Talk:Knight/Archive 3

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Chivalry section

The opening quote in that section comes from a children's book (see reference). I think it would be good if someone with knowledge of the subject could find an alternate quote.WQUlrich (talk) 20:40, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, what quote? Are you talking about the unreferenced quote "Protect the weak, defenseless, helpless, and fight for the general welfare of all."? I saw that a while back and wondered where it came from. I'll see if I can find something better. Or are you referring to something else in the article? Wilhelm Meis (☎ Diskuss | ✍ Beiträge) 02:27, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Knt

Knt redirects here. The page needs a mention of its proper usage: is it dated? a contraction of the spelled-out "Knight" or the proper suffix? limited to particular British peers or general? Most importantly, why on earth is it necessary, if "Sir ..." already denotes knighthood? — $Llywelyn II$ 11:50, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

If it is dated and limited in use (to the point where a thorough treatment of its meaning and usage would be out of place or WP:UNDUE here, kindly replace the redirect at Knt with a brief treatment on the subject with (obviously) a link over here to the full article. — $Llywelyn II$ 11:51, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Knights of Malta

Shouldn't the Sovereign Military Order of Malta be at least mentioned here? They are an exceptional case, not only as one of the several orders that previously possessed their own sovereignty but they are still considered sovereign, have an observer seat at the UN, their own passports and even embassies. JTdale ^Talk 13:26, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Requested move 1 March 2016

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. And I don't see a consensus for splitting Knight and Knighthood into separate articles either. That would surely be controversial and must be discussed separately from this primary topic discussion. (non-admin closure) — Amakuru (talk) 10:21, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Knight → Knighthood – this redirects here anyway so why don't we move the page there so Knight can serve as a disambiguation page? The term has so many uses now beyond the medieval. 184.145.18.50 (talk) 22:21, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Oppose; If I understand you correctly, you also want to move Knight (disambiguation) to Knight? Generally this would only be done if there wasn't a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for the subject. As I see it, the current topic is the primary topic, so there doesn't seem to be a good reason for this. Furthermore, significant parts of the article would have to change (most notably the 'etymology' section). InsertClever Phrase Here 03:13, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
Oppose a knight (martial combatant) is different from a knighthood (honors title, true combatant knights with recognized title), they should be separate articles -- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 04:42, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Wow... of course. I didn't even think about this. it could be a contender for an article split along these lines. InsertClever Phrase Here 05:39, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Knight and knighthood should absolutely not be separate articles. The latter terms just means the status of a knight, or knights collectively (as an institution or class). 216.8.131.156 (talk) 17:15, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Oppose. Knight and knighthood can be two different things, per the medieval and modern uses of the term. White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 00:13, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
Oppose Clear primary topic. There is also the chess piece, for example. 96.41.0.15 (talk) 00:23, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
Oppose. Primary topic. Montanabw ^(talk) 02:39, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Making sense of the article

Just re-reading the article and it struggles between quite good material on one hand and quite simplistic/dated stuff in other places (partly being due to using what appears to be a help with homework website as a cited source).

I don't intend to try to rewrite the article but could we try to create more structure and identify certain gaps? For example, we have virtually nothing on what happens to knighthood between the end of the Middle Ages and 19th century. We have a section labelled decline which is about military changes not about knighthood itself, which was already well beyond being a heavy cavalryman. What actually happened to knighthood to get us to today, when the institution continues in many western countries?

I would suggest as a structure we have something on etymology, then Medieval knighthood (which can encompass sections on origins, development, decline/evolution, culture), then a bridge on Post-medieval knighthood perhaps finishing with modern knighthood, then on to Types of Knighthood.

I would like to recommend a source about this period (1485-1600): "Tudor Knight" by Christopher Gravett, Osprey (Warrior), 2006. It is a concise illustrated book and contains references to other, more detailed texts. SV1XV (talk) 21:02, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

I could execute this structure but would need to leave a section and several subsections awaiting others to provide content. Other editors may prefer to live with it as it is, rather than it become a construction site. Any thoughts from those who have the page watchlisted, or other interested parties? Monstrelet (talk) 18:23, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

With no contrary opinions, I have done a minimal edit on the titles of the sections in line with suggestions above. I think this gives us a basic structure of where knighthood came from, what it originally entailed then how it has evolved from those beginnings, which I think helps editors think about this article encyclopedically. There are still improvements needed, especially the bridge between medieval knighthood and the types section, and I hope more knowledgeable editors will be bold and fill these gaps. Monstrelet (talk) 14:18, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

While i was here, I had a go at the overlong and meandering lead para. Hopefully tighter now. I've tried not to loose any content but some has been relocated. To be honest, that para could probably be trimmed further.Monstrelet (talk) 14:59, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Knight. 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071123110436/http://news.independent.co.uk/people/obituaries/article1879386.ece to http://news.independent.co.uk/people/obituaries/article1879386.ece

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After 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 {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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) 03:40, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Husbands of Knights?

Wives of knights, however, are entitled to the honorific pre-nominal

But what of the legal same-sex spouses of knights? If undue favour is still shown to male title-holders (as in the case of married knights, whose wives may be addressed as lady) as against female ones (husbands of dames must go without), Sir Elton John's spouse (and Sir Ian McKellen's and Sir Alan Bennett's, if he ever made an honest man of Rupert and accepted the knighthoods a grateful nation keep trying to foist upon him), surely ought to be called something. Nuttyskin (talk) 01:26, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Lead image

Checking upload details of the lead image, I see it described as a Templar and also a fresco. I'm not convinced it is a fresco (I think it is stained glass) but more importantly, the file has few details e.g. of location, date, artist. I'd say this was weak sourcing. Should we use a better sourced image at this level? Monstrelet (talk) 16:19, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Returning to this point, something genuinely medieval, iconic and colourful would seem the best way to kick off. Commons contains plenty of options. Two I thought might do are

or

Any preferences?

Monstrelet (talk) 16:28, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Are you still waiting for a response? I'd go with Hartmann von Aue (the one on the left).--Ermenrich (talk) 21:46, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Done Monstrelet (talk) 09:58, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Etymology of Cavalier

A comment on the recent edit: Wiktionary gives the etymology of cavalier as being derived from a Middle French word, cavalier, as the immediate ancestor of the English word, which came to French from the Italian cavaliere, itself from the Old Occitan cavalier, and ultimately from Latin. As its authority for this origin, Wiktionary cites the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary. The Oxford English Dictionary says that it was "[o]riginally adopted in the form cavallero, cavaliero, etc. from Spanish, with occasional use of the Italian and Portuguese forms. The actual form cavalier is < French cavalier (16th cent. in Littré)." It appears, upon consulting Le Trésor de la langue française informatisé, that cavalier was any horseman, whereas chevalier meant Equestrian (i.e., the Roman social class) or knight. TLFi confirms that cavalier came from Italian. So while the editor is not incorrect to state that cavalier is derived from Italian, the rationale given is incorrect.--Masque (talk) 13:53, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Duly noted. Should we change the text to say "ultimately dervied from Italian" or something to that effect, or is that too much information?--Ermenrich (talk) 13:57, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Not so much TMI as of dubious accuracy. OED's etymology says the Spanish form was the primary source for the word, and Wiktionary gives the Spanish etymology as being direct from the Late Latin caballerius, the source for all the other Romance language words (it cites Diccionario de la lengua española as its authority for this etymology, but I'm unable to locate the etymology there), not Italian. Moreover, what do we mean by "ultimate?"--Masque (talk) 14:13, 12 June 2019 (UTC)"Ultimately," it's from a Proto-Indo-European word.

Hmm. My original reason for changing the word was that cavalier is obviously as much of a loanword in French as in English. It does not show the normal changes that one would expect in a word that derived from Vulgar Latin to French (namely c→ch). I expect that French etymological dictionaries would be of more help. What if we compromised and said "romance-language derived"?--Ermenrich (talk) 14:19, 12 June 2019 (UTC)