Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard de Bures


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result was Keep. &mdash; Scientizzle 00:28, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Richard de Bures

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Delete I'm currently expanding all the stubs on the Grand Masters into articles and I'm afraid Richard de Bures was not one of them. From www.templiers.org, the official translations of Templar records, i quote, "Armand de Périgord, master from 1232 to 1247" and "Guillaume de Sonnac, master from 1247 to 1250". Richard de Bures tenure did not exist and information stating otherwise is likely poorly translated or just incorrect. I need to get rid of this page so the time-line can be spot on and I can get this part of the Crusades area up to scratch. Thanks Tefalstar 14:16, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Problem is there are a large number of sources out there on the web that do say de Bures was a grand master during this time period.  Whether there is some disagreement in this timeline among scholars and historians may well be the case - even Papal succession records get murky from time to time.  You may wish to document this apparent problem but given the number of sources that list de Bures it is impossible to support deletion.  Ark yan  &#149; (talk) 15:03, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Fascinating. But the way to deal with a situation like this is to recount the sources on both sides, not to remove one of the interpretations of the evidence. Keep. But if this is still an unsourced stub the next time it comes up here, it will have to go. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:25, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * A quick search shows that Howarth's Knights Templar has Peragors dying 17 October, 1244, at Gaza; Howarth cites Bulst-Thiele's Sacrae domus militiae templi hierosolymitani magistri, which appears to be a serious work of scholarship.   Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:25, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I agree with Pmanderson, if it remains in such a state it should go. The information on Perigord can fill this space, but de Bures details are almost non-existent, which is peculiar as i can find a lot of info on the other masters in my resources. It's a very weak article and the supposedly official records don't even cite him as a master. Some more peer reaction is needed for disputes like this. --Tefalstar 15:45, 7 June 2007 (UTC)Tefalstar
 * NB. My !vote is (and remains) keep. The fundamental problem is that all medieval records are scrappy, and the last years of Outremer are especially so. As far I can tell, it is uncertain that he was Grand Master, but we should have an article that says so, and why: We know when his successor was inaugurated; we know his predecessor was at a battle in which most of the Templars died. But it is not certain, as often, that the predecessor died there, and there is presumably no unquestionable direct evidence of Bures' tenure as Grand Master (rather than, say, vicar.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:00, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Data
What www.templiers.org actually says is that "Some historians mention that Armand de Perigord was killed in the course of the battle of La Forbie, like the Master of the Hospitallers. Others imply that he was captured, and died in captivity in 1247." Please look further than a website list. (And, of course, it's not official, in any sense; they go out of their way to deny that they are a resurgence or neo-Templars. )Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:10, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Your point about medieval records is a good one, they are notorious, but i would not have added this for deletion if there wasn't enough doubt shed on de Bures, in comparison to the others, that he was never Grand Master. Also, we cannot take a large number of Templar deaths as read that Perigord died at the battle. Guillaume de Sonnac, a later master, survived a battle where all but 4 other Knights Templar were killed. I stand on the side of the most detailed records, which say he had no tenure. Could we agree that if it is kept, the introduction will include a reference to the historical divide on whether he was ever truly a master?
 * Of course it should include the debate; it's probably the most interesting thing about him. Nor am I concluding that Perigord died; www.templiers.com says that historians say so - and I've found some. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:47, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The point about being in captivity is exactly my point friend, Odo de St Amand was in captivity for years but never replaced as Master. So if Perigord does die in '47, then Sonnac was the next Master.
 * But if he died in 1244, he would have been replaced, and the site tells us that Sonnac was not elected until 1247. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:47, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Also, in response I never said they were an official Templar site, just that the information on th site is from official translations, first from Latin, later from French. I certainly wouldn't trust a Neo-Templar site as far as i could throw them! :P --Tefalstar 16:54, 7 June 2007 (UTC)Tefalstar
 * Good.;-> Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:47, 7 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment I think the most balanced thing to do is build the most exhaustive article i can on de Bures, and just comment that it is debated or uncertain whether he was ever actually a Master, because we can't really make an informed decision on which record is right. --Tefalstar 19:48, 7 June 2007 (UTC)Tefalstar
 * Then let's withdraw this nomination, since we don't need to delete the article to do that. Thanks; it's been fun. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:28, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep If he really was one, as Arkyan says, then this should stay - G  1  ggy  Talk/Contribs 22:23, 13 June 2007 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.