From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

I think that to stand the statement «a supposed figure of worship of the Knights Templar», it should be referenced to an article of a serious writer or a book from a subject-dedicated author. This statement lack referencing.

This statement (whether I believe it or not) looks like the subjective point of view of who wrote it, not a rational, objective point of view. — Unsigned, by: Lobaluna / talk / contribs

1. Hello!
2. On talk pages, please sign your comments using four tildes (~~~~) or by clicking on the sign button: SigButt.png on the toolbar above the edit panel. You can also indent successive talk page comments using one more colon (:) for each line. Thank you.
3. We're not neutral in our point of view.
4. Did you have any particular sources in mind? Thanks! Reverend Black Percy (talk) 21:01, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
And FWIW, the role of Baphomet in the Templar trials is referenced to contemporary accounts in the discussion of the origin of the name. No one is claiming that the Templars actually worshipped Baphomet; only that the name appears in these accounts of the obtained-by-torture confessions of some Templars. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 02:18, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
...And as the men and women of the STASIWikipedia worked so hard to prove, there's nothing as trustworthy as a confession made under torture. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 02:20, 28 January 2017 (UTC)