Not an actual title[]
I don't think this is an actual title. :/ Yes there are leaders of the Templars, or Templar leaders, but that's just more of a description, not the name of a rank in itself. Sol Pacificus(Cyfiero) 20:28, March 30, 2017 (UTC)
- "The position of Templar leader was given to any member of the Templar Order who had received leadership over a Templar Rite." Even just looking at this line, this is the exact description given to the rank of Grand Master in Assassin's Creed: The Essential Guide. It is sourced to Assassin's Creed: Encyclopedia, can someone confirm if this is true? Sol Pacificus(Cyfiero) 20:40, March 30, 2017 (UTC)
And most of the Templar leaders we know of are either a Grand Master or Master Templar. So there's a 50/50 chance regarding their rank should they ever be brought up again. Like Ahmet, a Templar leader until he was confirmed to be the Grand Master of the Byzantine Rite.--ACsenior (talk) 20:44, March 30, 2017 (UTC)
- Can you clarify what you mean, like your overall point? Sol Pacificus(Cyfiero) 20:47, March 30, 2017 (UTC)
- The thing is that not all Templar leaders were explicitly identified as Grand Master or Master Templar. Sylvester II and James Wardrop, for example, were never identified as anything other than leaders. Similarly, Basilisk was basically the de facto Grand Master of the Levantine Rite, even though he never officially held the actual title. This article, along with Assassin leader, mostly exists to fill in that gray area in which we're never told whether a leader held any other rank. All Grand Masters are leaders, but not all leaders are Grand Masters. The Wikia Editor (talk) 00:23, March 31, 2017 (UTC)
- But those are either de facto leaders, or high-ranking Templars whose official rank and title are unknown. I think that it's no different from having a list of leaders of the United States in Wikipedia, but including with it not just its presidents and vice presidents, but also all its cabinet members, all its senators, representatives, governors, etc. They're all "American leaders" of varying ranks. It might make sense as a category, but I don't think it would make sense to have an article named "American leader", which is purely descriptive. It's not an actual rank or title. The Assassin leader article itself is the product of an error stemming from past editors thinking there's a distinction between a "Grand Master of the Assassins" and the "Mentor of the Assassins". Sol Pacificus(Cyfiero) 22:31, March 30, 2017 (UTC)
- While I do agree that there is a lot of overlap and the fact that the Assassin leader article is the product of an error. But I'm not entirely sure it's as clear cut as that. I think the "American leaders" analogy is kinda flawed, because we're not talking about listing everyone whose in charge of something (which is why I didn't include the members of the Inner Sanctum, apart from Alan Rikkin, who was apparently identified as a Grand Master in the Movie Novel). We're talking about specific individuals who were explicitly identified as leading Templar Rites but whose rank is never specified beyond "leader". Not all Templar leaders were Grand Masters either. We don't know if James Wardrop's promotion to leadership, for example, also included him becoming a Master Templar. The Wikia Editor (talk) 00:45, March 31, 2017 (UTC)
- I'm concerned that all the examples are just of Templars who were effectively acting leaders of Templar Rites during interrims, which are common enough in history and generally on Wikipedia still do not have their own articles. Basilisk, for instance, was de facto leader (or acting Grand Master) only because the Templars were having extended talks about who to elect as their next Grand Master which took over a year. I'm confused over James Wardrop as I don't recall him ever being promoted to a position of leadership. In any case, if this article is just about Templars who led rites, then the name should probably be more specific because "Templar leader" correctly can refer to any Templar that led, even lower-ranking ones. At the same time, the introduction needs to be clearer about this page including de facto leaders of Rites because sources are clear that a Grand Master is defined as a leader of a Templar Rite, or the official rank for that leader. Sol Pacificus(Cyfiero) 23:29, March 30, 2017 (UTC)
- Also, if the name of "Templar leader" isn't confirmed as an actual title, this article should be tagged as having a conjectural name. Sol Pacificus(Cyfiero) 23:31, March 30, 2017 (UTC)
- I`ll clarify that i`m still for the merge but under curtain terms for any de facto, interrim and other positions for individuals that is not confirmed as either Grand Master or Master Templar that are clarified as being in an acting position as a leader of some kind in their own respective Rite were the Grand Master should be in charge, according to their own organizational structure that has the Grand Master as the leading position. There`s no need for us to invent a non extisting rank for acting positions. ACsenior (talk) 23:34, May 21, 2020 (UTC)
- ACSenior raises a very good argument that I'm surprised no one has raised before. "There's no need for us to invent a non-existing rank for acting positions". That Basilisk was not officially a Grand Master doesn't mean that we need to create a page which largely overlaps with the Grand Master page except it includes the odd instances of him. However, Sima said that the purpose for the parallel Assassin leader article was originally to note Yusuf's position in the Ottoman Brotherhood even though he wasn't a Mentor. I have said before that even if we were to concede that we need a page with a conjectural title to cover branch leaders who were not Mentors, "Assassin leader" and "Templar leader" are vague and misleading names. Misleading in the sense that despite all these behind-the-scenes arguments for these two pages, many have mistakenly treated these as actual ranks. This is why I have proposed that at the very least, they be renamed to something like "Assassin branch leader" or "Templar branch leader", but I think that would still be confusing because of the large overlap with Grand Masters and Mentors. Sol Pacificus(Cyfiero) 06:04, May 22, 2020 (UTC)
- While I do agree that there is a lot of overlap and the fact that the Assassin leader article is the product of an error. But I'm not entirely sure it's as clear cut as that. I think the "American leaders" analogy is kinda flawed, because we're not talking about listing everyone whose in charge of something (which is why I didn't include the members of the Inner Sanctum, apart from Alan Rikkin, who was apparently identified as a Grand Master in the Movie Novel). We're talking about specific individuals who were explicitly identified as leading Templar Rites but whose rank is never specified beyond "leader". Not all Templar leaders were Grand Masters either. We don't know if James Wardrop's promotion to leadership, for example, also included him becoming a Master Templar. The Wikia Editor (talk) 00:45, March 31, 2017 (UTC)
- But those are either de facto leaders, or high-ranking Templars whose official rank and title are unknown. I think that it's no different from having a list of leaders of the United States in Wikipedia, but including with it not just its presidents and vice presidents, but also all its cabinet members, all its senators, representatives, governors, etc. They're all "American leaders" of varying ranks. It might make sense as a category, but I don't think it would make sense to have an article named "American leader", which is purely descriptive. It's not an actual rank or title. The Assassin leader article itself is the product of an error stemming from past editors thinking there's a distinction between a "Grand Master of the Assassins" and the "Mentor of the Assassins". Sol Pacificus(Cyfiero) 22:31, March 30, 2017 (UTC)
- The thing is that not all Templar leaders were explicitly identified as Grand Master or Master Templar. Sylvester II and James Wardrop, for example, were never identified as anything other than leaders. Similarly, Basilisk was basically the de facto Grand Master of the Levantine Rite, even though he never officially held the actual title. This article, along with Assassin leader, mostly exists to fill in that gray area in which we're never told whether a leader held any other rank. All Grand Masters are leaders, but not all leaders are Grand Masters. The Wikia Editor (talk) 00:23, March 31, 2017 (UTC)
Elise?[]
I want to say she was once on here but got removed for some reason. I think we could add her back annotating she led a moderate faction and Germain led a radical faction. 09:07, October 6, 2019 (UTC)
- Oh it was actually on the Grand Master page. Lacrossedeamon (talk) 09:18, October 6, 2019 (UTC)
Move to "Templar branch leader"[]
Per the discussion at Assassin leader, I would propose that we move this page to "Templar branch leader" or something more specific just for clarity. Sol Pacificus(Cyfiero) 08:52, November 2, 2019 (UTC)
- I support that rename especially if we are going to include leaders such as Pactyas and I assume Gorm. Lacrossedeamon (talk) 07:47, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
Parisian and Levantine[]
I think Hugues de Payens and Jacques de Molay should be moved to the Levantine Rite with that Rite renamed to just the Knights Templar. Lacrossedeamon (talk) 07:45, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
- Bump Lacrossedeamon (talk) 02:38, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
- The Levantine Rite is a canonically verified name from The Essential Guide although the book does clearly use the name Knights Templar narrowly for the period when the Templar Order was in the guise of a Christian military order. Did you mean that you think the page for the Levantine Rite should still be titled "Knights Templar" even though Levantine Rite is a canonically verified name? Sol Pacificus(Cyfiero) 18:28, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
- I'm more concerned about splitting the members during that period when they were operating openly into multiple rites than the actual name of the rite itself. I don't own the guide so I am unsure how it gets framed. Some of these categorization are assumptions anyways unless the Encyclopedia explicitly states the likes of Hugues de Payne and Gerard de Ridefort were different Rites. Lacrossedeamon (talk) 04:03, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
- I happened to address this topic further in the talk page of Persian Brotherhood of Assassins, and I am copying-and-pasting my suggestion here:
The Essential Guide explicitly refers to Robert de Sablé as belonging to the Levantine Rite. It also appears to use the name synonymously with Knights Templar. By that virtue, it would probably be safer to infer that Bernard de Clairvaux and Hugues de Payens also belonged to the Levantine Rite. It is dubious if we could say that Jacques de Molay belonged to the Levantine Rite when he was based entirely in France, and we run into the same issue as that of the Levantine Brotherhood where the name Levantine Rite appears to be retrospective. I look with concern at speculatively placing characters as members of rites without the backing of sources, but to sideline this problem, we can just move Levantine Rite to "Knights Templar" and write about it as encompassing the period of the Order from Bernaud de Cervaux to Jacques de Molay, with "Levantine Rite" as an alternative name. That way, we're not expressly making a claim about whether or not Bernard, Hugues, and Jacques were members of the Levantine Rite or the French Rite or if such a division existed in their time, only that they were Knights Templar. Ethnic or national origin is definitely not a basis for assuming membership in a particular branch by the way.
- See if this answers all your questions. I agree with you that I don't think we should split the likes of Hugues de Payens, Gerard de Ridefort, and Bernard de Clairvaux into different rites. Sol Pacificus(Cyfiero) 06:23, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
- I agree with Sol’s approach. At first, I wouldn't suggest to move them to the Levantine Rite because Jacques' journey to the Holy Land in 1291 for example doesn't really mean he was part of the Levantine Rite, he could have been there just as a representative of the French one. But that approach is a balanced solution that respects the canon while also acknowledging the uncertainties of historical events without marking a specific division between the Rites during thattime.
I was going to propose to create a "Speculative Membership" but refrained 'cause sound like... yeah, no.Cristophorus35 (talk) 06:52, 21 March 2024 (UTC)- I think moving the Levantine Rite page to Knights Templar works well enough. Since this is when the Templars operated publicly should we annotate which members would have still be secret such as the Sibrand or Tamir etc? Lacrossedeamon (talk) 17:49, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
- If you would like, sure. Sol Pacificus(Cyfiero) 05:37, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
- I think moving the Levantine Rite page to Knights Templar works well enough. Since this is when the Templars operated publicly should we annotate which members would have still be secret such as the Sibrand or Tamir etc? Lacrossedeamon (talk) 17:49, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
- I agree with Sol’s approach. At first, I wouldn't suggest to move them to the Levantine Rite because Jacques' journey to the Holy Land in 1291 for example doesn't really mean he was part of the Levantine Rite, he could have been there just as a representative of the French one. But that approach is a balanced solution that respects the canon while also acknowledging the uncertainties of historical events without marking a specific division between the Rites during thattime.
- I'm more concerned about splitting the members during that period when they were operating openly into multiple rites than the actual name of the rite itself. I don't own the guide so I am unsure how it gets framed. Some of these categorization are assumptions anyways unless the Encyclopedia explicitly states the likes of Hugues de Payne and Gerard de Ridefort were different Rites. Lacrossedeamon (talk) 04:03, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
- The Levantine Rite is a canonically verified name from The Essential Guide although the book does clearly use the name Knights Templar narrowly for the period when the Templar Order was in the guise of a Christian military order. Did you mean that you think the page for the Levantine Rite should still be titled "Knights Templar" even though Levantine Rite is a canonically verified name? Sol Pacificus(Cyfiero) 18:28, 10 March 2024 (UTC)