems like blatent self promotion.  EnsRedShirt 05:56, 19 March 2007 (UTC)


 * If this is a case of self-promotion (considering that the site is about the Order and not me), then would you like to give a suitable description of Elonka's link to her own self-publicity website from her own self-promotion entry on Wikipedia? Or are you one of her aquantances?? Lord Knowle 08:19, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter if the link is about the order and not you, as the owner it's in your best intrest to get as much traffic to it as you can. This is in conflict to the goals of Wikipedia.  As for Elonka's article, as far as I know she has not edited it in any substantial way.  The article was NOT created by her, and the links in the article were NOT placed by her.  As such there is no Conflict of Interest.  Do you understand the difference?  When you post a link to your own website= bad, as the site may or may not be helpful to a reader of the article, so it's best to leave it out.  Others put link to your site= good as some one who has no vested intrest in the site has at least thought that something on the site is useful to someone who wants to learn more about the Knights Templar.  If the site is an excellent source, it will be linked..  Just let someone else link to it first, and you won't have a WP:COI problem.  Make sense?  EnsRedShirt 14:28, 19 March 2007 (UTC)


 * You don't need to word your response as if I'm an idiot or an errant schoolboy. Elonka's self-promotion article has clearly been set-up, with friends and aquantances - you just have to look through the contributors and then where they're from, and what sort of occupations they're in. I'm not stupid you know, and I can see through this like it's glass. We also know that Elonka has been visiting our site (via the web stats info) and reading the articles, and based on the wording of some of her entries, has clearly used some of that info.  So, if it's good enough for her to read and recycle, then it's also good enough to be referenced.  You have also, conveniently, failed to answer my question as to whether she is an aquantance of yours, and why the other eight websites, including such sensationalist names as urbanlegends.about.com are considered fountains of knowledge and hard facts and are they equally backed up by years of research and supported by some of the authors in the reference list.  Lord Knowle 14:53, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I most definitely have not been using LK's site as a reference, because I don't think it's reliable. To accuse me of such is absurd. --Elonka 18:36, 19 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, the IP addresses match up with some of the, erm... shall we say 'anonymous' edits and contributions to your own self-publicity CV ego-entry on Wikipedia, and those of the rest of the Dunin family 'entries' so I'll continue believing my systems engineering team, and you can continue protesting. In the meantime, Dr Ralls has fully endorsed our site (I've forwarded you her email), and I would suggest that you stop using language like 'not reliable' when you have absolutely no history educational plaudits to your name (source = Wikipedia) as you claim to be a cryptologist and games writer. Obviously you know more than she does, despite quoting some of her books here as a reliable source of reference. I would also like to know just on what basis you are using the words 'not reliable' when there's nothing in your educational background to suggest that you have licence or reliable authority to compare to her opinion or educational background on the subject of medieval history. I am forwarding you her email in the hope that you finally accept a reliable source of information that has (as you insist) been peer reviewed - when it first went live - and stop this ridiculous know-all behaviour, which is starting to be seen by others on Wikipedia as a sign of diminishing your own last-vestiges of credibility - I've had emails through from all sorts of sources. Having read the entire history of your self-publicity entry and noted the contributors and your merry band of sock-puppets (as put by one Wiki editor) it appears blatantly obvious that there is more than one person out there who gets fed up with your continual editing and arguing, and your tactic of deploying a vast army of friends to defend the suitability of such a self-inflated ego entry isn't going to work here on a subject that does actually qualify to be part of an encyclopaedic medium. EnsRedShirt who is trying to defend you here, has edited your own self-publicity entry so it appears that his/her opinion on this separate matter is simply that of a sock-puppet to re-quote that delightful expression from the Wiki team. As to accusations of COI linking to self-developed websites, I think you need to take a long hard look in the mirror. In the meantime, have a nice day.  Lord Knowle 21:02, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Sir, (Or Madam), I really don't know anything about you and your level of english comprehension as such I tried to explain my point in the simplest terms available in hopes that you would understand, I am sorry if this made you feel like an errant schoolboy, as that was not my intent. As for why I didn't answer your question it is because it is not important to why I choose to say what I say.  I am not defending Elonka, you, or anyone else, but I am protecting Wikipedia in such that I make sure that rules like WP:COI are being followed.EnsRedShirt 22:19, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Let's try to keep this to the matter at hand instead of making personal attacks against Elonka. Philwelch 21:48, 19 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, let's please get back to the original point here, which is that it is inappropriate for Lordknowle to have added a link to his own website to this article, that he appears to have clear conflict of interest issues where the Knights Templar are involved, that he has been routinely violating Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy, has expanded to violating WP:BLP policy, and has further violated Wikipedia policies by repeatedly inserting false information into an article, while citing either his own website as a source,, or citing some other false sources which have no mention of that information. In short, I think it is best if Lordknowle remove himself from editing any Templar-related article, and concentrate on other areas of Wikipedia for awhile. --Elonka 22:08, 19 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Again, I strongly agree with Elonka. Futhermore, I think "Lord Knowle" should probably be reported, if he hasn't already, for conduct which violates several Wikipedia guidelines. --Loremaster 22:18, 19 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid I would have to agree with that, re-reading the above, every time discussion turns back to the article, it becomes misdirected into personal attacks, or some claim to 'higher knowledge'. The rules are quite simple, no original research published here. Independent verifiable sources and a neutral point of view. Oh, and politeness to other editors.
 * Please adhere to them, can that really be so difficult? Kbthompson 23:54, 19 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Elonka has been forwarded an email from one of the academics listed in the bibliography endorsing the site, but now seems unable to apologise for her initial aspertions and comment that that particular history section is not reliable - but I won't hold my breath for a retraction. It's also interesting why someone who clearly loses an argument (having had the link endorsed) then goes on the attack with a load of unsubstantiated claims that she could equally be accused of, including labelling other users with SPA tags (against Wiki policy), defamatory comments about educational attainment, etc.  Or is there one rule and set of policies for those who can rally their sock-puppets and another rule for others who are just trying to get on and add to the article?? Oh, and I notice that those rallying to her defence here are past contributors to her self-publicity entry on Wiki, so that makes their opinion nicely impartial then!!  :-)  P.S. And no, I won't being going away just because someone thinks they own an article on which they profess to have no academic knowledge (source = Wiki) 07:58, 20 March 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lordknowle (talk • contribs) 07:58, March 20, 2007

Reading through this trail makes me start wondering what on Earth Wiki is coming to. But it has to be said that Elonka is hardly applying equality here if looking at her page that LK refers to. A conflict of interest is not really applicable here if you actually read the entire Wiki conflict of interest policy. That is more concerned with financial or material gain from promoting other sites or businesses. If you read the examples given in the policy, LK's link clearly does not fall into this category. To label the link in this way is as much an abuse of Wiki than if LK's link was a genuine COI. The link is clearly to a registered charitable organisation and not a for-profit group. Elonka has also acknowledged this charitable status in other sections of Wiki with her own editing. Elonka has also added the modern orders section and the addition of a link to the website of that organisation seems totally appropriate in the circumstances. I can't see anything on any Wiki policies that says otherwise. I agree with LK (although perhaps he should tone down his argument) that it is a very relevant link when Elonka herself has added in this reference to the modern orders. She does seem to be adding one thing and then arguing another which might wind the less-patient editor up. I can also see that LK is being a very principled person and maybe ought to be not quite as sarcastic and intolerant towards others even if they do appear to contradict. I've looked at this link and having many years of study of the Templars under my belt agree that the history section is very good. LK is (if it's who I think it is) also well known in England in both Templar and historical circles as he owns a very good private collection of archival material going back many hundreds of years. Some of those are manorial records going back to Templar times. I think that the link is relevant and provides some good detail about the medieval and modern orders and I would be happy to add it in as an independant as suggested above. Now can everybody shake hands and devote their very passionate energies to producing an article on what has always been a fascinating subject. If the amount of words here were added to the actual article it would have received an A rating by now. HexTokis 09:39, 20 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I concur with HexT.This sort of bickering isn't helping the article develop. It's clear as crystal that El doesn't want a link (maybe a personal thing?? who knows) and LK's being a bit OTT with his replies ... very cutting & v.ouch! (but v. funny!) Is he a real lord? who cares!The link looks good and meets the relevance policy.Have also looked up El's page and yes El, you have been getting your own page editors to support this argument. Naughty gal ;-) Now children go and play nicely! Blakescottage 10:26, 20 March 2007 (UTC)


 * LordyK, (man) you do need to chill out.. have just re-read this page and you're one angry bunny.Can't you see she's rattling your cage and you're falling for it. Just prove your worth by adding in the good stuff you're doing.and El, put the stick down please. You ain't adding to your credibility by constantly rattling peoples bars. Lordy's not vandalising and (he) easily knows his stuff. So work together folks and let the great wiki live in peace, Thanks all. ;-) Blakescottage 10:44, 20 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Well nice to see a bit of support without the usual sock-puppet brigade, or rent-a-mob, or Z-list-Wiki-entries-R-Us. Well, you're probably both right - there's obviously some arcane agenda here, or it's just got too personal with her not liking the fact that she's been sent the endorsment email and still won't apologise. So probably best to ignore her in future and get on with the task in hand i.e. produce a decent write-up based on actual history and not the band-wagon-induced trivia that we see so much of in this celebrity-driven culture of today.  Now, who would like to write a Wiki entry on me, because I feel that I just MUST pump up my ego and describe all the incredibly Z-list things that I've done in my career?  Any takers??  Ah well, back to the books, onwards and upwards! And yes Hex, it is little old me. Lord Knowle 11:50, 20 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I've put a few edits in as some of the sentences are a bit long here and there. I'll go and read the entire history section on this link website and see what I think. I've read it through quickly and it seemed suitable, but it appears that Elonka really doesn't like it. I need to work out why that is (is there something controversial in it?) and my own view as to whether it is suitable as a reference point. Looking at the history of the document both Lordknowle and Elonka ought to realise that if they actually worked together on this it would produce a fantastic article. The personal squabbling ought to stop right now. Elonka needs to get off her high-horse about the link and LK needs to stop taking the bait as BC rightly observes above. It seems that Alf has been removing inappropriate content and you should both be more interested in protecting the site against this sort of silliness. According to the policies on the home page, you both have equal rights to edit this article so no one should be removing text ad hoc. HexTokis 19:47, 20 March 2007 (UTC)


 * As I said above the link when placed by the site owner is was and always will be a violation of WP:COI Just because the orginization it is registered too is non-profit doesn't mean there is a source of cash flow some how coming to the owner when more people come to the site. (If that wan't the case then why does the CEO of the Red Cross get a paycheck?)  Obviously others have reinserted it as a valid source, which is just fine with me, but I still have concerns with the Civility of Lordknowle.  EnsRedShirt 20:27, 20 March 2007 (UTC)


 * To ERS and others. I think LK's frustration appears to stem from a personal belief of injustice in that he believes the link to templars.org.uk website is being removed with an inconsistent approach to the Wikipedia policies. This article does contain links to other websites that contain a great deal of unchecked or unverified information and it appears that he seems to want a level playing field. But I have emailed him privately to ask that he puts his position a little more diplomatically and I will the first to edit or scorn any more sarcasm. Equally, having looked at the history of changes, Elonka does need to show some consistency here and apply these hard and fast rules to other links if appropriate. That inconsistency could easily be interpreted as a personal grudge, hence the obvious friction. The question of external links is quite clear in Wikipedias's policies. If a site offers reliable resource material or is a good point of reference that is relevant to the article, then it can be included in line with those polices. I have briefly read the history section of LK's link and it does appear to be good information and is also well set out. It is neat, tidy and well formatted. This does perhaps seem curious to LK where some of the other links here have all sorts of advertising pop-ups and ticker-clickers with an obvious advertising and revenue bias. You state that you want proof of the charitable nature of the site but has that also been queried of the other sites that are plastered in adverts? Again, consistency needs to apply to prevent stoking of the fire. I will therefore check the Charities Commission entry for this organisation and see what their accounts say. That will clearly show if the management of the organisation is drawing any financial gain which would put in a clear COI position if added in by him. But, does that totally exclude a site if it still provides good reference material. One could argue that Microsoft's website should not be referenced from the article on Windows as it is a clear commercial entity. LK has pointed out Elonka's own entry page, but perhaps not in a very complimentary fashion. On that page she has included links to her own site which does feature an advertisement to her book. So I come back to the level playing field issue. If you want to play referee you have to enforce the rules to both sides or one side will feel rightly peeved. I review and edit history books for a living especially those in this sector of interest and I am particularly noted for the integrity of data and cross-checking references. Elonka has stated that she objects to the link on the basis that it is not reliable, although there is no further detail as to what precisely. Therefore I will offer to read the entire website, especially the history section in detail, and see if there is anything factually incorrect, controversial or just plain stupid. Maybe one solution would be to generate a totally separate article on modern orders. But the fundamental matter is still whether the website is a good reference point. If it is, and the history details concur with published knowledge and this article, then it probably deserves its place. Maybe even more than some of the other links here that, perhaps, have not been subject to such a review? I don’t know because I haven’t read through those others. To be frank, it is quite silly that so much effort has been expended on this personal battle between the two of them and this debate over one web link. They could both contribute a lot to make this article a potential featured article. Who knows, they might even become best of friends in developing a fantastic article on a subject that we all enjoy. I will help out with proof reading and trying to make some of the writing flow a little better if that's okay with everyone.  HexTokis 21:35, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I have been extremely consistent in my reasons why I removed the link, and yes if a microsoft employee at the request of microsoft puts in a link to the microsoft website in the windows or anyother article it should be quickly deleted as violating WP:COI. It doesn't matter if the site is charitable or not every time ANYONE puts a link to their own site on an article it should automaticaly and evoquivically be deleted until someone else finds that site to be of enough intrest and detail so that they put it back in.  Not before.  Maybe we need a page called  Proposed Resources where they can link the article they want to add the link to and the link..  Never the less, his percieved experience here does NOT excuse his uncivil actions toward anyone on this page.  EnsRedShirt 04:36, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh and for the record I never said I required any Validation of the charitable status of his link, like I just said Charitable or not, no one person shoul EVER link to their own site on a wikipedia page. EnsRedShirt 04:42, 21 March 2007 (UTC)


 * You know this article's subject is one of the few that has sections that are summaries of main articles that could possibly make a Featured Article. That will require collaboration from those who enjoy the respect they deserve in their day to day lives, whether they be historians, lords, techies, T-shirts, broadcasters, aliens or otherwise, I'm urging all parties to view it this way too. For one I'd like to get the spelling consistent - as pointed out by the peer review suggestions below.--Alf melmac 20:47, 20 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I will certainly help out on spelling and grammar, but being British-English there are bound to be some anomalies, e.g. honor/honour, color/colour and the never-ending debate on how -isation words should be notated, 's' or 'z' to an American and British audience. 'You say to-may-to, I say toe-mah-tow' :-) HexTokis 21:41, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * eeep! I may have just been controversial there then... I just took the first given spelling in Chambers 20C Dictionary. I noted the auto summary has it should be dependent on the subject of the article, is BE not right? :s --Alf melmac 21:48, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

As a courtesy note: Because of a sustained series of personal attacks, harassment, and edit warring, I have started a thread about Lordknowle's behavior (as well as the sudden appearance of his two allies) at WP:ANI, the Administrators Noticeboard. Interested parties are invited to participate in the discussion: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Disruption by Lordknowle. --Elonka 22:56, 20 March 2007 (UTC) (Update)  has been blocked from Wikipedia, due to concerns of a compromised account. The above noticeboard thread has been archived, and no further action is required at this time. --Elonka 19:48, 22 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I am very surprised and have to say that I think such action is both unnecessary and is being ridiculous. Having just read the complaint, I think it's very extreme to start calling me a meatpuppet. This is totally contrary to your other welcome messages earlier. I think you have some serious issues and trying to reignite and fan the flames isn't going to help. I can keep LK under control to get this article finished, but you do seem to have a very worrying issue about one small matter that he wanted included. Considering the amount of trouble that I have now gone to, to help settle this article, it would appear that you are now just absolutely intent on trying to score personal points against him. That does not give anyone a good opinion as to your real intentions here. Is there another agenda here? It seems that despite Alf's comments and other offers to resolve the actual problem, you seem intent on going behind our backs anyway to stir up a full scale war. Very disapponted. HexTokis 23:10, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * HexTokis, the best way to de-escalate the situation, is to avoid commenting on contributors here. This page is for discussion about the Knights Templar article, not to make ad hominem attacks on the people who are working on it.  Per Wikipedia's policy on no personal attacks, Comment on content, not on contributors.  If you do have comments which you wish to direct towards me personally, you are welcome to post on my talkpage.  I have also watchlisted your own talkpage, where we are already engaged in discussion (and can continue if you would like). Thanks, Elonka 23:56, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Two wrongs?
Discussion about the article on Elonka (e.g. allegations that it is self-promotory or has invalid links) belong on that article's talk page, not here. Even if those allegations are true (and I'm not saying they are) that does not serve as an excuse for the links here.

Other than that, if this dispute keeps up, it may be useful to open an WP:RFC on the matter (no, not on the editors involved, on the issue here).  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  10:11, 21 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I would agree that the principle focus should be on the article, and only the article. I don't think there are two wrongs, merely a clash of culture. This has always been a controversial page, and Elonka has done much good work on defending it from PoV. A relatively new editor with considerable experience of the subject has commenced introducing information that is not substantiated by freely available publications. Elonka was right to be sceptical, however that has created a disproportionate ding-dong, particularly as LordKnowle has interpreted that as an attack on his(?) academic reputation. I think the steps taken to lock the page allows a sensible cooling off. I would hope that all parties can move forward quickly, both accepting the need for independent validation and civility; and every one can concentrate on moving the article forward. Kbthompson 10:56, 21 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Please urgently see my entry on LK's talk page. There is something seriously amiss here after doing my own check of 'his' edits on this article. I've compared some of my call logs to the dates and times and there are some issues. I have emailed the person I know as LK to make him aware of this. In the meantime can one of the Admin team please check whether or not a request for a password reminder was requested just prior to LK's reappearance on this site. The Knights Templar is something he normally stays very private about. His only passion on the Internet is aeroplanes and providing updates on his restoration projects so this all very strange. Thanks. HexTokis 11:28, 21 March 2007 (UTC)