Talk:Rosslyn Chapel

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search


The chapel is described in your text as being the choir of much larger church. This was a local belief in my childhood and was long ago disproved.Even the most cursory of examination by an architect or an artisan mason reveals the fact that the chapel is complete as intended by the builder and the "unfinished" part is merely another part of the symbolism of the structure. Needless to say, theories abound as to the meaning of this particular feature.

The official site [1] claims otherwise. However, it may be worth mentioning the point of view that it was intended complete as-is. -- Decumanus | Talk 22:43, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Surely there must be a lot more to write about the Rosslyn Chapel. A picture of it for instance. The chapel is the place of action at the end of the immencely popular novel The Da Vinci Code by Dan Brown. I myself would be very interested to know more about it. Of cource, there is always the official page of the chapel, but a wikipedia article would be perferred abelson 12:09, Oct 29, 2004 (UTC)

  • Adorned with mysterious figures, it has long been the subject speculation regarding its possible connection to Freemasonry.

I moved this line from the apprentices pillar page, as the pillar itself does not contain such figures, but they are present in the chapel generally SgtThroat 14:09, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

-- The chapel is a replica of the temple of King Solomon in jerusalem and the "unfinished wall" is a replica of the torn down wall as the chapel was discovered buried by the knights templar. the end stones have not "weathered" appropriately and were actually cut into the shape that they have. As for the floor plan of the chapel any comparison of placement and sizing of pillars and stones will be shown to be identical to those for the temple King Solomon built.

-- Isn't the chapel actually a replica of Herod's Temple as the Knights Templars believed the ruins they were excavating to be those of Solomons Temple when in fact the layers they excavated were Herod's. [From the Hiram Key by Christopher Knight and Robert Lomas] ---Not so; there is no evidence whatsoever to indicate that Roslin Chapel was a replica of either Solomon or Herod's temple, This is simply a romantic conjecture. The same applies to the 'connection' between the Templars and freemasonry, and indeed to the 'connection; between the Templar order and modern 'Templar' clubs. -- It should also be noted that the relationship between Freemasonry and the Knights Templar is challeneged by the current "owners" of the chapel the Catholic Church as a result of their branding the organization heretical in 1306. Follow up further.

Don't bother. Rosslyn is NOT owned by the Catholic Church, but the Scottish Episcopal Church (part of the Anglican Communion).

Exile 22:51, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Well actually when Rosslyn was first built it was under the auspices of the Roman Catholic Church in Rome... ΤΕΡΡΑΣΙΔΙΩΣ(Ταλκ) 04:27, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Though not the original author of this i've re-written this totally and made it les POV - I think its NPOV but can someone check it? Thanks. I've also added in (most) points here in too. Guest


I have removed a reference to Robert Lomas's The Hiram Key as being the first publication of the connection between Rosslyn Chapel and Freemasonry. It was an inaccurate statement. If any book "first publicized" this connection it would either be "Holy Blood, Holy Grail" or "Born in Blood", both of which were written several years before The Hiram Key. More to the point, as the article states: "The chapel has long been famous for its possible connections to Freemasonry and its attendant rituals." Since The Hiram Key was only published very recently (in 1996) it could hardly be the first publication of this long famous connection. Blueboar 18:17, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

+I saw above that the prentice pillar contains no masonic images, however the story of the apprentice and the master is a veiled masonic allegory.

Actually, that is not true. The story behind the pillar is not at all Masonic. Blueboar 20:43, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

+I realize that the story itself is not masonic, but it does have similarities to stories played out in the masonic 3rd degree re: the master and overreaching apprentices, that is what I meant.

Any similarity is only at the very surface. Other than the fact that both stories involve a master, an apprentice (or a Mason of lesser rank) and a slaying, there is no real similarity. In the Roslyn story, the apprentice carves the pillar while the master is away... when the master returns and sees how beautiful the pillar is, he kills the apprentice in a fit of jelousy. In the Masonic alegory, three craftsmen (not actually apprentices) plot to obtain a "secret word" from the Grand Master, and kill him when he does not reveal the word. Very different stories with very different morals. Blueboar 14:19, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

The story about the master and prentice is certainly about masons (with a small m). Since the place is about hidden symbolism and Freemasonry is about hidden symbols, a layman would surely see that a connection with Freemasonry. It depends if you're talking about the layman's view or the expert's view. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:25, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Lots of things contain hidden symbolism... this does not mean there is a connection between them. Also, we don't discuss the average layman's view... only those in reliable sources. Blueboar (talk) 00:21, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Use by modern Knights Templar[edit]

Are we sure that the modern Knights Templar that use the chapel for their initiations is indeed a Masonic group? I know there are various organizations calling themselves Knights Templar... some of which are connected to Freemasonry, and some which are not. I have no problem with the statement if it is indeed the Masonic Knights Templar that we are talking about... but I do want to be accurate. Blueboar 16:42, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

The modern Knights Templar - the society that hires Roslin Chaple for their ceremoniess - may well be a Masonic-style organisation, but the modern 'KT's have no connection with the Templars of the middle ages. I beleive that they have their origins in the romanticism of the 19th century, though I haae read claims that they were instituted in the 1780s/90s as a sort of mysticist reaction the new philosphies of the enlightenment. (CSinc)
No mystery here, it is all explained in the Scottish Knights Templar article. --Quaerere Verum 10:49, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Pictures recently added[edit]

User:Kjetilbjornsrud has added a few pictures to the Freemasonry paragraph... I do have a problem with them that should be discussed. 1) I have always disagreed with the interpretation that says some of the carvings show Maize (or Indian Corn)... to me these look like styalistic leaves of lilly. I know that Baigent, Leigh and Lincoln, and Knight & Lomas, go on and on about this some how "proves" that the Knights Templar or the Masons went to North America before Columbus, but there is no real evidence to support this. At minimum there should be a question mark in the caption to show that this is a theory and not fact. 2) What is the evidence that the so called "Masonic Carvings" are Masonic. I do not know what they are, but I have never come across them in Masonry. 3) If we are going to include a picture of the Apprentice Pillar, some explanation of why this is associated with Freemasonry should be included in the text. Blueboar 01:44, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't mind if the text about the carvings is reduced to simply "carvings". It is, howeever, supposed to be original from when the building was erected, though there are exaples of carvings of newer dates. --kjetilbjornsrud 08:53, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
fwiw, the picture of the maize(?) looks different to the pictures used in tv programs when talking about the 'crops from America'. --Alf melmac 10:50, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
They were pointed out by the guide in the chapel, and I've compared my picture to pictures found in the book "Rosslyn Chapel", Earl of Rosslyn, 1997. --kjetilbjornsrud 12:27, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
I guess it must be the larger picture, the tv shot showed a pretty close up view which looked like the carvings were on a horizontal plane rather than on an arch. No bother then. --Alf melmac 12:40, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

revert war - Scottish Knights Templar[edit]

OK... we seem to be haveing a revert war over the inclusion of A Group of Scottish Knights Templar with pictures of Rosslyn Chapel in the External Links. Would each side of this disagreement please discuss why this should or should not be included? It will help the rest of us reach a concensus. Blueboar 14:01, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Good initiative Blueboar and hope this works. A Group of Scottish Knights Templar with pictures of Rosslyn Chapel is being deleted regularly by apparently connected IP addresses see without any reason being given, though Guinnog in deleting once only today described it as worthless. Deletion without reason is usually a form of vandalism hence revert. --Kyndinos 11:52, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Improved the link so that it goes straight to the photos, with more description: A Group of Scottish Knights Templar in Rosslyn Chapel with other Chapel Pictures. They are nice, recent photos of the Chapel. As it was Guinnog had a good point, the link was difficult to follow. Perhaps it is ok now. --Kyndinos 14:25, 20 June 2006 (UTC) has deleted link A Group of Scottish Knights Templar in Rosslyn Chapel with other Chapel Pictures. again without discussion, making some 12 deletions by this user in 21 days, reverted by 5 different users. --Kyndinos 14:04, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Kyndinos, I see what is happening... what I am trying to find out is WHY it is happening. Can you tell me WHY you would like the link in the article (other than: "Because 166.66- keeps deleting it" I mean)?
And 166.66- PLEASE, tell us WHY you are so insitant about this link not being in the article. For all I know you could have a very good reason, but if you don't explain yourself your reverts end up being treated as nothing but vandalism. Blueboar 21:43, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Because, as stated above: "They are nice, recent photos of the Chapel." Can see absolutely no reason not to revert this deletion, for which no reason has ever been given by this IP user, (further 2 deletions in the last 24 hours) so have to assume usual Wikipedia reason, simply vandalism. The user has a record (User Talk: of being blocked for this. What do you think,Blueboar? And others, not just those reverting but other contributers I have stopped reverting while this is being discussed, but it is still being reverted by several others. --Kyndinos 22:28, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Agree with Kyndinos :--Sannhet 22:36, 22 June 2006 (UTC) Yes --Dikkat 05:07, 23 June 2006 (UTC)--GoBack1 05:56, 23 June 2006 (UTC)OK --Alithea 07:21, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Disagree with Kyndinos:

(note... the above comments by Kyndinos shifted so I can follow who said what and when more easily)... Thank you Kyndinos, at least you are giving me a reason. Please understand that I do NOT approve of 166.66's repeated and unexplained reverting any more than you do... unless and until he explains himself I do consider it pure vandalism. Now... Purely playing devil's advocate here, I do have to question whether this is all about the photographic merits of the pics. Surely you (or someone) can explain to me why the pics were linked to the article in the first place. Why are they noteworthy enough for inclusion?... Do they show something about the Chapel that is interesting? It it that they show the group of Scottish Knights Templars? Is it something else? Blueboar 23:08, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
This "Group of Scottish Knights Templar" is non Masonic and thus does not share any legitimate association with Rosslyn. Its even debated whether The Templars even have any association with Rosslyn. (Most Scholars agree it does not) but they are all agreed that the building certainly is Masonic. Therefore I am removing any non Masonic organizations website link to the page, and am debating whether or not any Templar link should also be discarded.05:41, 23 June 2006 (UTC)05:41, 23 June 2006 (UTC)05:41, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

---The is no debate among medieval scholars about the relationship between the Templars and Rosslyn (or ROslin as iot is generally spelt in medieval documents), nor is there any agreement among scholars that the chapel building is 'certainly masonic'. Roslin was built as a collegiate church at least two centuries before the birth of freemasonry----CsinC

IMHO this is not a good argument for deletion of the link per Wikipedia:Neutral point of view guidelines. That they are good recent pictures of the Chapel is probably enough reason to retain the link. However since it is now raised it is a fact that Groups of Templars use the Chapel. Scottish Knights Templar, External Links, "19th Century Templar in Rosslyn", also shows this.( is also deleting non Masonic links from this article, which are being reverted by a number of users.) The Masonic connection with Rosslyn Chapel is granted as possible though there is a strong view that the Chapel was simply built so Priests could say Mass for the Sinclair Family. Therefore propose for Wikipedia:Neutral point of view that Masonic and Templar interests should continue to have links to this article. --Kyndinos 09:39, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for finally explaining yourself 166.66. As a mason, I fully understand your argument. But I have to disagree with your reasons for deletion. It does not matter that the "Scottish Knights Templar" group is not Masonic. If they use the Chapel (for whatever reason), it is not inappopriate to link to a site that shows them doing so.
Part of the problem is that there are three seperate (but inter-related) theories that we are dealing with here... 1) that the historic Knights Templars are connected with Rosslyn. 2) that the Masons are connected with Rosslyn. and 3) that the Masons are connected to the Knights Templar. It is clear that the "Scottish Knights Templar" group are using the Chapel because of the first claim. As such, it is certainly appropriate to discuss the fact that they do so and to show a link of them doing it. The problem is that the article conflates the three theories. Thus, any mention of modern Knights Templar groups gets associated with Freemasonry. One solution to this is to break these theories apart and deal with each claim seperately. The "group of Scottish KTs" link can be discussed and cited under the "Knights Templar are connected to Rosslyn" claim, and away from the "Masons are connected to Rosslyn" claim.
As an alternative solution, the article can be left as it is, and the link could be slightly amended to read "A group of (non-masonic) Scottish Knights Templars ..." In any case, there is no need for a revert war over this issue. Talk it out and edit the article so both sides are represented fairly. Blueboar 14:01, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Note the revert war continues, now by related IP address, also deleting from Larmenius Charter and Scottish Knights Templar without discussion, even though the changes suggested by Blueboar have been implemented here. What next? --Kyndinos 09:22, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Those photos are really awesome I dont understand why anyone wouldnt want them linked to from here. Im for Keeping it, lol think im a bit late for this debate but all the same.

Incidentaly, im from Edinburg and have some pics of my own that i will add soon, also have some video that i can add if i figure out how to convert WMV to OGG. lol :) Terrasidius (talk) 16:24, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Knights Templar[edit]

The article makes several allusions to there being some sort of connection between the Chapel and the historical Knights Templar. However, other than mentioning that some of the the Sinclair's were Templars, it does not really go into any details. Now, I have heard that the connection is mostly speculation and theory, and not proven fact, but at least we could discuss what the speculations and theories are! (similar to the way we discuss some of the Masonic connection theories). I would place this section before the section on Freemasonry (as the KTs come before the Masons historically). I don't know enough to add it, but I would like to have it. Blueboar 23:38, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Parties interested in medieval Scotland should look to R. Nicholson 'Scotland, The Later Middle Ages' , A. Barrell 'Medieval Scotland', G. Barrow 'Robert the Bruce and the Community of the Rewalm of Scotland' Bain's 'Calendar of Documents Relating to Scotland' Stuarts 'The Exchequer Rolls of Scotland' (Vol.1) and Stevenson's 'Documents Illustrative of Scottish History' for a decent grounding in Scotland in the 13-14th centuries. (CSinc)

Citations needed[edit]

I notice that while there is a reference section, there are no citations. Now, I know that much of the hoopla about the chapel is based on speculation and theory, but at least we could cite reputable sources to back up the fact that these speculations actually exist and who has proposed them. Blueboar 12:46, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I have added citation requests to those statements where I feel we need to back up what we say in the article with a citation to a reputable source. Hopefully someone will be able to find the proper references. Blueboar 12:28, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
One of the key rules of Wikipedia is Verification (see: WP:V)... it has now been almost two months since I asked for citations, and they have not been provided. Come on folks... I know all these claims are in various books etc. if not on the web. Citations should be easy to provide.
That said, I will give it a few more weeks, but if no citations are provided I will start deleting un-referenced material... If only to get a reaction. Blueboar 13:29, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

St Clairs and the Templars[edit]

Historians Mark Oxbrow, Ian Robertson [2] Karen Ralls and Louise Yeoman [3] 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." [4] 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" [5]. There is no proof of a marriage between Catherine St Clair and Hugh de Payens [6]. 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)

Removal of material[edit]

For several months I have been asking for citations to back the material in this article. Since citations have not been forthcoming, I have now removed almost every statement that was uncited, (as per WP:V). I have no problem with someone returning the material, provided that it is properly cited. Blueboar 21:15, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

AfD started on related article[edit]

As I know that some people who edit this page will want to comment one way or the other, there is currently an AfD debate going on at La Merika. Please feel free to comment. The issue is a distinct lack of citations, which raises problems with WP:FRINGE, WP:V and NOR Blueboar 22:10, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Proposed merge[edit]

The Apprentice Pillar is a pillar in Rosslyn Chapel, as you know. Does it really need its own separate article? ::Supergolden:: 17:48, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I think a merge is highly appropriate. Blueboar 18:10, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
I agree. --Guinnog 20:16, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Concur entirely Brendandh 22:58, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Done. Thanks, ::Supergolden:: 14:58, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Editing required[edit]

I tried understanding the (very long) 2nd sentence of the article several times, but it obviously needs punctuation or re-writing to make sense. EdX20 18:57, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

True... too many people trying to put points and counter points into the same sentence. I have re-worked it a bit to make it all makes more sense... however, perhaps this would be better being moved to a section lower down in the article. Blueboar 19:06, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Sources of inspiration[edit]

I have a problem with this section... while I think it is probably accurate, without a source that says so, it amounts to a violation of WP:NOR. Blueboar (talk) 22:28, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Originally RC[edit]

IP user seems insistant that we not mention the fact that the Chapel was originally Roman Catholic... I would ask him to explain why he/she keeps removing this information. It isn't like the information is controversial... The chapel was built prior to the reformation. Every church in Scotland was RC in those days. The article goes on to discuss what happened after the reformation. So why the constant removal? Blueboar (talk) 20:32, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Good point and totally agreed, some people seem to want to write history themselves and leave the bits they find distastful out...sad. ΤΕΡΡΑΣΙΔΙΩΣ(Ταλκ) 19:31, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Wasn't it built using the plan of Herod's Temple in Jerusalem and not as a Catholic chapel - in fact wasn't there nothing Christian about Rosslyn and not even space for an altar, with all Christian additions come much later than its building? Halfabeet (talk) 19:30, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
Nope. Read the sources. Blueboar (talk) 23:41, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Maize is "hypothesized"?[edit]

Is it appropriate to imply that there is an alternative theory to maize being a crop developed in Mexico and unknown in Europe prior to 1492?

Maize is not hypothesized to be a crop solely with American origins. That is established fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:22, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Yeah... the hypothesis is that the carvings are of Maize... not the origin of the plant. I have clarified. Blueboar (talk) 15:50, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Musical "Boxes"[edit]

These "boxes" are normally termed "rosettes", which see: Maybe that would be a more accurate representation. (talk) 18:09, 30 July 2013 (UTC)


Under architecture, this: "The original plans for Rosslyn have never been found or recorded, so it is open to speculation whether or not the chapel was intended to be built in its current layout." seems to contradict this "Although the original building was to be cruciform in shape, it was never completed." Am I reading it wrong? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:14, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Date of construction[edit]

I would be really interested in having more references about the date of construction. The official date is always stated as 1446 but in the text it is said 20 September 1456. It is very precise, where does this date come from? Is there any documents stating this date? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:50, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

There are plenty of internet sources for 20 September 1456, but I have a horrible feeling they all come from here. The Chapel are insistent on 1446, and the internal inscription says 1450 - which they ascribe to four years spent on the foundations. Is 1456 a typo for 1450? Clearly needs investigation and better references. Thanks. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 20:53, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment, I find it very hard to have original sources about the chapel, even the book written by the Earl of Rosslyn doesn't include any sources and many books or websites are simply based on each others and it is often impossible to know where the original information comes from… — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:27, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

I wasn't impressed by the Earl of Rosslyn's efforts either. The chapel is also careful not to dispel any myths that fill the coffers (you now have to pay the full entrance fee to browse the bookshop). Cooper's work is probably worth mining. He is a real historian and archivist, and all his work is impeccable referenced. He is also alergic to Templars. I'll be away from my own little library for about a fortnight, but I'll see what I can unearth when I get back. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 23:43, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
Further to the above - from the Rosslyn Hoax, "Although work on Rosslyn chapel began in 1446 there was no published material available before the short description and engraving by John Slezer in 1693". We're down to surviving official documents. Robert Lomas now regards Sinclair as a pirate with political clout, reversing his previous opinions, but he hasn't published his researches (his original opinion is still selling quite well). I'll see what I can find in Edinburgh. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 11:23, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! I will take the time the read Cooper's book. There is so many books about the chapel, I am glad to know that there is a least one worthy… the year 1450 is engraved in a wall of the chapel too and they say that the 4 years were used for the foundations, which seems a lot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:17, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Cooper's Rosslyn Hoax doesn't really get started until the 16th century, as he's mainly concerned with stamping out myth and drivel. I haven't read his guide to the chapel, but it's more likely to have relevant information on the foundation, although I don't think there's much. 4 years on the foundations and the village for the workforce might be a better estimate, there are linear lumps indicating they might have done the foundations of the whole collegiate church. 1456 still looking highly suspect, and thanks for pointing it out. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 20:47, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

The section Templar and Masonic connections and WP:UNDUE[edit]

Far, *far*more space is given to 'debunking' than to the theories which are 'debunked'. This section needs to be overhauled, with consideration given to the Wikipedia policy of WP:UNDUE. Boscaswell talk 06:57, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

There is way more space out there in the real world given to madass theories about Rosslyn, the Templars and the masons than about the actual history of the chapel and its pirate founder. It is interesting and noteworthy in its own right, and needs addressed. Yes, we need more on the origin and development of the Rosslyn mythology. Feel free. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 00:28, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
Our goal should be to find DUE weight between what academic sources say and what pop culture sources say. Both need to be mentioned, but I don't think it is UNDUE to give significantly more weight to what academic sources say. There is a lot of pseudo-historical fringe bullshit in the pop culture sources (the sad reality is that the fringe bullshit is far more exciting than the actual historical facts... and so you can sell a lot more books and video tapes by repeating the bullshit than you can recounting the actual facts). Blueboar (talk) 22:10, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Rosslyn Chapel. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:48, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Actual number of the "musical cubes" / rossettes[edit]

Hello all. Had anyone the chance to count these objects in situ? The number of them stated online in various sources is 213 still extant (two reported broke off). I found some photographs showing 9 of them on each part of a rip ( 36 in total for each bay, 144 in total of all 4 bays on the eastside) and 8 of them on each part of a transverse arch ( 16 in total for each and 80 in total of all 5 adorned arches) makes a sum of 224 "musical cubes". Any help welcome! :) Nolispy (talk) 09:53, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

We merely report what reliable sources say. Counting them ourselves would be Original research. Blueboar (talk) 10:11, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
But these sources don´t report the fact shown on the photographs. So it is "forbidden" to share these obvious facts?°°Nolispy (talk) 10:44, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
In short, yes... read the policy. I can’t say why the sources disagree with your analysis (perhaps some of the carvings that you are counting as being “musical cubes” are not counted as such by the sources?)... the point is that when there is disagreement between what reliable sources say and an analysis based on personal observation by a WP editor, we always go with the sources. Blueboar (talk) 11:38, 31 March 2018 (UTC)