Talk:Trials of the Knights Templar

Editing the Timeline
I know there are additional bits of information which can be added to the timeline. Particularly between 1308 and 1310. I think the actual names of the Papal Bulls which pertain to the order should also be included.Iprocomp (talk) 20:40, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Transcripts of the Inquisition
If you have access to or knowledge of any books which contain actual transcripts of interrogations and/or confessions please add to this page! Iprocomp (talk) 20:40, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Other Information
I am in the process of transcribing the entire list of 127 accusations to this page, please feel free to look at my User:Iprocomp page and give me feedback. Iprocomp (talk) 20:40, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi, thanks for your work so far, and I agree that this topic is probably worth an article on Wikipedia. I'm seeing several things I'd like to go in and edit, but per the banner at the top of the page, I don't want to get into any edit conflicts.  Please remove the banner when you're ready to take a break? --Elonka 22:31, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Hello Elonka, I would be happy to have your input. Please feel free to edit at your leisure.Iprocomp (talk) 22:49, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Torture
This page should definitely have a section about Torture, but that, unfortunately, falls beyond my initial scope in the creation of this page. However, since torture is a major part of the historiography on this topic, I think it necessary that a section on torture be included here. I would be happy to add it myself, but I have more pressing things to attend to at the moment.Iprocomp (talk) 00:07, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Friday the 13th
Isn't this the origin of Friday the 13th?, and if so, how relevant is it?

This is mentioned as a "myth" popularized by the Da Vinci code, but I heard it before the novel came out...

AF Cadet &amp; EE Student (talk) 00:07, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

The Chinon Parchment
This is clearly an important document but I am not clear on its meaning as to the conclusion made here. In the Catholic Church the word "absolution" does not mean that the person did not commit the sin, quite the contrary, but he or she is "absolved" or "forgiven" that sin. What follows in a penance, or "punishment", usually in the form of prayers or works or deeds to show true remorse for the sins that have been absolved. Mugginsx (talk) 08:22, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Preface
Every word that I have inserted into the paragraph entitled "Preface" can be found in the citation I gave. It was a compilation of the works of some of the greatest historians who ever lived and the book is NOT IN COPYRIGHT. You can view it on the Internet archives site. Mugginsx (talk) 10:02, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Rewording as to the paragraph on the Chinon document
It is a contradiction of terms to state that the Pope did not believe the Templars were guilty and at the same time he "absolved" them. To absolve in the Catholic Church means to "forgive" the sin, not that the sin was never committed. Since virtually everyone was Catholic at the time, everyone knew the meaning of "absolution" in the Middle Ages. Even Kings feared dying without absolution. Mugginsx (talk) 10:28, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Point 1: Your citation for Lea is malformed in that the text "An Historical Sketch of Sacerdotal Celibacy," "Superstition and Force,", "Studies in Church History" is a list of the author's prior works, as noted on the title page of the book in question, and has nothing more to do with the source used; see my links in the proper citation under Sources, to which is would be simpler, and more in keeping with the remaining citations to refer simply as "Lea, 324." Point 2: there is a distinction to be made between the "absolution" of the confessional, which is the sense in which you mean it, and the finding of a canon court, which is the subject of Chinon.  I have a request out for a copy of that text (which is unfortunately behind an academic paywall), and since neither of us has read it, nor Frale's article on it, it is pointless to debate whether it was absolution in the confessional sense, pardon in the executive sense, or recognition of unfounded charges, in essence a verdict of "not guilty."  In any case, Lea does not discuss, and has no bearing, on the Chinon document, since the document was not even known in 1887 when that work was written, and therefore nothing in that text can be used to support any claim to interpretation of Chinon.  Point 3: If you're going to quote someone else's copyrighted text, even if it is now within the public domain, as you did for a starting example with "and its power and privileges quite enough to arouse distrust in the mind of a less suspicious despot than Philip le Bel," needs to be properly attributed as a quotation, or else it is a copyright violation, in addition to being intellectually dishonest because it presents the words as your own, when in fact they were the work of Mr. Lea some hundred or so years before you or I first drew breath.  Further, that quote appears on page 252 of the cited work, whereas your citation implies a synthesis (rather than a direct quotation) of material spanning pages 250-257.  Point 4: on Wikipedia, it is common practice to wikilink relevant text to relevant articles, which is completely absent from your unattributed contributions.  Point 5: A Preface to this article is not only highly irregular for Wikipedia, but is also largely unnecessary when the Infobox links to History of the Knights Templar, among other prefatory material, while this article itself is intended to represent the Trial itself.  At most, it could use a navigational link such as  or something similar.  Finally, I hope we can come to some agreement on these several points; however, if after some discussion here we cannot, rather than getting into an edit war, I would suggest we seek a formal third opinion.  Meanwhile, I will endeavor to fix some of the more plain errors as under Point 1 above, rather than simply removing the text again, which I continue to believe is the correct solution.  --Geoff Capp (talk) 20:57, 31 March 2010 (UTC)


 * My answer to your points, etc.
 * 1 You are correct as to the title and the citations have been changed to reflect the proper title.
 * 2 I do not wish to abbreviate the citation. It is by no means always done here at Wiki the way and in the manner you describe and I see no reason why I should have to to cite in the way you prefer. Further, it is incomplete as you cite it, giving only the last name of the author without any title for the book. Lea wrote other books that this one. I repeated "not in copyright" for obvious reasons.
 * 3 I have put the particular phrase you mentioned in quotations and the page and line, etc. referenced.
 * 4 If you do not like the title "Preface", fine, I'm not married to it.
 * 5 Since the Title is explicit as to the particular content in this article I have put a notation as to how to find other articles about them.
 * 6 As to Chinon and my paragraph explaining it in accordance to its true meaning, I did not use Lea as a source. I used a Catholic website. Back to Chinon and the meaning of the document, I think, you are confusing Chinon with some other later possible document made by the Catholic Church. I have been a Catholic all of my life  I attended Catholic School for twelve years and taught by both nuns and priests.  The nuns all had  Masters' Degree and higher.  There is absolutely no other meaning of the word "absolution" but forgiveness in the Catholic Liturgy, nor ANYWHERE ELSE FOR THAT MATTER.  To even suggest that the Pope declared a "Canon Court" in this matter is Original Research unless there is something not presented here that you can provide.  There is no documentation that has been presented, thus far, that calls this episode at Chinon a Canon Court.  It simply states that the Templars were given absolution and would be allowed to receive the sacraments.   That is not possible unless they heard their Confession first and what comes after "confession" of sins is "absolution" of sins. Free of sin one is again able to receive the other Sacraments. All that language is present in the document information presented here.  I repeat "absolution" only means one thing in the Catholic Church and always has, and was most certainly understood in the Middle Ages as such. The Pope, or any Pope would never use that word in any other way.  At Chinon, what seems to have happened next, is that some kind of public statement was made and a document was created to memoralize it. (The Chinon Documents I presume.)  If this Pope or these particular Cardinals, or a later Pope made some other declaration  using some other words then I have not yet seen them mentioned here. You have said that there is some documentation you will seek, I will wait on it though my gut tells me it won't be the Chinon document, but a later one, and the word "EGO absolve vos" will not be in the later one. Fair enough?
 * 7 I am also a retired paralegal and once something is out of copyright there is no copyright violation. It is as simple as that.  If Mr. Lea were still alive and he found that I misquoted him then he could sue me for liable.  I am not trying to be argumentative here, that is the law.  A copyright violation would be to reprint the text correctly while in copyright and without the permission of the author.  I have gotten such permission on other articles and I know how it is done.
 * If you wish to work together in good faith, I am happy to do so and I mean that sincerely. I think I have shown so far that when I am wrong I am most willing to admit it. I cannot agree with you on "absolution".  You are confusing it with "exoneration" In every dictionary absolution means "forgiveness" and "exoneration" refers to innocence.  Also, so far, you have not shown anything to prove that there was a Canon Court (if that is not a term of art) I know of Canon Lawyers, in fact my brother has a good friend who is one, but not a Canon Court. I think most things are done administratively, but I could be wrong and would not argue the point here.  I can certainly work with your other points in the morning (US time).  If you wish to ask for an administrator to give a third opinion, I will be happy to agree and I know a few I consider fair, even though they have not always agreed with me.  If you wish to edit-war, I would rather take all of my material out of the article and let the article bedamned.  Quite frankly, the banner asked for a more detailed article and that is why I edited it.  I just try to edit history and am not interested in the twisted joy and the little bit of meaningless power that some people seem to get in edit warring. I do not say that is you, but I have seen sufficient numbers of people who are like that and I want nothing to do with it or them.  There are always other articles and if not, I have better things to do with my life.  I hope that we can work this out and talk with respect to each other.  I am most willing for the sake of the article.  Mugginsx (talk) 23:10, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Page moves
The original title of this article was Trial of the Knights Templar. It has since been moved to Trial of the Knights Templar in France, but I am opposed to this move. Let's please move the article back to its original title, and then go through WP:RM, since the move is controversial. Thanks, --Elonka 21:57, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll second that. Kangaroo court 'trials' and were held across Europe, indeed anywhere The Knights were located, after the initial 'verdict' was paraded out. (and further: There was only 1 temple, there was multiple Knights, thus Knights Templar, aka Knights of the Temple, is the correct format.) Exit2DOS • Ctrl • Alt • Del 02:33, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I have moved the article back to Trial of the Knights Templar, its stable title. If any other moves are desired, please ensure consensus here on the talkpage, and make a formal request through Requested moves, thanks. --Elonka 03:41, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Re: TITLE CHANGE: Understood as per your instructions to request formal move next time at Requested moves. There was no movement (except for my editing) on this article for almost one year September 2010 and since there was no information on anything but Knights Templar in France, I thought the title more appropriate. Did not know I had to go through a formal request. Is not specific in Wikipedia:Requested moves for auto-confirmed users and did not think any editors interested in this article because of the lack of edits since said September 2010. Is this on all articles, or just Knights Templar articles? Mugginsx (talk)

Added more material. Trial of the Knights Templar
I added more material (a synopsis of the article and information therein) to the introduction. The introduction should now be completed pr Manual of Style (lead section). Will you please read it, and either comment, or remove the banner? Thank you very much. Mugginsx (talk) 14:51, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's written according to WP:MOSINTRO at all. It sounds like the introduction to an essay rather than an encyclopedia article - remember, the lead should be able to stand on its own. It should be narrating the facts in a nutshell, and should not have phrases like "we discover". StAnselm (talk) 22:57, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
 * You will want to referenced it no doubt. I removed the reference I used since it no longer reflects the information therein.   As to the removal of Geoffroi de Charney, Here is a clue for you.  Every medieval account shows Geoffroi de Charney along with de Molay.  They stand up to "recant" (their confessions) together, they, in fact, do recant their confessions together, they are, without a hearing, condemned to death at the stake together by the King, and they are burned together. Mugginsx (talk) 11:10, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
 * It was reworded to then sound like advertising copywrite so as you have not answered, I have reworded and cited. Nevermind, I see now why you have not answered my requests.  Apparently you were blocked at that time. Mugginsx (talk) 11:52, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

The Tone Tag?
I could understand the introduction tag but the "tone" tag? I don't understand. I am out of here. Started to correct but can see the way this article is going. The article is starting to read inaccurately according to the sources and we are worried about tone? Not to mention that the article is still about the Templars in France. Mugginsx (talk) 09:50, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Will attempt to continue to expand the article under Assume good faith assumption, though it is a more a leap of faith at this point. Mugginsx (talk)

Citations needed in the Lead
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ASearch&redirs=1&search=wp%3Areferences+and+citations+in+lead&fulltext=Search&ns0=1 shows that references are required in the lead. The citation needed was removed and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Lead subsection "Citations" both state that the lead requires citations. Mugginsx (talk) 16:47, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

terms pardoned and absolved in the Chinon Parchment
The various translations all say that the Templars were "pardoned" not absolved. They have two completely different meanings. There is a confusion by some of the editors as to what actually happened at Chinon. This is not a criticism. It is a popular misconception. The actual text goes something like this: "The Templars became ill and in the fear of their dying, were brought to Chinon and were given absolution.  This means that the individual templars were each given The Sacrament of Penance in which they privately listed their sins to a priest, (in this case it was a Cardinal, (who is also a priest), gave them a Penance and then says the words: "EGO absolve vos..." I absolve you in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost.  That concept was exactly the same in the middle ages and has never been changed.  The pope could NOT have absolved them since he was not present and would NEVER use that term in that context. Absolution in the Catholic Liturgy only means one thing.  The Sacrament of Penance http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11618c.htm . Further, Seal of the Confessional  would have prohibited the priest (Cardinal) from relating even to the Pope the contents of their confession. It is also an ancient concept and was certainly well understood in the Middle Ages when almost everyone in England and France were Catholic. http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/religion/re0059.html and at http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13649bhtm.

As to "pardoning" of the individuals mentioned in the document, the Pope ordered a "public" inquiry at Chinon Castle for the purposes of "Pardoning" the individual templars of the crimes which led him (again, the Pope) to Excommunicate the Order and/or the individual Templars mentioned here. The terms are easy to confuse because it also "seems" that at that time their "private" confessions may have been heard under the Sacrament of Penance (described above); but it does not specifically state that in the Parchment. Though the Pope may indeed have pardoned them, he did not, and would not use the term "absolution" because he could not "absolve" them unless he heard each and every one of their "private" Confessions. I reiterate, the special procedure indicated in the Chinon Parchment was a form of PUBLIC questioning with witnesses and therefore the word "Pardoned" is used in the translation, not the incorrect word of "Absolution". That word in its usuage in this article is a mistranslation of the document. I corrected that in the article. http://templarfellowship.com/article/Our_Library/Templar_References/English_Translation_of_Chinon_Document/18176 The term ("Absolution" as to the Pope) was also incorrectly used in the otherwise fine timeline of this article as well. as in the individual article Chinon Parchment Mugginsx (talk) 17:09, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Other websites which use the correct term Pardoned are: http://www.knightstemplar.org/KTnews/ia.htm ALSO http://www.masonicnetwork.org/blog/2009/the-chinon-parchment-were-the-knights-templar-pardoned/ ALSO http://www.thelemapedia.org/index.php/Knights_Templar ALSO; http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1565252/Vatican-paper-set-to-clear-Knights-Templar.html

This document has little significance except to show the corrupt nature of this particular Pope who was a "puppet" of the French King. The King wanted their money, and to get that money, the Templars had to go, and go they did. Mugginsx (talk) 09:06, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

lead still needs a citation pr Wikipedia:Manual of Style (lead section)
Manual of Style (lead section) Citations Shortcut: WP:LEADCITE Further information: Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Citing sources The lead must conform to verifiability and other policies. The verifiability policy advises that material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, and quotations, should be cited. Because the lead will usually repeat information also in the body, editors should balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead with the desire to aid readers in locating sources for challengeable material. Leads are usually written at a greater level of generality than the body, and information in the lead section of non-controversial subjects is less likely to be challenged and less likely to require a source; there is not, however, an exception to citation requirements specific to leads. The necessity for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus. Complex, current, or controversial subjects may require many citations; others, few or none.
 * Nevermind, since there is no response, I have re-worded, took out inaccuracies, added important facts and citations myself. Mugginsx (talk) 07:30, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Chinon Parchment - final comment
Lung Salad and Vyselink: Since the Pope cannot "absolve" long distance (according to Canon Law). he could only Pardon despite the link for Absolution. He also could not give general absolution since he could not fulfill the second requirement. So, it seems as pointed out by fellow editors, the Pope did something he did not really have the power to do. Sorry I was so stubborn. If he was evil enough to do all of the other things he did, certainly he could "invent" powers he did not actually have. My religious education conflicted with medieval reality. Well, it will be interesting to see how this is "explained" when, (and if) the Vatican Papers are produced as they have promised. Mugginsx (talk) 14:42, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Expanding the article as suggested to incorporate more than just Templars in France
Since two editors have indicated the article should not be confined to 'just France', but have yet to add any such information along those lines, I have taken the initiative to make changes to sections, without deleting any previously controversial text (such as Chinon). Made subheadings per wp:Manual of Style- sections for events in France. Kept major headings for Templars in France, and another for England, Naples, Aragon, etc., to expand article. Deleted some of otherwise excellent timeline to that which only includes trial timeline - other is fine in other Templar articles but beyond this article's scope. - See: Scope. Welcome any further opinions by "contributing editors". Mugginsx (talk) 11:42, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Time to change the title of the article
With mine and another editor's insertion of information about the trials of the templars in various parts of Europe, I would think it is time at last to change the title from Trial of the Knights Templar to Trials of the Knights Templar.

Can we at last do this without prior debate for such an obvious incorrect title? Mugginsx (talk) 14:45, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Seeing no opposition, the title now correctly reflects the information in the article. Mugginsx (talk) 16:26, 17 October 2012 (UTC)