Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Peer review/Knights Templar

Knights Templar

This article covers a major and very timely topic, and is long overdue for some recognition. It was nominated once for FA back in 2004 but was not approved, and has had extensive reorganization and rewriting since then. The topic is a large one, so there is a {{Knights Templar}} template which spokes out to many sub-articles such as History of the Knights Templar and Knights Templar legends. However, for now, I'd like to focus on a Peer Review of simply the main "hub" article, to see what is necessary to get it to Good Article status first, and then the rest of the articles can flow from that. Thanks in advance for any help and comments, Elonka 19:39, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Kirill Lokshin

Not a bad start, but a number of areas to work on:

• The article has been excessively trimmed down, I think; it's only around 20K, at present. Given how much material there is to cover, I would suggest expanding it by as much as a factor of two.
• The level of citation isn't really adequate here yet; see WP:MILHIST#CITE.
• Can {{Infobox military unit}} be used more-or-less gracefully here?
  • Good idea! Done. --Elonka 21:07, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
• Too many external links; most do not add additional information beyond that which is available on Wikipedia, or should be used as sources.
  • Merged. --Elonka 00:29, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• The "See also" section should be eliminated, if possible.
  • Gone. --Elonka 00:29, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Kirill Lokshin 22:53, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

ALR

I think that there is certainly a good basis there, and without going through the whole portfolio I'll say that it left me with more questions than it answered. Glancing at the other titles I'm not sure that I'd have found the answers elsewhere.

I'd agree with Kirill that you have space to increase this overview content, I think it's a little slim. You could cover the financial arrangements in more depth if you can source it, as an example.

I'd also agree that you need to find a bit more in terms of supporting evidence, particularly with regard to the political impact of the order.

Some of the language isn't very encyclopedic, but I imagine that a good beating with the sourcing hammer will sort that out.

One niggle that struck me straight away was the opening paragraph only talks about the white mantle yet later you talk about different robes for the different bodies within the order. You might want to be more specific in the opening paragraph and then amplify later.

Fixed. --Elonka 21:07, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

ALR 20:45, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

PocklingtonDan

Good start, but a few points:

• "they were both monks and soldiers" - I know its a small disparity but I'm not sure that they weren technically monks. Monasticism (per wikipedia) is " the religious practice in which one renounces worldly pursuits in order to fully devote one's life to spiritual work". Hardly accurate here, plus they didn't live in a monastery. Ergo, not monks. Religios order, yes. Monks, no.
• "could be considered the foundation of modern banking". Weasel words. Find a cite saying it IS considered as foundation of modern banking, or remove it
• "They were one of the best trained and disciplined fighting units of their day" - Many statements like this needing cites
• "After Jerusalem was lost to Saladin" - can you explain this in-line? Perhaps "taken by force by Muslim general Saladin" or whatever might explain it better to users not familiar with the crusades
• "Grand Masters" - are any more of the ranks known? If so, perhaps they could eb listed here rather than just the head honcho
• There's some odd image placement that needs clearing up. Try to keep images perhaps consistently on the right rather than opposite one another or floating loose in the middle
• You say they were set up to protect pilgrims. OK, did they succeed? How did they get the finances initially to do this? Were they effective? Did they have any rivals doing the same thing? What routes did they protect pilgrims on? Would they travel in groups of 1 or 2? Or in massive troops of 100+ or even 1000+ troops at a time (ie armed convoys)? Did they have a set route like a bus timetable or was it an on-demand service? Would they fight in pitched battles to take over territory? Or just guard convoys through dangerous territory without an effort to take that territory? As someone else mentioned above, I am left feeling a lot of my questions are unanswered.
• You list knights and sergeants (both mounted) but no footsoldiers. Are you certain? Espceially given the photo at the top shows a solider on foot.
• DaVinci Code and other nonsense - would be very tempted to remove all this as unencylopedic nonsense. The focus should be the historical facts, not the modern rubbish. I just finished up an article on Roman military campaigns, without making reference to "as seen in Gladiator", I don't think the modern TV or fiction has a place here either, its amateurish. You should concentrate on the facts - if you have to bring something up only to point out it is innaccurate or fictional, IMO it shouldn't be there in the first place. I don't beleive everything must be related to modern popular culture!
• One of your refs is "Knights Templar Catholic Encyclopedia entry" - is this a wikipedia clone? If so, it is bad policy to cite it.
• All in all, I think more honest straightforward research from reputable texts is needed, and myths of popular culture de-emphasised or removed. Wikipedia is at its best when it gives straightforward facts and good analysis, and at its worst when all it list is modern myths and po-trivia.

Cheers - PocklingtonDan (talk) 13:15, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Qp10qp

It's an interesting article, and much better than many Wikipedia medieval history articles. The article could certainly do with being much longer: the way to do that, I feel, is for the text to explain or note more details as it goes along, so that terms of reference aren't so often left for the reader to provide. The following passage, which I fear is a piece of bad history, is a case in point:

Already deeply in debt to the Templars, on Friday, October 13, 1307 (a date incorrectly linked to the origin of the Friday the 13th legend), Philip had many French Templars simultaneously arrested, charged with numerous heresies, and tortured until they "confessed." This action released Philip from his obligation to repay his loans. King Philip also pressured the church to take action against the Templars. When a pope refused, Philip had him kidnapped or executed, until a pope to his liking was named to the position. This finally resulted in the installment of Pope Clement V, a childhood friend of Philip's.

The article rather simply ties Philip IV's move against the Templars to a need for money, but there were also complex political and ecclesiastical dimensions to that event. Adding that Philip also pressured the Church to act against the Templars is putting the cart after the horse: the order in which facts are presented makes it appear as if Clement V was not appointed until after the arrests, but Clement became pope in 1305 and the arrests took place in 1307. "When a pope refused" is therefore chronologically misplaced, since I presume it refers to Benedict XI, who died in 1304. If Benedict needs to be brought into this (and I don't know the details of interchanges between him and Philip about the Templars), then he should be named and the events surrounding his death described and sourced ("When a pope refused, Philip had him kidnapped or executed" cries out for references). But my impression of the death of Benedict has always been that it resulted from Benedict's attempt to continue the controversial policies of his predecessor, Boniface VIII, rather than anything to do with the Templars. And we can't be sure that those who may have been responsible were operating on direct orders of Philip (all these ifs, buts, and mays are tedious, I know, but they require acknowledging in a history article).

By the way, the whole story of the arrest, persecution, and abolition of the Templars is a vivid and fascinating one. The article could with advantage quadruple the space given to it, in my opinion.

qp10qp 13:40, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Whoops, good catch on the Clement timeline, thanks. Fixed. Other expansion continues. --Elonka 21:09, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Petercorless

I added more explicit mention of the Cross of St. George, and more regarding the historical/literary tie-in to the legends of the Holy Grail.

You might want to mention more regarding their total numbers over time, or their numbers present at some of their battles, where it can be ascertained. Focus more on their military organization. --Petercorless 01:34, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Also, in the "Popular Culture" section, I would have hoped their appearance in Sir Walter Scott's Ivanhoe would have been cited over a video game. While we generally do not want to have too many popular culture references, this is definitely an article that could use some more salient cultural references. --Petercorless 01:37, 27 February 2007 (UTC)