Talk:Scottish Knights Templar

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Scottish Knights Templar article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Clarification requested

I want clarification that the Non Masonic Organization does not share any history with the Jacobite cause or the House of Stewart, and does not share any history or association with Masonic Templarism. I like the pictures, let me know when you guys "RENT" the chapel again.

I find it interesting how this Non-Masonic organization conviently writes itself into the Masonic History regarding the Jacobites and the Pretender King. Even going so far as to put it on thier "offical" website.(Just Goes to show don't believe everything that is written). Its pretty obvious that this so called priory is looking for legitimacy. Oh well, I guess not everyone can be a Mason. It should be noted that this organization has never had a legitimate head of state or member of any Royal house as its Master. That it was founded in 1804 as part of enumenical christian lay organization called the Sovereign Military Order of the Temple of Jerusalem and shares no difinitive history or association with the well documented Freemasonry of the Sinclair family, therefore has no real connection to Rosslyn (Not forgetting that Rosslyn has more legitimate Masonic references in its architecture than Templarism,inevitable, since there are no architectural or sculptural references to Templars at all).

Based on this I also ask that "SKT1314" cease from citing his website as a legitimate reference when its is obviously biased, has no basis in true Templar History (Remember Templars did not exist after 1314, Prince Charles was a Mason not a Templar). and not written by a legitimate scholar.

verifiable content? When is a bias website with no annotated references of its own verifiable content? when cited "AS A REFERENCE" Oh yeah my history, well not everyone likes to hear the truth or compromise and they would rather post slander than engage in educational debate. I could just as easily post negative feedback on your page as anyone could on mine. Sorry if I put exclusively Masonic matierials into the page; but guess what Sinclairs were Freemasons, Prince Charles (Bonnie Prince) was a Mason. The non Masonic organization being simply that "NON-MASONIC" does not share in the history of the Freemasonic Sinclair Family and hence does not share in the association of Rosslyn either. Like I said Rosslyn has more Masonic refrences and very little if any Templar signs. (I could just as easliy say a cross in a modern church proves that the "Templars Built it") The truth is no one even knows if Rosslyn even had anything to do with the knights templar. For all intensive purposes it could have or more likely was the final building project for a family that has a long history with the Masonic Craft guilds of the middle ages. --- It should be pointed out that the connection between Templars and Roslin is, in fact, perfectly understood by historians; there is no connection at all.

The Sinclairs were devout Catholics who were ruined by clinging to their Catholicism in the face of the reformation ----is there any evidence to support this statement?---- there is no evidence of templar connections. Furthermore, the Templar rose/cross is more likely to be a reference to the family saint of the Sinclairs, St Catherine and her eight-spoked wheel. Devious Viper 11:36, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Veracity, whats to be verified. Its pretty simple discuss with me how your matierial just happens to be verifiable. You have no written record of Sinclair holding any office in your organization, your organization was created almost eighty years after William died. Yet for some reason (Looking for members maybe?) you decide to add presitge by trying to write yourself into MASONIC lore. Well I am done with it I KNOW the truth, and you can be content to live a lie. No please continue I want to find out how you find your "refrences" to be verifyable. You have no pedigree, no pictures, no documented history outside your website, and the references you cite are people from your own organization. Clearly I do not find the removal of conjecture or legends to be vandalism. The truth is no one even knows if the Sinclairs were Templars ( But they were Freemasons) ---- Templars were individuals, not families, and in an order sworn to celibacy there were obvioulsy not going to be swarms of baby Templars. Similalry, various Sinclairs MAY have been Masons, but there is no such thing as a 'masonic family'. That fact has been beyond dispute and verified by reliable, unbiased, outside, documentation for centuries . Your website even claims association with Bonnie Prince Charlie (Charles Edward Stuart) that can hardly be true since Masonic charters which were signed by him exist even to this day. You wanted to have a discussion. I am giving it too you. Also before you start claiming Alexander Deuchar as the Master of Militi Scotia you may want to look at the Great Priory of Scotlands website first along with his brief Masonic bio. (Sorry Just another hole in you story).

What "points" you have not debated any facts or even made any contradictory claims to what I am saying. Instead you would much rather see that I do not edit the page any more. You just keep putting up that pathetic sockpuppet paragraph and hope that I go away. You have not even bothered to debate the facts with me.

Therefore I am requesting that Wiki lift the edit ban on the article so that factual information can be placed on the page, and to remove untrue or "recruitment" material from the text. Namely the false claims of legitimacy made by Militi Templi Scotia.

Website content is not verifyable, annotated references are (Books citing page, source and publisher) I am not going to give this up and I am gonna be a fly in the ointment until you stop trying to write bogus information.03:55, 22 May 2006 (UTC)BlueTemplar13 03:55, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Membership booklet does not have any substantiated history. It tries to associate the New Militi Templi Scotia with the original jacobite Masonic Templars of which it is not. 10:22, 25 May 2006 (UTC)BlueTemplar13

Like I said before, Militi Scotia does not own Rosslyn Chapel it rents the chapel for its ceremonies "has held" is past tense "holds" suggests possesion or is posessive. I doubt you holding a "ceremony" while your reading this.10:22, 25 May 2006 (UTC)BlueTemplar13

Being a non-Masonic organization Militi Scotias history with the originial Jacobites including Freemasons like William St Clair is shaky at best.10:25, 25 May 2006 (UTC)BlueTemplar13

Thats because the Non Masonic order did not come from Masonic Templarism, regardless of who writes it. BlueTemplar13 ---- A good point, since there is no connection whatsoever between the Templars of the middle ages and the MAsons of the last 300-400 years.

This Article needs to reflect that there are many unrecognised Orders of Knights Templar in Scotland most of which have less than 20 members. The particular Order relating to this article has no connection with the Sovereign Military Order of the Temple of Jerusalem (SMOTJ) (otherwise known as) Ordo Supremus Militaris Templi Hierosolymitani (OSMTH) which is the International Order of Knights Templar in special consultative status with the United Nations. www.osmth.org. OSMTH has over 5000 members internationally at this time. Paul McGowan

Third opinion

This dispute was listed on Wikipedia:Third opinion, however as a non-expert I can't seem to make heads or tails of the debate here. What exactly is the basis for the dispute? Since BlueTemplar is the one deleting information and references, perhaps this user can explain this in layman's terms? Fagstein 05:30, 26 May 2006 (UTC) The basis of this dispute would seem to be that one person objects to another quoting myths (modern ones) as history and referring readers to his own website as a dependable source. The problem, I suippose, really lies in the desire of a few people to invent exciting history. This is a historiological/historiographical problem in Scottish history generally. There is plenty of information and plenty of fine scholarship, but since there is no viable approach to the delivery of history in Scottish schools - there is no worthwhile textbook for example - liitle of that scholarship percolates into the community as a whole. This leads to the acceptance of dodgy tales - Templars at Bannockburn/Templars at Roslin are just the tip of the iceberg. CSinc, Dec. 2006.[reply]

Templar vs. Maltese Cross

I've enjoyed reading this article and the discussion above. I know that there is always controversy as to difference between the various crosses used by the different medieval military orders, and the evolution of those crosses (devices). However, in all my reading and research the eight-pointed cross shown at the beginning of the article has always been identified as the "Maltese Cross" of the Knights (Order) of the Hospital of St. John of Jerusalem, also known as the Knights of Malta. This is the only place I've ever seen it identified as a "Templar" Cross. I'd like to see some documentation as to why it is included here as a Templar cross. PGNormand 04:53, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Maltese cross is not restricted to use by the Knights Hospitaller and is used by a variety of chivalric orders. Crosses of the same shape are used by the Order of the Bath, the Order of St Lazarus, the Order of Léopold and various others. The distinction of the cross used by the Knights Hospitaller (or the Knights of Malta as they were later known) is that it was white, not its shape. The cross used by the original Order of St. John of Jerusalem was different to the modern Maltese cross as well. ~ Brother William 12:39, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The use of the Maltese Cross for the Scottish Knights is an invention of the 1960s when the Order was reconstituted in Scotland. The websites referred to on the issue of the cross are all web opinions and not fact. Paul McGowan

Maltese Cross- Again

From the website

http://www2.prestel.co.uk/church/oosj/cross.htm

The arms of the Rhodian Cross had almost, but not quite, achieved the straight lined sharp arrowhead appearance, noted from the mid 16th century onwards.

End quote.

More than 200 years after the suppression of the Order of the Temple!

It is more likely that this 1960s/70s invention is due to the tenous link to the Masonic Knights Templar who, as part of that degree grouping, include the Masonic Knights of Malta degree. Therefore a Masonic Knight in Scotland would have both a red Templar Cross and a white Maltese Cross.

The reference to the sanctuary given by the Order of St John in 1315 refers to a holding company legally setup after the suppression called: "The Order of St John of Jerusalem and of the Order of the Temple in Scotland" Nothing to do with either:

- The Freemasons - The Knights of St John - The Knights of Malta

Modern Scottish Orders of Templars who insist on using a red Maltese Cross do so out of a lack of knowledge of their own history and a confusion that they are connected at birth to Freemasonry. (GSGOSMTH 08:53, 30 May 2006 (UTC)) GSGOSMTH 08:53, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SKT1314 you are missing the point, THERE ARE NO MODERN CHIVALRIC SCOTTISH KNIGHT TEMPLARS ORDERS THAT CAN CLAIM DIRECT AND/OR UNBROKEN DESCENT FROM MTSCOTAE. These organisations are all modern creations with no lineage and certainly no connection to the group that broke away from MTScotae in the mid 19th century (GSGOSMTH 09:39, 31 May 2006 (UTC)).[reply]

Perhaps SKT1314 would like to present the evidence that Scottish (non masonic) Templars used the Maltese Cross prior to the 1960s (Brethern in Chivalry, frederick smythe, Chapter 12, The Masonic Order of Malta). (GSGOSMTH 10:42, 30 May 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Would the real Scottish Knight Templars Stand Up?

This Article needs to reflect that there are many unrecognised Orders of Knights Templar in Scotland most of which have less than 20 members. The particular Order relating to this article has no connection with the Sovereign Military Order of the Temple of Jerusalem (SMOTJ) (otherwise known as) Ordo Supremus Militaris Templi Hierosolymitani (OSMTH) which is the International Order of Knights Templar in special consultative status with the United Nations. OSMTH has over 5000 members internationally at this time. (GSGOSMTH 08:56, 30 May 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Militia Templi Scotae

In reference to the debate about the Modern Scottish Order coming from the Masonic Pedigree.

After the split in the mid 1830s the Masonic KTs took the non Masonic KTs to court over their use of their titles etc. In Circa 1848, the Scottish Courts awarded total custody of all documents, names, shields and signs etc to the Masonic KTs. The Scottish Court ordered that the non Masonic KT Secretary hand over all documentation and funds etc. He refused to do so and the last that was heard was he emigrated to the USA with all the documentation etc.

This Order was called Militi Templi Scotae.

The Modern Order Militi Templi Scotia (note the spelling difference) appeared at the beginning of the 1990s and its belief that it is of the Deuchar Pedigree is more to do with believing its own spin than anything factual.

No wonder the continual belief in the above causes so much strife between Freemasonry and Chivalric Templar Orders in Scotland. It would be interesting to see if the Masonic KTs wished to pursue the legal award given to them in the 19th century.

Removed Irrevalent material regarding another organisation, Lets stick to the matter at hand! Paul McGowan

Royal Order of Scotland

There can be no doubt where the ruling monarchs and indeed Scotland herself puts her faith. Militi Templi Scotia does not have a monarch of Scotland as its current Grand Master, therefore unrecognized. Militi Scotia's instsisting on a pedigree through Deuchar is presposterus backed only by recruitment pamphlets put on wiki and cited as refrences.

Its obvious that if the courts of Scotland had a problem with Militi Scotias use of Masonic titles, its was proven a long time ago in a court of law and it would be reckless to think that the courts opinion was not backed by facts and evidence.

Militi Scotia instists on writing itself into Masonic history. Being NON Masonic its precisly that NON-MASON. Therefore does not share in ANY of the history of the Masonic Templars including the bogus claim of "association" through Deuchar or any claim through William Sinclair. I can tell you I have also seen Militi Scotias "investure" ceremonies and they have nothing that even remotely resembles anything Masonic in its Ritual either. Would not an organization claiming association through a Freemason like Deuchar not undoubetly have at least something Masonic in its ritual. Guess what people its not even close.

Militi Templi Scotia has a hard time at recruitment and recontition for obvious reasons. Looking for that recognition they come up with a bogus claim with Royal Masonic Association, engages in no substantial charity of its own rather keeps "knighting" people in order to bolster thier numbers. The Masonic Templars quite honestly don't need to claim any 19th century court ruling to know where the truth lies or to prove that truth to others, and its pretty obvious the Scottish Courts were not fooled by Militi Scotias argument either.

Development of Article

Have attempted to fill some gaps in this article with information drawn from a number of on-line sources, brought in as references, including looking back at some previous discussion. --Steve Zissou 17:08, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could the following currently final paragraph in the article be improved or even deleted?

"The modern non Masonic Groups share no history with the Templars of 1118 and the Masonic Templars of Robert the Bruce, or the "Royal House of Stewart"."

It is now clear from the earlier material in the article that there is no clear line of descent from the Medieval Templars to the Modern Groups and that the Masonic and non Masonic Templars operating in Scotland today are unrelated? --Steve Zissou 13:49, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thought: could the 19th Century Templar at Rosslyn Chapel who has a distinctive red feather in his cap be a representation of the mysterious "Knight of the Red Feather" who allegedly initiated Baron von Hund into Scottish Templarism in the 18th Century? --Steve Zissou 14:00, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Added some fresh book references to support the internet sources asserting Alexander Deuchar's opening of Templarism in Scotland to non Masons, as this is clearly a difficult area for some. --Steve Zissou 20:23, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since there are already articles on the Royal Order of Scotland and the Masonic Knights Templar is it necessary for either to have anything other then links in this article? The content of this article appears to be resolving around the supposed medieval survival in Scotland, the Jacobite Order and 19th Century revival in Scotland, which does not seem to be documented elsewhere --Steve Zissou 11:04, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

May I suggest that you separate this article into two articles: 1. Masonic Knights Templar, 2. Non Masonic Knights Templar. We are two entirely separate Orders. The history of both orders is not the same. Yes the lodge for a while protected our Order but it was never fully incorporated into the Lodge. They created their own Right or Degrees which they still work today. Bernard de Linton aka Graham Russell 28th January 2008. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bernarddelinton (talk • contribs) 14:23, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Revert warring not acceptable

There is a revert war going on with this article. IP User 166.66.16.116- you keep deleting citations, and others are reverting this. You may, for all we know, have a very good reason for this, but if you do not share it we cannot decide. Could all parties please discuss the article so that the standard of the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view can be achieved for its content? See Wikipedia:Resolving disputes--Steve Zissou 09:56, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now IP User 166.66.76.151 has deleted the same citations and this has been reverted by another user. Reference to the 166.66.76.151 's page indicates the addresses are related, so the same invitation applies, please discuss here before deleting otherwise it just looks like vandalism--Steve Zissou 10:55, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is a new revert war going on, with one IP user deleting "European Influence" and others reverting it, but nobody is explaining why they are doing it. There may be a very good reason for this, so could all parties please discuss this section so that the standard of the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view can be achieved for its content? As before please discuss here before deleting otherwise it just looks like vandalism--Steve Zissou 10:10, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would welcome working with 166.66.76.151 to help and resolve any issues he has with a Scottish OSMTH Order. Unfortunately, he has had to deal with other groups in the past were his views are diametrically opposed to others. I do not believe it will be the same with ourselves. The Commandery of St Clair , No S1, incorporated in Scotland as The Grand Priory of the Knights Templar in Scotland (Trademark pending)(Charitable Status Pending) www.scottishknightstemplar.org

Could there be Wikipedia:Conflict of interest situation here? ("Conflict of interest often presents itself in the form of self-promotion, including advertising links, personal website links".) One party in the revert war seems involved in the website of the Commandery of St Clair which has the website "The Grand Priory of the Knights Templar in Scotland" cited in the European Influence section which 166.66.76.151 is deleting? --Kyndinos 11:40, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you will find that most authors on this page have some angle/agenda in self promoting their Order. I think the reason that 166.66.76.151 is deleting is due to his belief that Templars can only be Masonic. Paul McGowan

This article has been temporarily locked for editing by new and unregistered users. They should read Wikipedia:Neutral point of view - proposed changes, supported by citations, should be discussed here to reach NPOV, then the lock can be removed. --Kyndinos 06:07, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

St Clairs and the Templars

Historians Mark Oxbrow, Ian Robertson [1] Karen Ralls and Louise Yeoman [2] have made it clear that the St Clair family had no connection with the Mediaeval Knights Templar. Their testimony against them at the 1309 trial is not consistent with their alleged support. In "The Templars and the Grail" p.110 Karen Ralls quoting "The Knights Templar in England" p.200-1 states that among some 50 who testified against the Templars were Henry and William Sinclair. The original source of this seems to be "Processus jactus contra Templarios in Scotia" from David Wilkins' "Concilla Magnae Britanniae et Hiberniae." [3] Father Hay who also wrote a very brief, but sympathetic Templar history, made no connection between the Templars and Sinclairs in his work "Genealogie of the SainteClaires of Rosslyn" [4]. There is no proof of a marriage between Catherine St Clair and Hugh de Payens [5]. The Templar connection has developed through Freemasonry in the 19th Century, and modern non-masonic Templars who claim a mediaeval St Clair connection are mistaken, and are actually following a modern masonic tradition.--Quaerere Verum 11:40, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

David Seton - more pseudo history?

“Not only is there much question about who precisely he was; there is even some question about whether he ever actually existed.” Baigent and Leigh, The Temple and the Lodge, p. 145 Dikkat

The Temple and the Lodge is, however, a novel, and therefore of rather limited use as a point of reference —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.43.67.155 (talk) 17:59, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Temple and the Lodge is not a Novel, can you explain your point more clearly? 86.149.108.14 (talk) 22:52, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Masonic v. non Masonic

However Militi Templi Scotia were expelled as a true non masonic Order for sympathising with the Masonic lodge. It is not possible by degree of the church to be a Templar and a Freemason----.

These last two sentances are absolute nonsense, expelled from what????

I am the person in the above article and apart from it being misquoted in a few sentences I (Paul McGowan) can tell you that I am a Templar, Freemason and Christian. The offending two sentences need to be removed. The article (if it is read completely from start to finish) will point out that I believed Templars (who by now, where out of work) fought on both sides at Bannockburn. GSGOSMTH and 86.134.5.174

In an article written in Catholic on line, it was asked if there has been any change in the Church's decision in regard to Masonic associations since the new Code of Canon Law does not mention them expressly.

catholic online clearly states (go to http://www.catholic.org/featured/headline.php?ID=4033

the Church's "negative judgment in regard to Masonic association remains unchanged since their principles have always been considered irreconcilable with the doctrine of the Church and therefore membership in them remains forbidden. The "faithful" who enroll in Masonic associations are in a state of grave sin and may not receive Holy Communion". Therefore to be a true Knight Templar you can not be a Freemason. The Templar Observance that is within the Masonic Lodge is only a fraternal club based on Templar ideals.

What nonsense is this? It is the opinion of the "Roman Catholic Church" and not a fact! As a matter of debate, most of the world is in a state of grave sin according to the the RCC? User:194.221.133.226 16:40, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This whole article, and this Talk Page, are such a mess that I hardly know where to start. So, I guess this is as a good a place as any. My comment to the above discussion is this: In the above UNSIGNED post it states "to be a true Knight Templar you cannot be a Freemason." This is undoubtedly based upon the premise that you have to be faithful Catholic to be a Templar. But, according to the R.C. Church, all Templars are heretics and were either imprisoned, tortured, burned at the stake, or at least run off by the sainted officials of the R.C. Church. So how did the survivors of the Templar persecution of 1307-1314 feel about their affiliation with the R.C. Church? PGNormand 23:25, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CHURCH OR LODGE?

Editorial - Scripture Standard Vol.57 No.4 April 1989 is a document expressing The Church of Scotlands views on Christianity and Freemasonry. It can be viewed here http://members.aol.com/d4web4s/addedinf/lodgep.htm

It states that "Christ's Name must never be mentioned in a Freemasons' Lodge. Masons say, "We adopt the principle of silence, lest at any time there should be among us those trained in other than the Christian faith." If this is so, you can not be a true Templar, our rule forbids this. "and to who, on that account, the mention of the Christian Master's Name might be an offence" (The Meaning of Masonry, by Wilmhurst).

And so Christ's Name must never be mentioned in the Lodge in case it gives offence. This situation might be quite acceptable to those who claim no relationship with Jesus Christ, but it is difficult to understand any true Christian being a member of any association which would ban any reference to Christ.

Ohh good another report available on the internet, how reliable, accurate and academic is it? Probably as much as Wiki, which according to its owner is very little! User:194.221.133.226 16:40, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As a Knight of Christ and a Christian, it is not possible to be a Freemason and a Templar. It is however possible to be a freemason, dress up like and pretend to be a Templar. Bernarddelinton

Perhaps Bernard still lives like a templar in celibacy, not taking baths, having lambskins underpants, taking morning and evening vespers, giving all his worldy goods away.

Do you think he is a real templar, no, I don't. Thats because the real Templars died 700 years ago. Any person that thinks that they are the only, real, true, madly, deep, etc etc Templar is deluded past councilling.User:194.221.133.226 16:40, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No Masonic grand lodge, nor any other legitimate Masonic organization, claims that the Masonic Knights Templar are anything other than a "commemorative" organization. I would challenge Bernarddelinton to produce any Masonic authorized publication that has been published in the last 75 years that claims that the Masonic Knights Templar can claim direct descent from the Templars of 1118. PGNormand 23:31, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from Article

--Quaerere Verum 16:28, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Freemason or Templar you decide look here http://members.aol.com/d4web4s/addedinf/lodgep.htm

and look here http://www.catholic.org/featured/headline.php?ID=4033 a true templar can not be a Freemason Templars do not ban or deny jesus christ. Bernarddelinton

Nonsense, just opinion backed up with others opinions. The fact remains that there are thousands who fall into this catagory, which upsets Bernard and his opinions. User:194.221.133.226 16:40, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from Article

--Quaerere Verum 08:01, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FACT: There are some churches that have issues with the Freemasons!

FACT: Tens of Thousands of Freemasons are committed Christians User:194.221.133.226 16:40, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cross Talk

I believe that since this article first appeared, the cross image which has featured at top has been an eight point one. It has recently been replaced by as unyet untagged image (this may be in breach of copyright) which appears to be from the OSMTH website. A quick review of the Scottish Templar sites linked to this article seems to show that the eight point cross is the one used by all but the French sponsored group? Could those who originally placed the eight point cross here and those who are now removing it discuss here which cross is most relevant to this article? During the discussion let us have both images in the article, though bear in mind the untagged image may have to be deleted due to copyright? --Steve Zissou 09:10, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Look's like the "cross pattee" is the one used by the Sovereign Military Order of the Temple of Jerusalem and the eight point by Scottish Templars. Since there is a separate article about them, can't see why their cross should be here. --Sannhet 09:38, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Image is a plain cross patte for which there is no copyright. Just to clarify that the "French Sponsored Group" are in fact Scots, resident in Scotland and are Scottish Knight Templars as well as being incorporated in Scotland as "The Grand Priory of the Knights Templar in Scotland" Reg No: SC314552. This is the only group that has International Affiliation with OSMTH/SMOTJ (as the Commandery of St Clair) but is in fact a body in its own right. So what cross do the Scottish Knights Templar use, well in fact, they use both. Certain smaller, non affiliated bodies use the Maltese Cross (which was not in use at the time of the Crusades) and the legal incorporated body uses the Cross Pattee (Which is now the accepted Cross for the International Order). There is, in fact another Scottish/American Group that uses the Cross of Lorraine (double bar). Hope that helps. Paul McGowan

OK, we now have three crosses, and as long as everyone is happy, they all stay, problem solved. Please sign your contributions and use the : symbol to step it in - it makes it easier to follow the discussion. --Steve Zissou 10:02, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The OSMTH/SMOTJ group wants to amend the text to read from "most" to "some" Scottish Groups using the eight point cross. A survey of the links to this site indicates that at least 3 of the Scottish groups are using the eight point cross, the Grand Priory of Scotland, Militi Templi Scotia and The Ancient Scottish Military Order of Knights Templar, and two groups, one Scottish/French and the other Scottish/American, each using a different cross. Is this correct? In the meantime, have re-written the text to record actual use rather than a comparitive, in the hope this is more neutral.--Steve Zissou 12:38, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Acceptable to the Commandery of St Clair, but just one mental note. There is no such thing as the Scottish French Group. St Clair Commandery is all Scots from Scotland and has been recognised by the International Order OSMTH/SMOTJ. Hope this helps.

Inaccuracy

HELP? A contributor keeps inserting an assertion that modern scholarship indicaqtes that the Templars fought under Robert I at BAnnockburn, and that the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland and 'The European Council of Princes' support this contention. If he has evidence to support the claim that the Society of Antiquaries has ever made such a claim, would he like to cite the appearance? The 'European Council of Princes seems to be a club of 'Royal pretenders. Does the contributor have any knowlegde of the source of the 'princes' assertion? He or she might like to know that there is not one respected scholar of 14th century Scotland that gives the Templar/Bannockburn/Roslin stories any credence whatsoever; possibly due the utrter lack of any supporeting evidence from either record or narrative sources.¬¬¬¬?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.158.166.254 (talk • contribs) 15:39 9 August (UTC) _{Note:Moved by --GoBack1 11:02, 10 August 2007 (UTC)GoBack1 01:15, 10 August 2007 (UTC)}[reply]

Is there a means of setting a verified page based on scholarship and resarch? I spend so much time expalining to medieval history undergraduates and enthusiasts that the Templar/Bannockburn/Bruce stories are modern inventions, and I am more than happy to help write sections on the medieval Templars in Scotland (I know nothing of the modern Templar scoieties). I have frequently corrected statements on this page, and then seen the same spurious claims reinstated. I do not much care what 'temaplars' choose to beleive, but I do object to modern tales being passed off as if they were the product of scholarship. Any ideas?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.158.166.254 (talk • contribs) _{Note:Moved by Wafulz 01:15, 10 August 2007 (UTC)}[reply]

The best thing to do is provide reliable sources to support your position. As an open source encyclopedia, we have to rely on verifiable material rather than information from editors. Hope this helps.-Wafulz 13:25, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article should be discussed on this page, not in the article itself. You have not provided citations for your edits for which you have used several different IP addresses, and have made assertions, without references, for example that John Graham of Claverhouse, 1st Viscount Dundee, was a Member of the Church of Scotland when it was clear that he was an Episcopalian . Not surprisingly your unsupported edits have been reverted. Any material which is uncited will be removed from this article. Please also note this article is about the Modern Order as stated in the opening line, so if you do not know anything about Modern Templars, you are probably on the wrong page. --Quaerere Verum 14:06, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good enough for me..... But is it good enough for others? The assertion that Templars fought for Bruce is not supported by any kind of medieval evidence and would be very unlikely given the politcal and diplomatic situation of Robert I - he desperately needed the endorsement of the King of France and the lifting of his excommunication could only come from the Pope, so he was hardly likely to be helpful to the Templars. As for Bannockburn in pareticular, the assertion that 'modern scholarship has proven (the legends) more likely than not' is entirely unsupportable. There is not one reputable scholar of the Wars of Independence nor of 14th century Scottish social, political or ecclesiastical hisrory that gives the tale any credence whatsoever, due, no doubt, to the complete lack of any supporting evidence other than 18-20th century romances. The same applies to the general 'connection' between the Bruces and the Templars. There is no documentary evidence to suggest such a connection, or at least none that is known to scholars or palaeographers. Similarly there seems to be no proof that the Society of Antiquaries supports the Templars at Bannockburn story. Since the primary activity of the society is to publish archeological and historical research, nbot to conduct it, this is hardly surprising. One might point to other examples; I see that Sinclair is now being described as 2nd Baron of Roslin, though is is not clear that Roslin was a Barony at all until the 13th century. It was certainly part of a Barony (Pentland, Cousland and Roslin)by the early 14th century. Equally, the contention that there is evidence that Templarism survived in Scotland after the suppression is not supported by any evidence; references to 'Templars' in Scottiush rentals up to the 17th century (at least) refer to the holders of properties that had at one time belonged to (or possibly in some cases leased by)the Templar order before the suppression.

Claverhouse.....of course he was a member of the Church of Scotland, the Kirk was, at the time, both Presbyterian and Episcopalian; these were not mtually exclusive terms in the 17th century. Had the Templar order existed in the late 17th century - and there is no evidence that it did - membership of a 'papistical' body would have been grounds for Graham's excommunication from the Church of Scotland.

Modern 'templarism'.....I have no comment to make on this other than to point out that it is a relatively modern invention; best of luck to them, but not to the extent of undermining historiological and historiographical scholarship.

SOurces? In favour of the Templar/Bannockburn story being a myth I can cite a wide range of contemporary material, none of which indicates the presence of a body of Templars at Bannockburn (much of which I have read in the original Latin, Norman-French, Middle Scots) and a host of secondary material from reputable scholars. The former includes the more obvious and accessible sources - Barbour, Vita Edwardus Secundus, Guisborough, Lanercost, Bower, Fordun, Wynton, Scalacronica, Regesta Regum Scottorum and the like, but also less commonly-consulted work such as the 'Libers ' of Kelso and St. Andrews, the Register of the Great Seal, Chamberlain's Rolls, Treaty Rolls, Calendar of Documents Relating to Scotland, Rotuli Scotiae, Register of Posy-Mportem Inquisitions. I have also made extrensive use of the collections of the National Archves at Kew and at Register House. As for secondary sources....if there were any merit in the Bannockburn/Templar story I am confident that Professors Barrow, Duncan and Nicholson - all great medieval scholars - might have drawn attention to the relevant documents; the same applies to Drs. Michael Brown, Steven Boardman, Louise Yeoman and the rest of the community of Scottish medievalists. At a pinch, I might even consider that a hisghly detailed study of the lesse aristocracy of eastern Scotland during the Wars of Independence for my thesis (We Are Cummand of Gentilmen, St. Andrews 2006) would have brought any contmeporary material relating to the Templar/Bannockburn story to my attention. If not, I would have thought that in compiling a collection of the material written about Robert I during or near to his own lifetime (Robert the Bruce; A life Chronicled, Tempus Publishing} I might well have come across some indication.

I have frequently asked supporters of the story to piont me towrad the evidence on which theier assertions are made, but none of them has bgeen able to give me chapter and verse - or indeed any indication at all - relating to the tale. I see that some of the 'citations' given in the article refer, not to scholarly work or contemporary sources, but to works of romance and rather sensationalist newspaper articles. Further, citing the unsubstantiated statements of Victorian (and later) romantic enthusiasts does not consitiute evidence, nor does citing enthusiast's websites such as the Sinclair/Quartermain site, which is replete with assertions but devoid of medieval evidence.

Any alterations that I make to this page are made with the intention of preventing undergraduates from making avoidable errors trhat lead to them getting poore marks than they might otherwise achieve. The premise of Wikipedia is a good one and academics should, in my opinion, be prepared to make a contribution, not just carp from the sidelines. After all, students ARE going to make use of the service - especially when they are behind schedule with their essays! Yes, they SHOULD be looking at other sources, but it is not inevtiable that they will, so it is surely desirable that the material in Wikipedia is reliable.

Finally.....'unsigned'....I thought that this happened autmoatically, but apparently not, so, for the record, Chris Brown, Ph. D. ....I have never accessed wikipedia from any computer apart from this one, so clearly someone else is doing so....possibly a historian? .— Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.129.16.52 (talk • contribs) 17:06 10 August (UTC)--GoBack1 08:32, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you would provide reliable sources I am sure you will receive support and edits can be made to the article. I don't think anyone is suggesting you are using a different computer, but that your edits are from different IP addresses. Please consider the benefits of getting a username as without a username, your IP address is used to identify you and your edits could be interpreted as Wikipedia:Vandalism.--Steve Zissou 12:42, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Medieval v. Modern

Since this article is attracting concern from medievalist(s?), and the medieval period is duplicated in the article Knights Templar in Scotland, already the subject of resolved merger discussion in that article, the solution would appear to be to remove the first section which is duplicated in that article, remove it from the medieval knights templar series, perhaps that will take the heat out, and avoid confusion? --Steve Zissou 12:22, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proof that the New Scottish Body is registered

File:Incorpscot.pdf

This is a standard pdf logo, what does this prove? --Quaerere Verum 14:16, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you save it to your machine, or open it you will see that it is a "Limited by Guarentee" Company Registration Document. Further "proof" will be submitted once the OSMTH minutes for Williamsburg are approved in Belgium in October . However, I do not understand the point you are making John as GP Scotland was chartered by Leuprecht in the 60s and MTS was chartered by GPUSA in the 90s. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Paulmagoo (talk • contribs) 09:38, August 22, 2007 (UTC).

All that is being looked for here is a verifiable reference for the statement that the St Clair Commandery is "...a registered Scottish body in its own right", and there appears to be at least one which is not available for linking on-line. The pdf document posted by Paulmagoo has been removed from Wikipedia:images as it was not an image that could be linked to Wikipedia articles. Could the document referred to not be posted on the St Clair Commandery's website? The reference in the article is to the Charter from the Grand Priory of France which seems appropriate enough. --Steve Zissou 22:39, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The citation provided by Quaerere Verum [6]is the Companies House record of "Ordo Supremus Militaris Templi Hierosolymitani - The Grand Priory Of The Knights Templar In Scotland Ltd". The website www.scottishknights.org states that it is "working under the authority of The Commandery of St Clair, Edinburgh, No S1,Grand Priory of France (GPFT), OSMTH International." Companies House is the register for limited companies in the United Kingdom. --Kyndinos 10:51, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The PRESS RELEASE added by Paulmagoo has been deleted - Jehochman ^Talk 15:37, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Paulmagoo (talk • contribs) 10:12, August 23, 2007 (UTC).

Proof now included that the new Scottish Body is registered in Scotland in its own right. See reference point 22 on the article page.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Paulmagoo (talk • contribs) 10:12, 23 August 2007

I have deleted the above press release because Wikipedia is not a free web hosting service, nor is it a newswire service, nor is it an advertising outlet. - Jehochman ^Talk 15:37, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Really Jehochman? Perhaps the rules should apply to everyone that uses WIki then and not just a short few? Or perhaps, like the creator of Wiki, my opinion is that this is well and truly broken! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.138.169.144 (talk) 17:04, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

References Generally

I took just a quick coursory look at web references used, and they likely do not meet the standards for WP:RS. Please editors of this review each reference critically to ensure that the highest quality ones are used. Wikipedia is not about truth, but verifiability. --Rocksanddirt 17:14, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So far "Dr Chris Brown" who keeps editing this and related articles using a variety of IP addresses, (see User talk:217.43.68.251),has not provided any, despite requests, which is why his edits are reverted. It looks like sock puppetry.Alithea 07:34, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Further Citation: Alithea is missing the point.I merely point out that there is no medieval evidence to support the contention that the Templar order survived in Scotland after the suppression. Assertions on websites that are not supported by contmeporary record or narrative material are not in any sense evidence; if that evidence existed it is reasonable to assume that it would have been identified and examined by scholars of the period. As far as I am aware there is not one reputable scholar of medieval Scottish history that does support the possibility of Tempalr survival. Mant talented medievalists have provided us with a great wealth of detailed analysis of Scotland in the later middle ages - Nicholson, Barrow, Duncan, Boardman, M. Brown, Barrell, Watson to name but a few. On the other hand the Templar 'fans' can provide us with nothing more than reheated myths, Victorian romance and wishful thinking. If the evidencfe exists, let it be presented. I am sure that any Scottish medievalist would be only too happy to examine it, but until someone comes up with a genuine medieval document to support the stories, they will remain just that; stories. Similarly, if there really is evidence of the medieval Templar order continuing in Scotland until the present day....where is it? ¬¬¬¬docbro —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.156.60.100 (talk) 14:45, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Docbro (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) previously signed as "CsinC" [7],[8]. Now he is "Dr Chris Brown". The only consistency is the lack of references. 217.44.85.35 12:03, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Charlie _csinc - has n't worked here for quite a while Hmmmmm.....as of yet no medieval evidence has been cited to support the contention that the Templars contiued to exist in Scotland after the suppression, nor that Lamberton offered the Templar order his protection in 1312 nor that Lamberton was the Guardian in 1312 - he most certainly was not. Had the Templars survived as an organisation we might reasonably expect there to be some sort of evidence and we might reasonlay expect that at least one of the scholars mentioned above would have drawn our attention to that evidence; it would be very interesting stuff and would surely make an appearance in one or other of the excellent general studies of the period, such as 'Scotland. The Later Middle Ages' (Prof. Nicholson) or 'Medieval Scotland' (Dr. Barrell) or in more specialist studies such as 'Robert the Bruce and the Community of the Realm of Scotland' (Prof. Barrow) or in record material such as the 'Regesta' series or 'Calendar of Documents Relating to Scotland' or 'Rotuli Scotiae'. If there is evidence from the medieval period, cite it, but citing hobby websites and pseu81.156.59.149 10:51, 4 September 2007 (UTC)do-historians such as Laurence Gardiner does not consitiute evidence that a thing occurred, only evidence that they SAY a thing occurred.----docbro[reply]

Interesting that this anonymous editor adds previously undisclosed detail to the identity of an editor of this and similar articles (e.g. Talk:Knights Templar in Scotland - "Dr Chris Brown" and his unreferenced edits)who also added idiosyncratic opinions without references. It is a possible sign of meat puppetry. Such edits will always be reverted. --Simsek 11:12, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Still no sign of medieval evidence? Website assertions and the like do not fit the bill I'm afraid. WHere are the docuemnts? I can bet you pounds to pennies that if such evidence was uncovered medievalist would be falling over themselves to write about it. Any stuff about Templar survival would be very exciting and fascinating for people who like medieval docunents, but the revelation that Bishop Lamberton was Guardian of Scotland in 1312 would be nothing short of sensational; a majot constitutional event that has somehow eluded the whole world of Scottish history for seven hundred years (OK....very nearly seven hundred years). There is nothing wrong with considering possibilities and suggestions - for example that individual Templars found their way into other orders, but it does not help to repeat suggestions as though they were proven facts. It does not help to have assertions that are just plain wrong - Lamberton being Guardian of Scotland in 1312 is a particularly clear and simple example. It is certainly possible that in my reading of the 'Regesta' of Robert I, or of the Register of the Great Seal, Rotuli Scotiae and other such document compilationsI have failed to notice the transfer of power from Robert I to Bishop Lamberton and the return of power from Lamberton to the King, but somwhow I feel sure that such an event would have attracted the attention of both Scottish and Englsih medievalists who, in turn, would surely have shared their conclusions with the rest of us. ¬¬¬¬docbro

Lamberton is not mentioned in this article, and the linked Knights Templar in Scotland has not shown a 1312 date for some time, so I am not sure what "docbro" is trying to say here. This "editor", who I note has yet to provide even one citation should read before writing. And I also believe "docbro" and "csinc" are one and the same, as noted above, a single-issue editor with an agenda of his own. Until he can substantiate his argument, which does not seem to change, and may well be valid, but without it, we cannot be sure and so no further comment is necessary. --Kyndinos 15:00, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WHat exactly is being rehearsed here? (apart from a change to my gender?)This who are keen to show a connection between - for example - modern Templar societies and the medieval Templar order happily support their position by citing websites complied by other enthusiasts and by citing books that have no historiological credibility. This who reject the connection point out that there is a complete lack of credible supporting evidence, that no medioeval deocumentation has been produced to indicate Tenplar survival stories, that no scholar with a serious understanding of Scotland in the middle ages supports the stories, that stories such as Graham of Claverhouse being a Templar have no real contemporary evidence to bear them out, just the unsupported assertion of an individual with an agenda. Clearly one cannot cite evidecent of a negative, however the 'Templar enthusiast' lobby cheerfully cite bits of material that can hardly be defined as evidence at all. The big question surely must be whether Wikipedia is to be vehicle to provide 'justification' for historical 'wishful thinking' or whether we want it to be a useful point of reference for the general reader. If it is to be the latter then it is essential to ensure that the material which appears on the page has a reasonale degree of histrorical validity. If, for eaxample, we wish to include a statement to the effect that '....Lamberton offered his protection to the Templars in 1309...' then we should provide evidence that he did, not just say that 'it is thought that....' which would indicate that a substantial part (at least) of those who are well-informed on the subjset would support the statement. In fact, so far as I am aware. there is not one serious scholar of the period who would accept the premise; quite the reverse given the political and diplomatic situation of the Bruce party in 1309. We can be clear about where the evidence of Templar survival is NOT to be found - in the records of the period and the work of scholars of medieval Scotland....so where IS it to be found? Is there really any medieval evidence to support Templar survival in Scotland post-supression? If so. let us see it. ¬¬¬¬docbro —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.154.90.194 (talk) 10:57, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Talk-page discipline

Please note that this page is to discuss the article, and not the topic. This page is not a discussion forum on the subject. Thanks. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:46, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OICMTH listed 6 times in the external web links: Grand Priory of St David OICMTH Scottish Knights Templar The Preceptory of St Anthony Leith (you can join the Order here) Grand Priory of the Czech Republic OICMTH Scottish Knights Templar Upcoming events of the OICMTH Scottish Knights Templar Non-Masonic Military Order, Knights of Christ, Temple of Jerusalem, SKT-SMOTJ, IFA-OCMTH, Scottish Knight Templars Non masonic Scottish Knight Templars hold world congress in edinburgh —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.154.169.176 (talk) 17:37, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What has this to do with talk page discipline? --80.225.167.3 16:04, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eh caller? because its really bad talk page link discipline! Why the need for 6 links to the same group? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.138.169.144 (talk) 22:20, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Links clean-up

The St Clair Templars keep adding their own site to the external links of this article, which other users are reverting, which is fine, as they are linked to the article itself. Editors are invited to review the links, and I am going to delete a few now, and if there is a good reason to retain them please discuss here. --Sannhet 20:38, 30 September 2007 (UTC

Discuss external links here & propose them with reasons if you are the website owner. Bernardlinton's link moved from External links to his post in the article. St Clair Templar's took Bernardlinton's post as an excuse to re-duplicate their link. This is excessive and has been refactored. --Sannhet 15:41, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thats fine, as long as the rules apply to all of us and not just a few! Paul McGowan

Using my name in Vain

If you insist on using an article about me then I must insist that it is used in its context full and not otherwise Graham Russell AKA Bernard. Or should I phone Kath Gourlay from the Scotsman to send you a formal letter on behalf of that media? Signed Paul McGowan — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.100.250.230 (talk • contribs)

212.100.250.230, are you saying that you are also User:Paulmagoo, and that your real name is Paul McGowan? --El on ka 21:20, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Elonka that is correct User paulmagoo = paulmagoo@btinternet.com = Chev Paul McGowan GCTJ, (currently the Deputy Grand Chancellor of OSMTH and Secretary of the St Clair Commandery of Scotland, prior Chancellor of Militi Templi Scotia and International Grand Secretary General Emeritus). My Investiture was filmed by the Arts and Entertainment Channel (History Channel in the UK) and narrated by Leornard Nimmoe (from Star Trek) in Rosslyn Chapel in 1996, distributed to over 200 million viewers. I look forward to putting this wiki article correct and debasing the crap that surrounded the Scottish Knights Templars for 20+ years. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.138.169.144 (talk) 21:51, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, if you see any information about yourself that is incorrect, please feel free to delete it on sight. The article is definitely in need of major cleanup, and I have tagged it accordingly. --El on ka 22:07, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Elonka, I look forward to any evidence being led correctly as it would in a Roman Court (Scots Law). So from now on any references should be provable beyond any reasonable doubt! Signed Paul McGowan

it's interesting that paul mcgowan was brought into the order by mr spock from star trek!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.194.196.38 (talk) 12:08, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Leornard narrated the film, he was not there in person. I was brought into the Order through the traditional method and the A+E film team were present. And in case you haven't the brains to figure it out "Mr Spock" is fictorial character! Leornard is a real person! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.167.173.22 (talk) 22:22, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Problem with Scottish Templarism Today

1: See article history for the number of edits, amendments and vandalism

2: Is it possible that Scottish Templarism is stuck in a rather small nationalistic debating society coveted by too much tartan and hate of the English to do anything useful?

3: Egos who cannot see past the last 20 years and move on to doing something useful.

4: LACK OF DOCUMENTARY PUBLIC PROOF, Please get the whats on the table and show everyone else Scottish Templarism transcended 700 years of a gap, if not then please shut up and let the rest of us get on with it!

5: Currently there are 8 groups in Scotland calling themselve Scottish Knights Templar. Theres probably not that many football teams in the Premier division with points!

comment written by Paul McGowan

Media Reports from the Publication of the Vatican Documents

Prepped for the media reports of the 25/10/2007 217.42.205.151 22:24, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment written by Paul McGowan

Please note that this page is to discuss the article, and not the topic, and is not a notice board or a discussion forum on the subject. This is also the article on the Modern Order, not the Medieval Order. Thanks. --Sannhet 05:53, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The creator of this article, or someone who has substantially contributed to it, may have a conflict of interest regarding its subject matter.

This article has been tagged for Conflict of Interest and Cleanup for over 2 weeks now indicating it may require cleanup to comply with Wikipedia's content policies, particularly neutral point of view. User:Paulmagoo has acknowledged a clear interest in the article but has alleged that others, amongst them he suggests Graham Russell? do too. Could editors please check their contributions and/or citations so the tags can be removed? --Sannhet 11:31, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What is needed for someone to go through and either cleanup the article, or simply remove problematic sections. We could delete questionable paragraphs, or move them to the talkpage. If we don't have someone who's qualified to rewrite the article, I've often seen cases where someone just reduces the entire article to a stub, as a way of "starting fresh". --El on ka 16:51, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you say what needs cleaning up or what is problematic? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.138.172.72 (talk) 06:32, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LET'S SCRAP THIS TRIPE AND START AGAIN

I cannot believe any moderator has let this tripe go on for so long. The whole article needs to be shredded and started again.

Let's start from the beginning of the modern organisation in the 1960s and provide a partisan article in how today it's ended up fractured into tiny pieces with little membership and has lost its standing.

Let's remove the dross

Can someone explain why Bernard AKA Graham wants to pen his name to the above when it was I (Paulmagoo) who wrote it?

Stop the dross! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.183.134.210 (talk • contribs) 11:08, 6 July 2008

Why not sign your contributions if you want to be recognised? Paulmagoo has an account. --86.154.120.90 (talk) 16:57, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bernardlinton is a blocked Sockpuppet of Paulmagoo? --Quaerere Verum (talk) 21:14, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, John, Bernard is not a sock puppet of I. Bernard de Linton is the name of Mcgrath's Grand Prior in Scotland. I am working from a number of machines and try not to log into webpages with them for my own personal reasons, nothing to do with wiki. signed paulmagoo.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.142.134.161 (talk • contribs)

Page protected

Page sysop protected due to recent edit warring. Hash it out here, folks! Tan | 39 20:18, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What is the contemporary evidence of Templar survival after the early fourteenth century? Where is it to be found? If it exists scholars would like to see it! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.155.32.90 (talk • contribs) (11:34, 25 November 2008)

If you have sources that say there is no evidence of the group's existence, then please add them, but stop adding your opinion to the article. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 14:27, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The onus is on those who claim Templar survival to provide evidence; one cannot prove a negative. To the best knowledge of scholars of the period none has been produced as yet. The claim that Templars DID survive is an opinion based entirely on 18th-19th century romantic literature. There is NOTHING in 14th century narrative or record material to indicate anything of the sort - not in Fordun, nor in Bower, nor in any of the extensive published collections of record material (Bain's CDS, Stevenson' 'Documents', MacPherson's Rot. Scot., RRS vols. V and VI, RMS or Exchequer Rolls), nor in any of the unpublished 14th century documents available at the National Archives at Kew nor at Register House. People referred to as 'Templars' in Scottish rentals of the 16th/17th century were the tenants of properties which had - at one time - been in the posession of the order. The oft-quoted website Perceptory of St. Antony does not offer any evidence whatsoever for Templar survival after the suppression, merely assertions that the Templars 'held' Leith - which is not supported by any contemporary material; the cited document says that the property was held 'as it used to be' (that bis 'on the samne terms') by the Templars I suggest that if there were any evidence at all Scottish historians would have seized upon it long ago. Since absolutely no qualified Scottish historians or credible amateur scholars (and there are a good many of these) have chosen to support the notion of Templar survival we should perhaps accept that the total lack of evidence is something of a barrier to credibility. So....assuminmg that you are the person who asserts that there is evidence of Templar survival, perhaps you would like to point scholars toward that evidence rather than simply repeating the claim? If you can provide such evidence you can bet your bottom dollar that scholars would be happy to examine it; if there is no evidence then you are merely repeating an opinion which you can not substantiate with evidence. ````chris —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.155.32.90 (talk) 16:18, 25 November 2008 (UTC) PS - NB, I do not say that Templar survival is an impossibility, merely that there is no known evidence to that effect, however if you know different, produce the material! Contunually claiming that 'there are references' is of no value unless the references can be made public. Citing the 'St. Antony' website is not sufficient - if only becasue the St. Antony website does not carry any evidence either. The assertion made there is based on a mis-translation of the verb 'to be' (wrong tense), a matter that is now known to the author of the site. So long as editors keep giving assertions without evidence they must surely expect their reversions to be corrected. If they are aware of a reputable scholar of the period who supports the Templar survival story, they should cite that person's work. There may, of course, be a good reason why no reputable scholars do! Chris.[reply]

International Order of Gnostic Templars - IOGT

IOGT is a recent invention of Mark Amaru Pinkham in Sedona, Arizona Picture, who attracts followers by offering, amongst other "secrets", a revelation of the lost "Goddess Tradition" and Alchemy, of which there is no evidence in the Templar tradition (see Templar History/Forum for further discussion). If they want, they can prove their claims in their own article, if they can get support for one, and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not is a place for self promotion, it has no place here. Blue Templar12 11:45, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BlueTemplar, I have to agree. It is a great pity that Scotland is awash of small groups calling themselves Templars who have no authority from anyone! Even worse is that many of these small groups take great delight in fleecing tourists to Scotland (particulary our American and Canadian cousins) of their hard earned cash in exchange for some mystical made up, Ive got the secrets that you do not have, nonsense. This is a particulary big cash cow and is a slight on our Scottish Hospitality!>>>> —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paulmagoo (talk • contribs) 08:28, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They are without what/whose authority? The Order was extinct for several hundred years, who can claim "authority" now? --Dikkat (talk) 11:14, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

International Order of Gnostic Templars article created. --Dikkat (talk) 14:21, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Under whose authority was the Gnostic Templars created then? No-ones! No Charter, No Transmission, No line of obediance.... Just like 6 out of the 8 Templar groups in Scotland!comment added by Paulmagoo (talk —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.133.148.207 (talk) 21:22, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, I have nominated the IGOT article for deletion. Feel free to opine at the AfD. Blueboar (talk) 15:50, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have just deleted a wee fairy story entitled 'The Last Crusade' for fear that someone might read it and think it was history. There's something to be said for recounting the tale of Sir James Douglas and his crusading companions, but not for repeating nonsense about them being Templars. CB. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.42.111.227 (talk) 22:11, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Rosslyn Templar - Templar Knight at Roslin Chapel, by R.T. McPherson, 1836

An anonymous IP user is deleting the external link The Rosslyn Templar - Templar Knight at Roslin Chapel, by R.T. McPherson, 1836. The website linked is about a book about a picture of Templar Knight at Roslin Chapel, and the book deals with the Scottish Knights Templar. There has been a link to the picture on its auction site on this article for a long time. The IP user wrote on his last delete Advertising a book about rosslyn has nothing to do with scottish knights templars. It's a book about a picture of a Templar Knight at Roslin Chapel, not about Roslin, it's about the Scottish Knights Templar, and their connection with the Chapel, so it's hard to see why it shouldn't be here, as well as the old link to the picture at auction. --Steve Zissou (talk) 04:59, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because if you had read the book you would realise its nothing to do with this article on the scottish knights templar. Let it reside on the rosslyn chapel article where its best suited. (and thats a stretch because its an artists impression of both). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.165.251.159 (talk) 20:52, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Page 18 of The Book The Rosslyn Templar by Ashley Cowie, published by Luath Press Ltd, £9.99, hardback, ISBN 978-1-906307-87-5. "...there was certainly a resurgence of interest in the Knights Templar in the 18th Century in Scotland..."; Page 20 deals with Alexander Deuchar and the Scottish Templars, page 37 is about the Templars and the Chapel which ".. at the time of writing, is the earliest record indicating a possible link between the Knights Templar and Rosslyn Chapel. This is all relevant to the current article. The link should stay. --Quaerere Verum (talk) 23:11, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree, the book provides no factual evidence and is based on an artists impression of a "re-enactor" who was present for a medivel fate. The author has no evidential "expert" status here and makes a number of serious historical errors in the book. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.165.251.159 (talk) 23:27, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree with anonymous IP User who appears alone in her/his view. The external link and all Google searches to the book show both to be relevant to this article. Use this page to discuss the article not the book. --Simsek (talk) 05:35, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]