Talk:Templar leader - Revision history

imported>ACsenior at 06:16, 11 October 2024

2024-10-11T06:16:45Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 08:16, 11 October 2024
Line 23:		Line 23:
	Per the [[Talk:Assassin leader#French_council_as_leaders?\|discussion]] at [[Assassin leader]], I would propose that we move this page to "Templar branch leader" or something more specific just for clarity. [[User:Sol Pacificus\|<span style="color:#990000;font-family:Monotype Corsiva;font-size:17px">'''Sol Pacificus'''</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Sol Pacificus\|<span style="color:#D4AF37;font-family:Californian FB;font-size:11px">(Cyfiero)</span>]]</sup> 08:52, November 2, 2019 (UTC)		Per the [[Talk:Assassin leader#French_council_as_leaders?\|discussion]] at [[Assassin leader]], I would propose that we move this page to "Templar branch leader" or something more specific just for clarity. [[User:Sol Pacificus\|<span style="color:#990000;font-family:Monotype Corsiva;font-size:17px">'''Sol Pacificus'''</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Sol Pacificus\|<span style="color:#D4AF37;font-family:Californian FB;font-size:11px">(Cyfiero)</span>]]</sup> 08:52, November 2, 2019 (UTC)
	:I support that rename especially if we are going to include leaders such as Pactyas and I assume Gorm. [[User:Lacrossedeamon\|Lacrossedeamon]] ([[User talk:Lacrossedeamon\|talk]]) 07:47, 1 January 2021 (UTC)		:I support that rename especially if we are going to include leaders such as Pactyas and I assume Gorm. [[User:Lacrossedeamon\|Lacrossedeamon]] ([[User talk:Lacrossedeamon\|talk]]) 07:47, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
			::I would actually suggest the name "Rite leader" instead, because all the de facto leaders that never officially were Grand Master, they themselves lead Rites during a time with a absence of even Master Templars and Master Templars have commonly lead in absence of Grand Masters. Also, we already use "Rite leader" when linking this page from others such as Grand Master, only fitting to rename on this practice alone.[[User:ACsenior\|ACsenior]] ([[User talk:ACsenior\|talk]]) 06:16, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

	== Parisian and Levantine ==		== Parisian and Levantine ==

imported>Sol Pacificus: /* Parisian and Levantine */

2024-03-22T05:37:17Z

Parisian and Levantine

← Older revision		Revision as of 07:37, 22 March 2024
Line 35:		Line 35:
	:::::I agree with Sol’s approach. At first, I wouldn't suggest to move them to the Levantine Rite because Jacques' journey to the Holy Land in 1291 for example doesn't really mean he was part of the Levantine Rite, he could have been there just as a representative of the French one. But that approach is a balanced solution that respects the canon while also acknowledging the uncertainties of historical events without marking a specific division between the Rites during thattime.<br><br>I was going to propose to create a "Speculative Membership" but refrained 'cause sound like... yeah, no.[[User:Cristophorus35\|Cristophorus35]] ([[User talk:Cristophorus35\|talk]]) 06:52, 21 March 2024 (UTC)		:::::I agree with Sol’s approach. At first, I wouldn't suggest to move them to the Levantine Rite because Jacques' journey to the Holy Land in 1291 for example doesn't really mean he was part of the Levantine Rite, he could have been there just as a representative of the French one. But that approach is a balanced solution that respects the canon while also acknowledging the uncertainties of historical events without marking a specific division between the Rites during thattime.<br><br>I was going to propose to create a "Speculative Membership" but refrained 'cause sound like... yeah, no.[[User:Cristophorus35\|Cristophorus35]] ([[User talk:Cristophorus35\|talk]]) 06:52, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
	::::::I think moving the Levantine Rite page to Knights Templar works well enough. Since this is when the Templars operated publicly should we annotate which members would have still be secret such as the Sibrand or Tamir etc? [[User:Lacrossedeamon\|Lacrossedeamon]] ([[User talk:Lacrossedeamon\|talk]]) 17:49, 21 March 2024 (UTC)		::::::I think moving the Levantine Rite page to Knights Templar works well enough. Since this is when the Templars operated publicly should we annotate which members would have still be secret such as the Sibrand or Tamir etc? [[User:Lacrossedeamon\|Lacrossedeamon]] ([[User talk:Lacrossedeamon\|talk]]) 17:49, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::If you would like, sure. [[User:Sol Pacificus\|<span style="color:#990000;font-family:Monotype Corsiva;font-size:17px">'''Sol Pacificus'''</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Sol Pacificus\|<span style="color:#D4AF37;font-family:Californian FB;font-size:11px">(Cyfiero)</span>]]</sup> 05:37, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

imported>Lacrossedeamon: /* Parisian and Levantine */

2024-03-21T17:49:11Z

Parisian and Levantine

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:49, 21 March 2024
Line 34:		Line 34:
	::::See if this answers all your questions. I agree with you that I don't think we should split the likes of Hugues de Payens, Gerard de Ridefort, and Bernard de Clairvaux into different rites. [[User:Sol Pacificus\|<span style="color:#990000;font-family:Monotype Corsiva;font-size:17px">'''Sol Pacificus'''</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Sol Pacificus\|<span style="color:#D4AF37;font-family:Californian FB;font-size:11px">(Cyfiero)</span>]]</sup> 06:23, 21 March 2024 (UTC)		::::See if this answers all your questions. I agree with you that I don't think we should split the likes of Hugues de Payens, Gerard de Ridefort, and Bernard de Clairvaux into different rites. [[User:Sol Pacificus\|<span style="color:#990000;font-family:Monotype Corsiva;font-size:17px">'''Sol Pacificus'''</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Sol Pacificus\|<span style="color:#D4AF37;font-family:Californian FB;font-size:11px">(Cyfiero)</span>]]</sup> 06:23, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
	:::::I agree with Sol’s approach. At first, I wouldn't suggest to move them to the Levantine Rite because Jacques' journey to the Holy Land in 1291 for example doesn't really mean he was part of the Levantine Rite, he could have been there just as a representative of the French one. But that approach is a balanced solution that respects the canon while also acknowledging the uncertainties of historical events without marking a specific division between the Rites during thattime.<br><br>I was going to propose to create a "Speculative Membership" but refrained 'cause sound like... yeah, no.[[User:Cristophorus35\|Cristophorus35]] ([[User talk:Cristophorus35\|talk]]) 06:52, 21 March 2024 (UTC)		:::::I agree with Sol’s approach. At first, I wouldn't suggest to move them to the Levantine Rite because Jacques' journey to the Holy Land in 1291 for example doesn't really mean he was part of the Levantine Rite, he could have been there just as a representative of the French one. But that approach is a balanced solution that respects the canon while also acknowledging the uncertainties of historical events without marking a specific division between the Rites during thattime.<br><br>I was going to propose to create a "Speculative Membership" but refrained 'cause sound like... yeah, no.[[User:Cristophorus35\|Cristophorus35]] ([[User talk:Cristophorus35\|talk]]) 06:52, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
			::::::I think moving the Levantine Rite page to Knights Templar works well enough. Since this is when the Templars operated publicly should we annotate which members would have still be secret such as the Sibrand or Tamir etc? [[User:Lacrossedeamon\|Lacrossedeamon]] ([[User talk:Lacrossedeamon\|talk]]) 17:49, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

imported>Cristophorus35: Reply sent

2024-03-21T06:52:23Z

Reply sent

← Older revision		Revision as of 08:52, 21 March 2024
Line 33:		Line 33:
	::::<blockquote>The Essential Guide explicitly refers to Robert de Sablé as belonging to the Levantine Rite. It also appears to use the name synonymously with Knights Templar. By that virtue, it would probably be safer to infer that Bernard de Clairvaux and Hugues de Payens also belonged to the Levantine Rite. It is dubious if we could say that Jacques de Molay belonged to the Levantine Rite when he was based entirely in France, and we run into the same issue as that of the Levantine Brotherhood where the name Levantine Rite appears to be retrospective. I look with concern at speculatively placing characters as members of rites without the backing of sources, but to sideline this problem, we can just move Levantine Rite to "Knights Templar" and write about it as encompassing the period of the Order from Bernaud de Cervaux to Jacques de Molay, with "Levantine Rite" as an alternative name. That way, we're not expressly making a claim about whether or not Bernard, Hugues, and Jacques were members of the Levantine Rite or the French Rite or if such a division existed in their time, only that they were Knights Templar. Ethnic or national origin is definitely not a basis for assuming membership in a particular branch by the way.</blockquote>		::::<blockquote>The Essential Guide explicitly refers to Robert de Sablé as belonging to the Levantine Rite. It also appears to use the name synonymously with Knights Templar. By that virtue, it would probably be safer to infer that Bernard de Clairvaux and Hugues de Payens also belonged to the Levantine Rite. It is dubious if we could say that Jacques de Molay belonged to the Levantine Rite when he was based entirely in France, and we run into the same issue as that of the Levantine Brotherhood where the name Levantine Rite appears to be retrospective. I look with concern at speculatively placing characters as members of rites without the backing of sources, but to sideline this problem, we can just move Levantine Rite to "Knights Templar" and write about it as encompassing the period of the Order from Bernaud de Cervaux to Jacques de Molay, with "Levantine Rite" as an alternative name. That way, we're not expressly making a claim about whether or not Bernard, Hugues, and Jacques were members of the Levantine Rite or the French Rite or if such a division existed in their time, only that they were Knights Templar. Ethnic or national origin is definitely not a basis for assuming membership in a particular branch by the way.</blockquote>
	::::See if this answers all your questions. I agree with you that I don't think we should split the likes of Hugues de Payens, Gerard de Ridefort, and Bernard de Clairvaux into different rites. [[User:Sol Pacificus\|<span style="color:#990000;font-family:Monotype Corsiva;font-size:17px">'''Sol Pacificus'''</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Sol Pacificus\|<span style="color:#D4AF37;font-family:Californian FB;font-size:11px">(Cyfiero)</span>]]</sup> 06:23, 21 March 2024 (UTC)		::::See if this answers all your questions. I agree with you that I don't think we should split the likes of Hugues de Payens, Gerard de Ridefort, and Bernard de Clairvaux into different rites. [[User:Sol Pacificus\|<span style="color:#990000;font-family:Monotype Corsiva;font-size:17px">'''Sol Pacificus'''</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Sol Pacificus\|<span style="color:#D4AF37;font-family:Californian FB;font-size:11px">(Cyfiero)</span>]]</sup> 06:23, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
			:::::I agree with Sol’s approach. At first, I wouldn't suggest to move them to the Levantine Rite because Jacques' journey to the Holy Land in 1291 for example doesn't really mean he was part of the Levantine Rite, he could have been there just as a representative of the French one. But that approach is a balanced solution that respects the canon while also acknowledging the uncertainties of historical events without marking a specific division between the Rites during thattime.<br><br>I was going to propose to create a "Speculative Membership" but refrained 'cause sound like... yeah, no.[[User:Cristophorus35\|Cristophorus35]] ([[User talk:Cristophorus35\|talk]]) 06:52, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

imported>Sol Pacificus: /* Parisian and Levantine */

2024-03-21T06:24:14Z

Parisian and Levantine

← Older revision		Revision as of 08:24, 21 March 2024
Line 31:		Line 31:
	:::I'm more concerned about splitting the members during that period when they were operating openly into multiple rites than the actual name of the rite itself. I don't own the guide so I am unsure how it gets framed. Some of these categorization are assumptions anyways unless the Encyclopedia explicitly states the likes of Hugues de Payne and Gerard de Ridefort were different Rites. [[User:Lacrossedeamon\|Lacrossedeamon]] ([[User talk:Lacrossedeamon\|talk]]) 04:03, 11 March 2024 (UTC)		:::I'm more concerned about splitting the members during that period when they were operating openly into multiple rites than the actual name of the rite itself. I don't own the guide so I am unsure how it gets framed. Some of these categorization are assumptions anyways unless the Encyclopedia explicitly states the likes of Hugues de Payne and Gerard de Ridefort were different Rites. [[User:Lacrossedeamon\|Lacrossedeamon]] ([[User talk:Lacrossedeamon\|talk]]) 04:03, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
	::::I happened to address this topic further in the [[Talk:Persian Brotherhood of Assassins#Merge\|talk page]] of [[Persian Brotherhood of Assassins]], and I am copying-and-pasting my suggestion here:		::::I happened to address this topic further in the [[Talk:Persian Brotherhood of Assassins#Merge\|talk page]] of [[Persian Brotherhood of Assassins]], and I am copying-and-pasting my suggestion here:
	::::<blockquote>The Essential Guide explicitly refers to Robert de Sablé as belonging to the Levantine Rite. It also appears to use the name synonymously with Knights Templar. By that virtue, it would probably be safer to infer that Bernard de ~~Cervaux~~ and Hugues de Payens also belonged to the Levantine Rite. It is dubious if we could say that Jacques de Molay belonged to the Levantine Rite when he was based entirely in France, and we run into the same issue as that of the Levantine Brotherhood where the name Levantine Rite appears to be retrospective. I look with concern at speculatively placing characters as members of rites without the backing of sources, but to sideline this problem, we can just move Levantine Rite to "Knights Templar" and write about it as encompassing the period of the Order from Bernaud de Cervaux to Jacques de Molay, with "Levantine Rite" as an alternative name. That way, we're not expressly making a claim about whether or not Bernard, Hugues, and Jacques were members of the Levantine Rite or the French Rite or if such a division existed in their time, only that they were Knights Templar. Ethnic or national origin is definitely not a basis for assuming membership in a particular branch by the way.</blockquote>		::::<blockquote>The Essential Guide explicitly refers to Robert de Sablé as belonging to the Levantine Rite. It also appears to use the name synonymously with Knights Templar. By that virtue, it would probably be safer to infer that Bernard de Clairvaux and Hugues de Payens also belonged to the Levantine Rite. It is dubious if we could say that Jacques de Molay belonged to the Levantine Rite when he was based entirely in France, and we run into the same issue as that of the Levantine Brotherhood where the name Levantine Rite appears to be retrospective. I look with concern at speculatively placing characters as members of rites without the backing of sources, but to sideline this problem, we can just move Levantine Rite to "Knights Templar" and write about it as encompassing the period of the Order from Bernaud de Cervaux to Jacques de Molay, with "Levantine Rite" as an alternative name. That way, we're not expressly making a claim about whether or not Bernard, Hugues, and Jacques were members of the Levantine Rite or the French Rite or if such a division existed in their time, only that they were Knights Templar. Ethnic or national origin is definitely not a basis for assuming membership in a particular branch by the way.</blockquote>
	::::See if this answers all your questions. I agree with you that I don't think we should split the likes of Hugues de Payens, Gerard de Ridefort, and Bernard de ~~Cervaux~~ into different rites. [[User:Sol Pacificus\|<span style="color:#990000;font-family:Monotype Corsiva;font-size:17px">'''Sol Pacificus'''</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Sol Pacificus\|<span style="color:#D4AF37;font-family:Californian FB;font-size:11px">(Cyfiero)</span>]]</sup> 06:23, 21 March 2024 (UTC)		::::See if this answers all your questions. I agree with you that I don't think we should split the likes of Hugues de Payens, Gerard de Ridefort, and Bernard de Clairvaux into different rites. [[User:Sol Pacificus\|<span style="color:#990000;font-family:Monotype Corsiva;font-size:17px">'''Sol Pacificus'''</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Sol Pacificus\|<span style="color:#D4AF37;font-family:Californian FB;font-size:11px">(Cyfiero)</span>]]</sup> 06:23, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

imported>Sol Pacificus: /* Parisian and Levantine */

2024-03-21T06:23:31Z

Parisian and Levantine

← Older revision		Revision as of 08:23, 21 March 2024
Line 30:		Line 30:
	::The Levantine Rite is a canonically verified name from ''The Essential Guide'' although the book does clearly use the name Knights Templar narrowly for the period when the Templar Order was in the guise of a Christian military order. Did you mean that you think the page for the Levantine Rite should still be titled "Knights Templar" ''even though'' Levantine Rite is a canonically verified name? [[User:Sol Pacificus\|<span style="color:#990000;font-family:Monotype Corsiva;font-size:17px">'''Sol Pacificus'''</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Sol Pacificus\|<span style="color:#D4AF37;font-family:Californian FB;font-size:11px">(Cyfiero)</span>]]</sup> 18:28, 10 March 2024 (UTC)		::The Levantine Rite is a canonically verified name from ''The Essential Guide'' although the book does clearly use the name Knights Templar narrowly for the period when the Templar Order was in the guise of a Christian military order. Did you mean that you think the page for the Levantine Rite should still be titled "Knights Templar" ''even though'' Levantine Rite is a canonically verified name? [[User:Sol Pacificus\|<span style="color:#990000;font-family:Monotype Corsiva;font-size:17px">'''Sol Pacificus'''</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Sol Pacificus\|<span style="color:#D4AF37;font-family:Californian FB;font-size:11px">(Cyfiero)</span>]]</sup> 18:28, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
	:::I'm more concerned about splitting the members during that period when they were operating openly into multiple rites than the actual name of the rite itself. I don't own the guide so I am unsure how it gets framed. Some of these categorization are assumptions anyways unless the Encyclopedia explicitly states the likes of Hugues de Payne and Gerard de Ridefort were different Rites. [[User:Lacrossedeamon\|Lacrossedeamon]] ([[User talk:Lacrossedeamon\|talk]]) 04:03, 11 March 2024 (UTC)		:::I'm more concerned about splitting the members during that period when they were operating openly into multiple rites than the actual name of the rite itself. I don't own the guide so I am unsure how it gets framed. Some of these categorization are assumptions anyways unless the Encyclopedia explicitly states the likes of Hugues de Payne and Gerard de Ridefort were different Rites. [[User:Lacrossedeamon\|Lacrossedeamon]] ([[User talk:Lacrossedeamon\|talk]]) 04:03, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
			::::I happened to address this topic further in the [[Talk:Persian Brotherhood of Assassins#Merge\|talk page]] of [[Persian Brotherhood of Assassins]], and I am copying-and-pasting my suggestion here:
			::::<blockquote>The Essential Guide explicitly refers to Robert de Sablé as belonging to the Levantine Rite. It also appears to use the name synonymously with Knights Templar. By that virtue, it would probably be safer to infer that Bernard de Cervaux and Hugues de Payens also belonged to the Levantine Rite. It is dubious if we could say that Jacques de Molay belonged to the Levantine Rite when he was based entirely in France, and we run into the same issue as that of the Levantine Brotherhood where the name Levantine Rite appears to be retrospective. I look with concern at speculatively placing characters as members of rites without the backing of sources, but to sideline this problem, we can just move Levantine Rite to "Knights Templar" and write about it as encompassing the period of the Order from Bernaud de Cervaux to Jacques de Molay, with "Levantine Rite" as an alternative name. That way, we're not expressly making a claim about whether or not Bernard, Hugues, and Jacques were members of the Levantine Rite or the French Rite or if such a division existed in their time, only that they were Knights Templar. Ethnic or national origin is definitely not a basis for assuming membership in a particular branch by the way.</blockquote>
			::::See if this answers all your questions. I agree with you that I don't think we should split the likes of Hugues de Payens, Gerard de Ridefort, and Bernard de Cervaux into different rites. [[User:Sol Pacificus\|<span style="color:#990000;font-family:Monotype Corsiva;font-size:17px">'''Sol Pacificus'''</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Sol Pacificus\|<span style="color:#D4AF37;font-family:Californian FB;font-size:11px">(Cyfiero)</span>]]</sup> 06:23, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

imported>Lacrossedeamon: /* Parisian and Levantine */

2024-03-11T04:03:37Z

Parisian and Levantine

← Older revision		Revision as of 06:03, 11 March 2024
Line 28:		Line 28:
	I think [[Hugues de Payens]] and [[Jacques de Molay]] should be moved to the Levantine Rite with that Rite renamed to just the Knights Templar. [[User:Lacrossedeamon\|Lacrossedeamon]] ([[User talk:Lacrossedeamon\|talk]]) 07:45, 1 January 2021 (UTC)		I think [[Hugues de Payens]] and [[Jacques de Molay]] should be moved to the Levantine Rite with that Rite renamed to just the Knights Templar. [[User:Lacrossedeamon\|Lacrossedeamon]] ([[User talk:Lacrossedeamon\|talk]]) 07:45, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
	:Bump [[User:Lacrossedeamon\|Lacrossedeamon]] ([[User talk:Lacrossedeamon\|talk]]) 02:38, 21 October 2023 (UTC)		:Bump [[User:Lacrossedeamon\|Lacrossedeamon]] ([[User talk:Lacrossedeamon\|talk]]) 02:38, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
	:The Levantine Rite is a canonically verified name from ''The Essential Guide'' although the book does clearly use the name Knights Templar narrowly for the period when the Templar Order was in the guise of a Christian military order. Did you mean that you think the page for the Levantine Rite should still be titled "Knights Templar" ''even though'' Levantine Rite is a canonically verified name? [[User:Sol Pacificus\|<span style="color:#990000;font-family:Monotype Corsiva;font-size:17px">'''Sol Pacificus'''</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Sol Pacificus\|<span style="color:#D4AF37;font-family:Californian FB;font-size:11px">(Cyfiero)</span>]]</sup> 18:28, 10 March 2024 (UTC)		::The Levantine Rite is a canonically verified name from ''The Essential Guide'' although the book does clearly use the name Knights Templar narrowly for the period when the Templar Order was in the guise of a Christian military order. Did you mean that you think the page for the Levantine Rite should still be titled "Knights Templar" ''even though'' Levantine Rite is a canonically verified name? [[User:Sol Pacificus\|<span style="color:#990000;font-family:Monotype Corsiva;font-size:17px">'''Sol Pacificus'''</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Sol Pacificus\|<span style="color:#D4AF37;font-family:Californian FB;font-size:11px">(Cyfiero)</span>]]</sup> 18:28, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
			:::I'm more concerned about splitting the members during that period when they were operating openly into multiple rites than the actual name of the rite itself. I don't own the guide so I am unsure how it gets framed. Some of these categorization are assumptions anyways unless the Encyclopedia explicitly states the likes of Hugues de Payne and Gerard de Ridefort were different Rites. [[User:Lacrossedeamon\|Lacrossedeamon]] ([[User talk:Lacrossedeamon\|talk]]) 04:03, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

imported>Sol Pacificus: /* Parisian and Levantine */

2024-03-10T18:28:28Z

Parisian and Levantine

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:28, 10 March 2024
Line 28:		Line 28:
	I think [[Hugues de Payens]] and [[Jacques de Molay]] should be moved to the Levantine Rite with that Rite renamed to just the Knights Templar. [[User:Lacrossedeamon\|Lacrossedeamon]] ([[User talk:Lacrossedeamon\|talk]]) 07:45, 1 January 2021 (UTC)		I think [[Hugues de Payens]] and [[Jacques de Molay]] should be moved to the Levantine Rite with that Rite renamed to just the Knights Templar. [[User:Lacrossedeamon\|Lacrossedeamon]] ([[User talk:Lacrossedeamon\|talk]]) 07:45, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
	:Bump [[User:Lacrossedeamon\|Lacrossedeamon]] ([[User talk:Lacrossedeamon\|talk]]) 02:38, 21 October 2023 (UTC)		:Bump [[User:Lacrossedeamon\|Lacrossedeamon]] ([[User talk:Lacrossedeamon\|talk]]) 02:38, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
			:The Levantine Rite is a canonically verified name from ''The Essential Guide'' although the book does clearly use the name Knights Templar narrowly for the period when the Templar Order was in the guise of a Christian military order. Did you mean that you think the page for the Levantine Rite should still be titled "Knights Templar" ''even though'' Levantine Rite is a canonically verified name? [[User:Sol Pacificus\|<span style="color:#990000;font-family:Monotype Corsiva;font-size:17px">'''Sol Pacificus'''</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Sol Pacificus\|<span style="color:#D4AF37;font-family:Californian FB;font-size:11px">(Cyfiero)</span>]]</sup> 18:28, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

imported>Lacrossedeamon: bumping this topic

2023-10-21T02:38:10Z

bumping this topic

← Older revision		Revision as of 04:38, 21 October 2023
Line 27:		Line 27:

	I think [[Hugues de Payens]] and [[Jacques de Molay]] should be moved to the Levantine Rite with that Rite renamed to just the Knights Templar. [[User:Lacrossedeamon\|Lacrossedeamon]] ([[User talk:Lacrossedeamon\|talk]]) 07:45, 1 January 2021 (UTC)		I think [[Hugues de Payens]] and [[Jacques de Molay]] should be moved to the Levantine Rite with that Rite renamed to just the Knights Templar. [[User:Lacrossedeamon\|Lacrossedeamon]] ([[User talk:Lacrossedeamon\|talk]]) 07:45, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
			:Bump [[User:Lacrossedeamon\|Lacrossedeamon]] ([[User talk:Lacrossedeamon\|talk]]) 02:38, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

imported>Lacrossedeamon: /* Move to "Templar branch leader" */

2021-01-01T07:47:02Z

Move to "Templar branch leader"

← Older revision		Revision as of 09:47, 1 January 2021
Line 22:		Line 22:

	Per the [[Talk:Assassin leader#French_council_as_leaders?\|discussion]] at [[Assassin leader]], I would propose that we move this page to "Templar branch leader" or something more specific just for clarity. [[User:Sol Pacificus\|<span style="color:#990000;font-family:Monotype Corsiva;font-size:17px">'''Sol Pacificus'''</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Sol Pacificus\|<span style="color:#D4AF37;font-family:Californian FB;font-size:11px">(Cyfiero)</span>]]</sup> 08:52, November 2, 2019 (UTC)		Per the [[Talk:Assassin leader#French_council_as_leaders?\|discussion]] at [[Assassin leader]], I would propose that we move this page to "Templar branch leader" or something more specific just for clarity. [[User:Sol Pacificus\|<span style="color:#990000;font-family:Monotype Corsiva;font-size:17px">'''Sol Pacificus'''</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Sol Pacificus\|<span style="color:#D4AF37;font-family:Californian FB;font-size:11px">(Cyfiero)</span>]]</sup> 08:52, November 2, 2019 (UTC)
			:I support that rename especially if we are going to include leaders such as Pactyas and I assume Gorm. [[User:Lacrossedeamon\|Lacrossedeamon]] ([[User talk:Lacrossedeamon\|talk]]) 07:47, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

	== Parisian and Levantine ==		== Parisian and Levantine ==

	I think [[Hugues de Payens]] and [[Jacques de Molay]] should be moved to the Levantine Rite with that Rite renamed to just the Knights Templar. [[User:Lacrossedeamon\|Lacrossedeamon]] ([[User talk:Lacrossedeamon\|talk]]) 07:45, 1 January 2021 (UTC)		I think [[Hugues de Payens]] and [[Jacques de Molay]] should be moved to the Levantine Rite with that Rite renamed to just the Knights Templar. [[User:Lacrossedeamon\|Lacrossedeamon]] ([[User talk:Lacrossedeamon\|talk]]) 07:45, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 07:37, 22 March 2024
Line 35:		Line 35:
	:::::I agree with Sol’s approach. At first, I wouldn't suggest to move them to the Levantine Rite because Jacques' journey to the Holy Land in 1291 for example doesn't really mean he was part of the Levantine Rite, he could have been there just as a representative of the French one. But that approach is a balanced solution that respects the canon while also acknowledging the uncertainties of historical events without marking a specific division between the Rites during thattime.<br><br>I was going to propose to create a "Speculative Membership" but refrained 'cause sound like... yeah, no.[[User:Cristophorus35\|Cristophorus35]] ([[User talk:Cristophorus35\|talk]]) 06:52, 21 March 2024 (UTC)		:::::I agree with Sol’s approach. At first, I wouldn't suggest to move them to the Levantine Rite because Jacques' journey to the Holy Land in 1291 for example doesn't really mean he was part of the Levantine Rite, he could have been there just as a representative of the French one. But that approach is a balanced solution that respects the canon while also acknowledging the uncertainties of historical events without marking a specific division between the Rites during thattime.<br><br>I was going to propose to create a "Speculative Membership" but refrained 'cause sound like... yeah, no.[[User:Cristophorus35\|Cristophorus35]] ([[User talk:Cristophorus35\|talk]]) 06:52, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
	::::::I think moving the Levantine Rite page to Knights Templar works well enough. Since this is when the Templars operated publicly should we annotate which members would have still be secret such as the Sibrand or Tamir etc? [[User:Lacrossedeamon\|Lacrossedeamon]] ([[User talk:Lacrossedeamon\|talk]]) 17:49, 21 March 2024 (UTC)		::::::I think moving the Levantine Rite page to Knights Templar works well enough. Since this is when the Templars operated publicly should we annotate which members would have still be secret such as the Sibrand or Tamir etc? [[User:Lacrossedeamon\|Lacrossedeamon]] ([[User talk:Lacrossedeamon\|talk]]) 17:49, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::If you would like, sure. [[User:Sol Pacificus\|<span style="color:#990000;font-family:Monotype Corsiva;font-size:17px">'''Sol Pacificus'''</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Sol Pacificus\|<span style="color:#D4AF37;font-family:Californian FB;font-size:11px">(Cyfiero)</span>]]</sup> 05:37, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:49, 21 March 2024
Line 34:		Line 34:
	::::See if this answers all your questions. I agree with you that I don't think we should split the likes of Hugues de Payens, Gerard de Ridefort, and Bernard de Clairvaux into different rites. [[User:Sol Pacificus\|<span style="color:#990000;font-family:Monotype Corsiva;font-size:17px">'''Sol Pacificus'''</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Sol Pacificus\|<span style="color:#D4AF37;font-family:Californian FB;font-size:11px">(Cyfiero)</span>]]</sup> 06:23, 21 March 2024 (UTC)		::::See if this answers all your questions. I agree with you that I don't think we should split the likes of Hugues de Payens, Gerard de Ridefort, and Bernard de Clairvaux into different rites. [[User:Sol Pacificus\|<span style="color:#990000;font-family:Monotype Corsiva;font-size:17px">'''Sol Pacificus'''</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Sol Pacificus\|<span style="color:#D4AF37;font-family:Californian FB;font-size:11px">(Cyfiero)</span>]]</sup> 06:23, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
	:::::I agree with Sol’s approach. At first, I wouldn't suggest to move them to the Levantine Rite because Jacques' journey to the Holy Land in 1291 for example doesn't really mean he was part of the Levantine Rite, he could have been there just as a representative of the French one. But that approach is a balanced solution that respects the canon while also acknowledging the uncertainties of historical events without marking a specific division between the Rites during thattime.<br><br>I was going to propose to create a "Speculative Membership" but refrained 'cause sound like... yeah, no.[[User:Cristophorus35\|Cristophorus35]] ([[User talk:Cristophorus35\|talk]]) 06:52, 21 March 2024 (UTC)		:::::I agree with Sol’s approach. At first, I wouldn't suggest to move them to the Levantine Rite because Jacques' journey to the Holy Land in 1291 for example doesn't really mean he was part of the Levantine Rite, he could have been there just as a representative of the French one. But that approach is a balanced solution that respects the canon while also acknowledging the uncertainties of historical events without marking a specific division between the Rites during thattime.<br><br>I was going to propose to create a "Speculative Membership" but refrained 'cause sound like... yeah, no.[[User:Cristophorus35\|Cristophorus35]] ([[User talk:Cristophorus35\|talk]]) 06:52, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
			::::::I think moving the Levantine Rite page to Knights Templar works well enough. Since this is when the Templars operated publicly should we annotate which members would have still be secret such as the Sibrand or Tamir etc? [[User:Lacrossedeamon\|Lacrossedeamon]] ([[User talk:Lacrossedeamon\|talk]]) 17:49, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 08:23, 21 March 2024
Line 30:		Line 30:
	::The Levantine Rite is a canonically verified name from ''The Essential Guide'' although the book does clearly use the name Knights Templar narrowly for the period when the Templar Order was in the guise of a Christian military order. Did you mean that you think the page for the Levantine Rite should still be titled "Knights Templar" ''even though'' Levantine Rite is a canonically verified name? [[User:Sol Pacificus\|<span style="color:#990000;font-family:Monotype Corsiva;font-size:17px">'''Sol Pacificus'''</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Sol Pacificus\|<span style="color:#D4AF37;font-family:Californian FB;font-size:11px">(Cyfiero)</span>]]</sup> 18:28, 10 March 2024 (UTC)		::The Levantine Rite is a canonically verified name from ''The Essential Guide'' although the book does clearly use the name Knights Templar narrowly for the period when the Templar Order was in the guise of a Christian military order. Did you mean that you think the page for the Levantine Rite should still be titled "Knights Templar" ''even though'' Levantine Rite is a canonically verified name? [[User:Sol Pacificus\|<span style="color:#990000;font-family:Monotype Corsiva;font-size:17px">'''Sol Pacificus'''</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Sol Pacificus\|<span style="color:#D4AF37;font-family:Californian FB;font-size:11px">(Cyfiero)</span>]]</sup> 18:28, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
	:::I'm more concerned about splitting the members during that period when they were operating openly into multiple rites than the actual name of the rite itself. I don't own the guide so I am unsure how it gets framed. Some of these categorization are assumptions anyways unless the Encyclopedia explicitly states the likes of Hugues de Payne and Gerard de Ridefort were different Rites. [[User:Lacrossedeamon\|Lacrossedeamon]] ([[User talk:Lacrossedeamon\|talk]]) 04:03, 11 March 2024 (UTC)		:::I'm more concerned about splitting the members during that period when they were operating openly into multiple rites than the actual name of the rite itself. I don't own the guide so I am unsure how it gets framed. Some of these categorization are assumptions anyways unless the Encyclopedia explicitly states the likes of Hugues de Payne and Gerard de Ridefort were different Rites. [[User:Lacrossedeamon\|Lacrossedeamon]] ([[User talk:Lacrossedeamon\|talk]]) 04:03, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
			::::I happened to address this topic further in the [[Talk:Persian Brotherhood of Assassins#Merge\|talk page]] of [[Persian Brotherhood of Assassins]], and I am copying-and-pasting my suggestion here:
			::::<blockquote>The Essential Guide explicitly refers to Robert de Sablé as belonging to the Levantine Rite. It also appears to use the name synonymously with Knights Templar. By that virtue, it would probably be safer to infer that Bernard de Cervaux and Hugues de Payens also belonged to the Levantine Rite. It is dubious if we could say that Jacques de Molay belonged to the Levantine Rite when he was based entirely in France, and we run into the same issue as that of the Levantine Brotherhood where the name Levantine Rite appears to be retrospective. I look with concern at speculatively placing characters as members of rites without the backing of sources, but to sideline this problem, we can just move Levantine Rite to "Knights Templar" and write about it as encompassing the period of the Order from Bernaud de Cervaux to Jacques de Molay, with "Levantine Rite" as an alternative name. That way, we're not expressly making a claim about whether or not Bernard, Hugues, and Jacques were members of the Levantine Rite or the French Rite or if such a division existed in their time, only that they were Knights Templar. Ethnic or national origin is definitely not a basis for assuming membership in a particular branch by the way.</blockquote>
			::::See if this answers all your questions. I agree with you that I don't think we should split the likes of Hugues de Payens, Gerard de Ridefort, and Bernard de Cervaux into different rites. [[User:Sol Pacificus\|<span style="color:#990000;font-family:Monotype Corsiva;font-size:17px">'''Sol Pacificus'''</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Sol Pacificus\|<span style="color:#D4AF37;font-family:Californian FB;font-size:11px">(Cyfiero)</span>]]</sup> 06:23, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 06:03, 11 March 2024
Line 28:		Line 28:
	I think [[Hugues de Payens]] and [[Jacques de Molay]] should be moved to the Levantine Rite with that Rite renamed to just the Knights Templar. [[User:Lacrossedeamon\|Lacrossedeamon]] ([[User talk:Lacrossedeamon\|talk]]) 07:45, 1 January 2021 (UTC)		I think [[Hugues de Payens]] and [[Jacques de Molay]] should be moved to the Levantine Rite with that Rite renamed to just the Knights Templar. [[User:Lacrossedeamon\|Lacrossedeamon]] ([[User talk:Lacrossedeamon\|talk]]) 07:45, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
	:Bump [[User:Lacrossedeamon\|Lacrossedeamon]] ([[User talk:Lacrossedeamon\|talk]]) 02:38, 21 October 2023 (UTC)		:Bump [[User:Lacrossedeamon\|Lacrossedeamon]] ([[User talk:Lacrossedeamon\|talk]]) 02:38, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
	:The Levantine Rite is a canonically verified name from ''The Essential Guide'' although the book does clearly use the name Knights Templar narrowly for the period when the Templar Order was in the guise of a Christian military order. Did you mean that you think the page for the Levantine Rite should still be titled "Knights Templar" ''even though'' Levantine Rite is a canonically verified name? [[User:Sol Pacificus\|<span style="color:#990000;font-family:Monotype Corsiva;font-size:17px">'''Sol Pacificus'''</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Sol Pacificus\|<span style="color:#D4AF37;font-family:Californian FB;font-size:11px">(Cyfiero)</span>]]</sup> 18:28, 10 March 2024 (UTC)		::The Levantine Rite is a canonically verified name from ''The Essential Guide'' although the book does clearly use the name Knights Templar narrowly for the period when the Templar Order was in the guise of a Christian military order. Did you mean that you think the page for the Levantine Rite should still be titled "Knights Templar" ''even though'' Levantine Rite is a canonically verified name? [[User:Sol Pacificus\|<span style="color:#990000;font-family:Monotype Corsiva;font-size:17px">'''Sol Pacificus'''</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Sol Pacificus\|<span style="color:#D4AF37;font-family:Californian FB;font-size:11px">(Cyfiero)</span>]]</sup> 18:28, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
			:::I'm more concerned about splitting the members during that period when they were operating openly into multiple rites than the actual name of the rite itself. I don't own the guide so I am unsure how it gets framed. Some of these categorization are assumptions anyways unless the Encyclopedia explicitly states the likes of Hugues de Payne and Gerard de Ridefort were different Rites. [[User:Lacrossedeamon\|Lacrossedeamon]] ([[User talk:Lacrossedeamon\|talk]]) 04:03, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:28, 10 March 2024
Line 28:		Line 28:
	I think [[Hugues de Payens]] and [[Jacques de Molay]] should be moved to the Levantine Rite with that Rite renamed to just the Knights Templar. [[User:Lacrossedeamon\|Lacrossedeamon]] ([[User talk:Lacrossedeamon\|talk]]) 07:45, 1 January 2021 (UTC)		I think [[Hugues de Payens]] and [[Jacques de Molay]] should be moved to the Levantine Rite with that Rite renamed to just the Knights Templar. [[User:Lacrossedeamon\|Lacrossedeamon]] ([[User talk:Lacrossedeamon\|talk]]) 07:45, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
	:Bump [[User:Lacrossedeamon\|Lacrossedeamon]] ([[User talk:Lacrossedeamon\|talk]]) 02:38, 21 October 2023 (UTC)		:Bump [[User:Lacrossedeamon\|Lacrossedeamon]] ([[User talk:Lacrossedeamon\|talk]]) 02:38, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
			:The Levantine Rite is a canonically verified name from ''The Essential Guide'' although the book does clearly use the name Knights Templar narrowly for the period when the Templar Order was in the guise of a Christian military order. Did you mean that you think the page for the Levantine Rite should still be titled "Knights Templar" ''even though'' Levantine Rite is a canonically verified name? [[User:Sol Pacificus\|<span style="color:#990000;font-family:Monotype Corsiva;font-size:17px">'''Sol Pacificus'''</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Sol Pacificus\|<span style="color:#D4AF37;font-family:Californian FB;font-size:11px">(Cyfiero)</span>]]</sup> 18:28, 10 March 2024 (UTC)