Talk:Knights Templar

Definition

So what caught my attention here is that some Parisian Templars are categorized as Levantine Templars. And according to The Essential Guide. Factions or divisions within the Templar Order are referred to as Rites. And Rites are defied geographically, I.e. the Colonial Rite and the Parisian Rite. And Grand Masters are responsible for a geographical region. Grand Masters are leaders of a specific Rite, and have control of all members of that Rite and their activity. As an example, Jacques de Molay should be categorized as a Parisian Templar and be included as a member of the Parisian Rite. And of course including him but not adding the Temple in Paris as a HQ and not adding France as the region the Levantine Rite operated in isn't consistent either. But doing that would be consistent with the definitions provided. I could change it but I'd rather avoid an edit battle, so he's the argument. The definitions are copied almost word by word to. Just to avoid a debate even more.--ACsenior (talk) 17:56, February 7, 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing it up, for I was thinking exactly the same thing. He's not mentioned as part of the Levantine Rite in The Essential Guide, nor would he be given that he was based in Paris and rites are delineated geographically. Sol Pacificus^(Cyfiero) 03:55, February 8, 2017 (UTC)

Does the Essential Guide give any clear confirmation of the existence of a 'Levantine Rite'? Because as far as I am aware, there weren't any Rites until the Order decided to go widespread when Jacques de Molay sent his agents out into the world before his death. -- Master Sima Yi _Talk 13:04, February 8, 2017 (UTC)

Good question. Yes, it does actually. Robert de Sablé's entry has him specifically listed as a member of the "Levantine Rite". (I actually think it's possible for the Templars to have applied the name to Robert de Sablé's group retroactively in-universe, but that would be pure speculation). Sol Pacificus^(Cyfiero) 13:10, February 8, 2017 (UTC)

Beyond what Sol said. That hasn't stated at all and was how everyone assumed the structure of the Templar Order was. We also have sources of various Templars before the Crusades that didn't operate in the Middle East, so the Templars existed before the Crusades. What is started is that De Payees did made the Templars an official order and what De Molay did was return the Order to the shadows, the sources for that does't mention any Rites. Because of that we assumed there was no such thing as Rites until after De Molay. The Grand Masters from De Payees to De Molay are also stated that they was the official Grand Masters. Add this and that the The Essential Guide overrule this by stating Grand Masters control specific Rites and that Rites are defined geographically. Then we basically have a confirmation of the existence of Rites based on the Templars operating in their geographical region and what region each Grand Master controlled. De Molay sent 9 Templars with the knowledge of the accident away. But that itself does't prove anything else than that he sent 9 people away.--ACsenior (talk) 16:31, February 8, 2017 (UTC)

Founder parameter

Since the "Founder" parameter was changed to "unknown", given that—as I agree—we do not know for sure that the Levantine Rite did not exist before Hugues de Payens and Bernard de Clairvaux made it public (which would constitute as a reorganization instead), I removed it entirely, but it has been reverted, and so I shall explain my reasoning here.

It has been our consistent format that parameters that are unknown be left blank. Subjects of articles might have several unknown parameters, and it just unnecessarily bloats the article to keep on listing "N/A" or "unknown". Instead we leave them blank, and they get hidden from the infobox instead. This is also why infoboxes have a "hide" option for sections of infoboxes where there is no information.

I should also add that while the information might be unknown to us, it is not to some in-universe characters, such as in this case, the Templars. The "unknown" moniker is therefore coming from an OOU perspective and violates our policy of writing from an IU perspective, or so is my interpretation. I might be wrong though and the infobox doesn't have to be IU, given the "appearance" parameter, but I had assumed that that's because there are specific OOU parameters for an infobox, and "founder" is not one of them. Sol Pacificus^(Cyfiero) 20:02, February 8, 2017 (UTC)