Talk:Knights Templar (Freemasonry)

UK & US

I think we may want to separate US and UK Templar info either on the same page as was done for the York Rite or make two separate pages as the info seems to be mixed in at random and makes the article difficult to read. PeRshGo (talk) 23:52, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Page naming

I noticed that someone attempted to change the name of this page to Knights Templar (Freemasonry). I have reverted the move, since the current name (Freemason degree) was one that was established in 2006 by consensus. See Talk:Knights Templar/Archive 4#Templar disambiguation - Page rename proposal. If there is strong feeling that the name is inappropriate, we can of course re-discuss the matter, and if there is consensus to move the page to a different name, we can definitely do so. But until then, we should keep it at its current name. --Elonka 20:03, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Not Exclusive to Christian Freemasons

It should be noted that you must be willing to defend the Christian Faith. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sir Kesterson (talk • contribs) 21:41, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

The degree is not exclusive to Christian Freemasons; anyone of any faith may join the Order granted they answer a series of questions in a satisfactory manner - not one of these questions asks a candidate to declare himself as a Christian before, during, or after the degree work. This question is also not on the application for the Knights Templar degrees.

I am a Freemason who has gone through the Knights Templar degrees, and I am not a Christian - I'm Buddhist. My faith is well-known among the other members of the Order, and it has never affected my eligibility. I also know of another Buddhist who is a member of the Knights Templar, and he also states that his eligibility has never been in question.

It should be noted that "professing a belief in the Christian religion" is not the same as "being a Christian". In other words, someone can believe in the teachings of Christianity without identifying oneself as a Christian.Vaastuvit (talk) 10:55, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

While the changes you made to the main page are fine as the wording is still in line with Grand Encampment policy I think standard interpretation would be that if you "profess a belief in the Christian Religion" you are then a Christian. The Grand Encampment's motto is even "Every Christian Mason should be a Knight Templar." And as I assume that you are the same individual who challenged the statement on the York Rite page as well I'll say the same thing that was concluded there. Though local Commanderies may interpret the rules loosely, that doesn’t change the rules themselves. PeRshGo (talk) 22:46, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

However, while I agree with your POV, isn't I think standard interpretation would be that if you "profess a belief in the Christian Religion" you are then a Christian equal to original research, via synthesis?--Vidkun (talk) 23:22, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

As Wikipedians it's our job to summarize and interpret in encyclopedic fashion. If I read a sentence that states that you must be a member of the Masonic fraternity and profess a belief in the Christian Religion to join an organization I feel that writing the organization is open only to Christian Masons would be a reasonable summary. This is because being a Christian can be easily described as someone who believes in the Christian religion. PeRshGo (talk) 23:56, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I think it's WP:synth. The source doesn't explicitly say "open only to Christian Masons" but "profess a belief in the Christian Religion". I agree with your summary, here in discussion space, but not in article space.--Vidkun (talk) 01:05, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

And that's why I didn't revert his edits. PeRshGo (talk) 01:16, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

The situation in England is quite clear - this Order is open only to those Freemasons who profess the Christian faith. As far as I am aware, the same is true in the USA, and the above is merely an exercise in splitting hairs. Timothy Titus ^{Talk To TT} 14:19, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

My American Commandery only permits professed Christians to membership as well. In fact many of us are practicing and active members of our respective Christian congregations. Simply put to receive York Rite Christian orders and not be a Christian is almost hallow in nature and without merit. Christianity is the very center of the orders and to come in not being a believer is like just "going through the steps" because of ones curiosity. Why become a knight if you are anything but a Christian, Commandery Easter Service, Christmas Parties, Church Services, Holy Land trips. Nothing there for anyone who is anything other than a mason who is a Christian. Its like being a Knights of Columbus and not being Catholic. Christus Rex! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.229.67.81 (talk) 03:03, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

References

Freemansons and Knights Templar.

I do not see why the Masonic order is so eager to associate with The Knights Templar. The came from a different background. And they use Illuminate Symbols which is far from the ideas of the Knights of today (and probaly was 700 years ago. I do not expect the Masonic order to back down from their Knighood dreams, but I have had my say. Thank you Wikipedia for that. J.Sneevang Write 12:17, 10 October 2010 (UTC)JSnevangJ.Sneevang Write 12:17, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

J.Sneevang Write 12:17, 10 October 2010 (UTC)JSnevangJ.Sneevang Write 12:17, 10 October 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by JSneevang (talk • contribs)

With respect, this is not the appropriate forum for venting your personal views about Freemasonry, Templarism, or anything else. This is an encyclopedia. In any case, it is clear from your comments that you know very little about the subject. I would suggest a little more serious (academic) background reading on the subject. Masonic Knights Templar make NO claim to continuity with, origin from, or significant connection to the 'original' (medieval) Knights of the Temple. The Masonic order of Knights Templar is, by its own admission, an invention of the late eighteenth century. However, there is a strong and arguable line of academic research suggesting that mainstream Freemasonry may be a surviving line of the original Templar movement, preserved underground in Scotland where the last free Knights Templar are known to have sought refuge in the fourteenth century; it is far from the only theory of masonic origins, but it is a supported and serious theory. Again, with respect, your comment "I do not expect the Masonic order to back down from their Knighood (sic) dreams" is rather odd. Freemasonry makes no claims on actual chivalric knighthood, or direct connection with any historic order, so there really would be nothing to "back down" from, even if they were interested in your theories. Timothy Titus ^{Talk To TT} 14:40, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Article Knights Templar (Freemasonry): "The Knights Templar is an international philanthropic chivalric order"

Titus: "Freemasonry makes no claims on actual chivalric knighthood" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.226.238.166 (talk) 13:25, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

In English Freemasonry the terms 'chivalric' and 'cryptic' are commonly used to distinguish the two main types of masonic order - those that are structured in a similar manner to orders of knighthood, and those that are structured in a similar manner to medieval trade guilds. However, no masonic order that I know of makes any actual claim to be either (in the first case) an actual order of chivalry or (in the second case) an actual trade union. If the masonic Knights Templar actually thought of themselves as an Order of Chivalry they would use their titles in the outside world, and they would need some form of Sovereign State to validate the order - but it is just a fraternal organisation. If you have some point to make, please be explicit. Or if you wish to rewrite the lead paragraph to make it clearer, then do so. And please sign your comments here, by adding the ~ symbol four times after your comments. Thank you. Timothy Titus ^{Talk To TT} 14:19, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Rewriting for clarity

I'm actually in the masonic knights templar myself. Sorry for the bad article, I never knew those other guys existed. However the logos are misplaced. The cross pattee as a symbol of the independent body should therefore be next to Knights Templar as an Independent Body, and the cross and the crown as a symbol of body within the York Rite should therefore be next to Knights Templar as a part of the York Rite. Align them to the right if you want.

Also on the right hand side you got "part of a series", then a picture, then another "part of a series". It would make more sense (and look better) to lead with the picture then have both "series of" beneath it.

Third, the current introduction is almost entirely worhtless to someone who isn't a mason. Information about the masonic Knights Templar is not clear anywhere on the web. Almost the entire thing talks about its name. If the name is important enough to have its own ssection then fine. If I, a member, confused my own organization with the International Knights Templar, then we should include something " the masonic knights temmplar should not be confused with..."

Fourth, the title "Administration" does not appear to talk about anything administrative, but how the two bodies are organizied.

Fifth this paragraph : "This body is modeled on the historical Knights Templar and hopes to carry on the spirit of their organization. Throughout history it has been claimed that Freemasonry itself was founded by the Knights Templar or that the Knights Templar took refuge in Freemasonry after their persecution. The Grand Encampment of the United States acknowledges the existence of these theories, but states that there is no proof to justify such claims.[2]"

does it apply only to those in the York Rite, or also to the independent bodies. If it applys to both, then I think it be in the introduction.

Finally, can we get a picture of someone in his dress uniform as the main picture? It would look a lot better then that tiny cross —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.3.41.68 (talk) 18:30, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

For the record, this is Jsinger123, it wont let me sign in as Im on a military computer right now —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.3.41.68 (talk) 18:33, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi again. Yes indeed, and they're not the only ones. I am personally aware of at least four organisations styling themselves 'Knights Templar' (including the one of which you and I are members). I'm happy to have a look at those pictures, but I must repeat what I said on your (corporate) talk page - Wikipedia is viewed on so many different types of computer, through so many different browsers, in so many different resolutions, that we need to adopt norms for style rather than seeing what "looks good" on our own computers - because it will look very different to another viewer on a different computer. I don't agree with you about the lead paragraph. It is very descriptive - of course it must include the full formal name of the organisation. I note you want to change "affiliated with Freemasonry" to "affiliated with Freemasonry and Christianity", but, with respect, this is wrong. Our organisation of Knights Templar IS affiliated with Freemasonry, but it is not in any formal sense affiliated with Christianity or with any Christian church - although we do state that membership is only open to members of the Christian religion. Regarding your other points, I think we have all tried to be careful to keep this article international, and not give it an undue weighting towards any one nation. Words like "administration" may have slightly different resonances in different countries, but I don't think its use here is unusual. The "dress uniform" to which you refer is an American thing. For Masonic Knights Templar in Europe, and indeed most of the world, there is no such thing, and nothing even remotely similar. I appreciate you want to put information about the lack of direct connection with the medieval Knights Templar, but we already have that information very clearly in the article, in the section about the Knight Templar degree. The overview is about the whole of the "United Orders", and not only the degree of Knight Templar (Knight of the Temple). Timothy Titus ^{Talk To TT} 19:17, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. How about in the introduction we can lead with something like this

The Knights Templar is an international philanthropic chivalric order affiliated with Freemasonry. Among other things, one needs to be a freemason in good standing and have a declared belief in the Christian religion to be a member. However, the exact traditions and regulations of this order can vary from country to country and from state to state. The full title of the Order is The United Religious, Military and Masonic Orders of the Temple and of St John of Jerusalem, Palestine, Rhodes and Malta. The word "United" in this title indicates that more than one historical tradition and more than one actual Orders are jointly controlled within this system. The individual Orders 'united' within this system are principally the Knights of the Temple (Knights Templar), and the Knights of Malta, together with the Knights of St Paul and within the York Rite, Knights of the Red Cross. This body is modeled on the historical Knights Templar and hopes to carry on the spirit of their organization. Throughout history it has been claimed that Freemasonry itself was founded by the medieval Knights Templar, or that the Knights Templar took refuge in Freemasonry after their persecution. The Grand Encampment of the United States acknowledges the existence of these theories, but states that there is no proof to justify such claims.[1] This order should not be confused with various other orders with a similar name, such as the International Order of Knight Templar (provide link to their site). --132.3.41.68 (talk) 13:20, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I think that is a good amount of practical information for someone who isn't mason and might clear up some confusion like the one I had. Also I think it would still be neat to include a picture of the dress uniform, just in the caption say something "This is a dress uniform commonly worn by Knights Templar in America for special occasions". That way if people see them in a parade then look up this page they can make the connection. 132.3.41.68 (talk) 13:14, 16 May 2011 (UTC) --132.3.41.68 (talk) 13:20, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

confused about the Order

Sometimes I'm led to believe in this article that "knights templar" is the collective name of all three or four orders put together. Other times I think that a Knight Templar is just one order (order of the temple) found in a larger system of three or four degrees. So which is it?

jsinger123

--132.3.41.68 (talk) 14:21, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

--132.3.41.68 (talk) 14:26, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

It's a common issue with masonic bodies in general. Royal Arch Masonry for example is called Royal Arch Masonry, or "chapter" despite the fact it in many jurisdictions includes a lodge of Mark Master Masons, lodge of Past Masters, lodge of Most Excellent Masters, AND the chapter of Royal Arch Masons. It appears to just to be a Masonic custom to refer to bodies by their final degree. PeRshGo (talk) 03:05, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

I absolutely agree with the above. Certainly in the British way of organising things most Masonic 'Orders' have multiple actual Degrees or Orders within their system. Personally I think we make this exceedingly clear in the Knights Templar article. This is why we give the full title of the Order in the lead paragraph, and mention the different constituent Orders. We also go on to provide individual explanations of each Order within the system. Historically there have been literally thousands of different masonic degrees and orders, many now defunct. It is not surprising that over time many of them have become connected together under joint management and administration, in processes which are well documented historically. Timothy Titus ^{Talk To TT} 03:22, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Well with that being said, shouldn't the title of this page be The United Religious, Military and Masonic Orders of the Temple and of St John of Jerusalem, Palestine, Rhodes and Malta? It's wordy, but correct. Then we could include a sentence that says altough that is the full name, they are more commonly known as the Knights Templar.

jsinger123 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.83.133.248 (talk) 17:04, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia naming conventions favor a subject's common name over their full or more accurate name. PeRshGo (talk) 17:40, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

self-styled order vs. chivalric orders

This article says that the modern Knights Templar are chivalric order. However, the article on self-styled orders says that all orders who weren't chartered by a ruling monarch, called a fount-of-honour, are in-fact a self styled order and not a chivalric order. So are the modern Knights Templar actually a self-styled order?

--132.3.41.68 (talk) 14:45, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

It really depends on how much weight you put into the claim of connection to the historical Knights Templar. It's even more with complex with the Knights of Pythias. It was drafted in the US Congress, ds does that mean it was chartered by a ruling monarch? Honestly the distinction doesn't seem important in either case given they're both in their current state fraternal organizations. PeRshGo (talk) 03:05, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the above, and would add that like many words "chivalric" has both a general meaning, and a technical meaning. In the technical sense, a Chivalric Order (eg the Order of the Bath) must be founded by a ruling monarch; but in the general sense, 'chivalric' may be used merely of someone with good manners! Certainly a fraternal organisation which is inspired by a former genuine Chivalric Order may be said to be 'chivalric' in the general sense. Nobody is pretending any more than this, which is why as Masonic Knights Templar we don't use our post-nominal initials or titles ('Brother Knight', or 'Sir Knight', or 'Sir', etc, depending on constitution) outside our Preceptories, which would be inappropriate and silly. Timothy Titus ^{Talk To TT} 03:17, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

The Laws of the United States prohibit formal recognition or anyone from receiving such orders. United States citizens who have received foreign decorations have been given them as (honorary) decorations of merit and are not entitled to be addressed as sir or lady in any formal documents and it does not establish an order of precedence like it does it the United Kingdom or Sweden. Aside from United States Citizens who may get an honorary decoration from the UK (and there are PLENTY) non are entitled to a formal address unless on the off chance they hold dual citizenship in the United States and say another constitutional monarchy like the United Kingdom or its Commonwealth realms.

Then they are only afforded formal recognition in the country that gave the honor, but not in the U.S. Also there are no supposed "Templar" styled organizations that would be considered bona fide chivalric orders. There are plenty of organizations that proclaim a very thin and unsubstantiated pedigree (OSMTH, Knights Templar International) but the fact remains as stated before non of these organizations traditionally hails from a "font d'honneur" such as a Sovereign (King, Queen, Emperor) or in the case of the actual Templars received their patronage from the pope himself. (The Holy see still endorses religious orders of Chivalry such as the Order of the Fleece, Order of St Mary (Teutonics), Knights of Malta (Catholic),to name a few. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.229.67.81 (talk) 11:20, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

In a masonic context, "Chivalric Orders" is standard usage. It stems from the 1740s when the Templar lie started to matter, and has been inherited by modern masonry in various forms. Nobody pretends that the masonic titles mean anything outside of the lodge. I don't see the problem. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 23:16, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

RULERS OUT OF SHADOW

why there is no mention that people who join this ordre are the real masters of the world ? - they rule in secrecy and create a kind of "private club" that hinder others to get higher positions — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.154.85.42 (talk) 02:35, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

That's because this is an encyclopaedia, dealing in facts, for rational people. It is not a forum, dealing in wacky conspiracy theories, for crazy people. I hope that answers the question. Timothy Titus ^{Talk To TT} 08:46, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

History still needed.

I've filled out as much early history as I could find, and removed the "history needed" tag. It is polite to admit that there is still a big gap between where I've left off and the evolution of the various Templars today. I sort of run out of steam about 1815.Fiddlersmouth (talk) 23:36, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Very good start to the history section. It’s going to be difficult to balance all the contradictory information out there, but thanks for being the first person to really give it a shot. PeRshGo (talk) 23:21, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Long time replying, due to dead hard drive. A LOT of this stuff is going to teeter on the edge of OR. The best we can do is give the refs and try not to interpret. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 01:09, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Orders or Degrees

I am a member of the commandery The title of Degree of St Paul or the Degree of Malta are not worked within the York Rite system in the way a laymen would think the 1,2,3rd degrees are given in the basic craft lodge (most if not all members of the York Rite dont have a problem making the differentiation). Simply put in both the EU and US tradition the "grades" given within the Commandery system of membership are called Orders. I dont think its very necessary to split the Masonic Templar page into a EU/UK or US versions. While there are some differnces (mostly titles and names, and in the way we dress) both organizations are in full amity and share essential prerequisists to each others membership. To split the page in such a way would be more confusing than it already is to outsiders.

Which brings us to another problem is the reference verification in Wiki on a masonic page or any other page where certain details of an organization are only truly known by its members. How to you make an annotated reference on knowledge that not only is confidential but hundreds if not thousands of years old. Truth is you can't and the subject seems to counfound those tunnel vision, deer in headlights thinkers who try to pidgeon hole every subject they come across and call themselves intellectual. Profs make you cite references to make sure your paper is not a rant or that you actually read the matierial. instead its been used to hem in free thought making rather lazy and ineffective instructors and teachers looking only at the reference matierial rather than what the student wrote. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.216.166.126 (talk) 04:24, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi. I've moved your comment to the bottom of the talk page, in accordance with agreed practice on Wikipedia - please always add new comments at the bottom of the page or section to which they refer. Also, do please sign your posts. You seem to be responding largely to a very old comment (posted in 2009) perhaps because you're reading the page "upside down" (as if the newest comments are at the top - which they aren't). In any case, the current form of the article is according to consensus. Despite your opinion, there are very considerable differences between the American and European forms of Knight Templar Freemasonry. Not just the way we dress (which is very different, but superficial), but more importantly the whole concept of KT Masonry being part of a rite (the York Rite) is normal in the US and totally alien to Europe. Additionally the US version has an entire extra degree which doesn't exist in Europe. We have dealt with this by giving details of both systems on a single page, which I think makes it very clear that this is the same organisation, but worked somewhat differently on the two sides of the Atlantic. As for your final point, I don't think most of us find any problem in this area - Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, where we record facts about an organisation. An esoteric essay would not be appropriate here, so there is no conflict. Timothy Titus ^{Talk To TT} 14:24, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Grand Priory & Grand Encampment Pages

Looking above it seems I made similar suggestion back in 2009, but none the less I’d like to see if I can reignite a discussion on creating Grand Priory and Grand Encampment pages for the specifics of the individual bodies. This page remains very difficult to read due to the conflicting information included about the two largest grand bodies. I just had to remove an infobox which would have seemed to imply this page is just about the Grand Priory. There is no shortage of resources available about the both of them. It may be time they got their own pages. I was thinking about writing a Knights Templar Eye Foundation page anyway, and it seems to reason a Grand Encampment page would go along well with it. If may however, be too large of a subject for me to reasonably take on alone. PeRshGo (talk) 16:43, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

London based group the original

It doesn't really make sense to have this article in any other way than this being primarily about the original English Masonic Knights Templar group; the others, such as the Scotland-variation has its own article and I think the best way forward would be to create articles for the Grand Encampment of Knights Templar of the United States of America and the Sovereign Great Priory of the Knights Templar of Canada. The England-based group, deriving ultimately from Thomas Dunckerley is the Knights Templar masonic group, the others, such as the US and Canadian ones, are simply derivative branches of this entity. I think we need to avoid vagueness and confusing ambiguity in the article. There is such a large number of pseudo-Templar groups in existence today, that being fuzzy on Wikipedia about this can only cause confusion. Claíomh Solais (talk) 19:23, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

First, claiming that the London based group is the original is disputable. The Irish claim to have them beat by at least a few decades. Second, even if we agreed that was the case, we don't put a UGLE infobox in the Freemasonry article and claim it is all about the UGLE. This article isn't about the English Masonic Knight Templar group it's about Masonic Templarism as a whole. If you would like to write an article about English Masonic Templarisim, including Great Priory you have my full support, but Masonic Templarisim as a whole is the subject of this article, not the Great Priory. PeRshGo (talk) 04:44, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

That's also my understanding. Doug Weller talk 12:38, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

It looks like he's back to reverting with no commentary. I'm going to give it another day and see if the issue needs escalation. It's bordering on vandalism at this point. PeRshGo (talk) 23:16, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

To return to this rather tiresome issue. The article isn't about generic "Masonic Templarism", it is about a specific fraternal organisation. As the first sentence even in the version which, for some reason you insist on reverting to states "The Knights Templar, full name The United Religious, Military and Masonic Orders of the Temple and of St John of Jerusalem, Palestine, Rhodes and Malta, is a fraternal order affiliated with Freemasonry."

The fraternal order operating under this name, is the organisation based in London, of which the American and Canadian variations have derivative, affiliated subsections. If you disagree, then, provide evidence of where this "mysterious" wider fraternity is centrally located, when it was founded and where is its website? The information I have provided has references for it. Where are yours?

If the article was about wider or generic Templar themes in Freemasonry, then it would say so and not start with a full name of the London-based and founded organisation, or the specific fraternity. It would be focused on Scottish Rite freemasonry and the man who initiated the Templar theme in Freemasonry, ie - Andrew Michael Ramsay. Claíomh Solais (talk) 23:26, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

The article isn't about Masonic Templarisim, it's about the Knights Templar fraternal order which is governed by a variety grand bodies based on their jurisdiction in amity with one another including the London based organization you have chosen to make this article about. A body which was by no means the first body of masonic Knights Templar, as an Encampment in South Carolina had been in existence 8 years prior, and lodge of High Knights Templar in Ireland 12 years prior. The Scottish claim 1745 as their starting date. These groups just all ended up in amity with one another and exist in mutual recognition as one body. This concept is fundamental to understanding Freemasonry as a subject, more less writing about it. There are stacks of books on the Knights Templar as a subject without limiting it to a particular grand body. If one were to say apply your logic to the subject of Freemasonry as a whole then there is no such thing as Freemasonry, but merely the UGLE and a set of derivative groups. But we don't approach Freemasonry like that, and we don't approach any other appendant body like that, so I have no clue as to why you would single out this article in such a way. PeRshGo (talk) 04:01, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

It's been the better part of a month, and I've gotten no response. So I'm going to go ahead and split the pages. PeRshGo (talk) 02:15, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Untitled IP Comment (moved from top of page to it's own section)

I must agree the title and much of the verbiage is confusing and conflicting. At least four decades separate the last record of the Templar’s and the emergence of Free Masonary? Another poster was chastised for a lack of histical knowledge! Free Masons have no more lineage to the Templar’s than do serveal groups that use the Templar name today! Templar’s were, at their premise, Warrior Monks! (unsigned)

I've moved your comments from the top of the page, and given them their own section. This is a protocol that all Editors must follow, for obvious reasons. You also need to title your section, and sign your contributions, in order to maintain a comprehensible structure. Also incorrect spelling, grammar errors and format errors serve as indicators of a lack of competency and credibility.Tym Whittier (talk) 21:45, 18 May 2019 (UTC)