Talk:Priory of Sion/Archive 1

1
Hmm. The upshot of the article seems to be what the Priory of Zion isn't. I find this less than informative. Cimon Avaro on a pogo stick 14:53 20 May 2003 (UTC) - Any commentary about the Priory, the Grail, the Shroud of Turnin, or the Holy Blood should start by stating precisely why the commentator thinks the matter is significant. Either Jesus was supernatural or he was not. If he was, then applying modern concepts like historicity, conspiracies, genetics, forensics, or rationalism is irrelevant and pointless. If he was not, but at best the rightwise-born King of the Jews and a Messiah in the accurate nationalistic sense, then any appeal to destiny, fate, providence, mysticism, or spirituality is irrelevant and pointless. Most (but not all) non-professional writers on these topics are so mentally confused and emotionally conflicted that their views are tedious and superfluous. At least the Priory's "secret" and their long-term agenda are secular and political, feminist and royalist -- no self-contradictions are needed. - This reprinted excerpt from a discreditable recent book endorsing the Protocols of the Elders of Zion forgery is so long it must surely infringe copyright. Wetman 08:11, 27 Dec 2003 (UTC)

- We apologize for over 100 edits(!) of this article. Since late December, both our computer and Wikipedia have been experiencing systematic technical difficulties during our attempt to describe the Priory of Zion as accurately as possible, following extensive and continuing research. However, we think our work is close to an end. Loremaster 00:40, 05 Feb 2004 - The addition of "a joke, a vast imposture, pornography for conspiracy theorists" to the article is not necessary because the word "lubridium" covers that so I edited it out. Loremaster 10:11, 05 Feb 2004
 * I wanted to add that excerpt from The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail because, while interesting, it exemplified the authors’s dubious methodology. However, I think it's distraction and I have to agree with Wetman so I have removed it. Loremaster 04:02, 30 Dec 2003


 * And I put it back in. The test is not necessity, but clarity. -- Zotz 03:15, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)

- I have removed the Protocols of the Elders of Zion material added by Sexyfoxboy on Mar 14, 2004, because 1) there is no proof that the template of the Protocols was a publication of the Priory of Sion, 2) the scholarly consensus is that the Protocols are nothing more than an anti-Semitic forgery, 3) the material is extremly too long for an article that should focus on the Priory rather that the Protocols themselves. However, I've added a more appropriate and conscise mention of the Protocols in the article. Loremaster 16:18, 14 Mar 2004 - I removed the link to the Da Vinci Con piece from the New York Times because it can already be found at the bottom of wikipedia's The Da Vinci Code article and one has be to registered to the New York Times in order to read the piece. Loremaster 20:40, 23 Mar 2004 -
 * After thinking it over, I've come to agree. However, I have edited your addition for the sake of clarity and to remove questionable hyperboles. Loremaster 10:55, 05 Feb 2004

Message for new contributors
Having invested a lot of time and energy in expanding, improving and updating the Priory of Sion article (especially since 1 March 2008), the primary contributors have been guided by one overriding principle: All claims about the Priory of Sion and related topics be fair, accurate, properly attributed, and well-referenced. We don't own this article but we want it to be the best possible resource for anyone (e.g. students, journalists, cultural critics) who is interested in the subject rather than an attempt to portray the Priory of Sion in the best or worse possible light. Despite having conflicting views and even had some acrimonious disputes, we are cooperating in an effort to make the perfect article. Therefore, we recommend you be bold but it might be wise if you take the time to discuss any major addition or deletion of article content on this talk page before proceeding in order to avoid an unnecessary edit war. Thank you. --Loremaster (talk) 00:21, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Steps towards Featured Article status
In light of the international interest in The Da Vinci Code and The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail, I think we should radically improve the Priory of Sion article in order for it to be featured on the Main Page of Wikipedia.

Before we push the article to Peer review - a step that should always be taken before the Featured Articles Candidates step -, we need to extensively provided references for every paragraph in this article following Citing sources guidelines. --Loremaster 16:46, 11 May 2006 (UTC)


 * A bit of pruning might come in handy. Also CBS piece hits the nail on the head. Politis 16:44, 11 May 2006 (UTC)'''


 * Would this even get Good Article status? Has it tried? JASpencer 22:03, 14 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't think so because it lacks source citations. --Loremaster 21:22, 15 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I suggest that it first be nominated for GA status once the citations are firmed up. If it passes, and it may well get put on hold for various problems to get corrected, then it could go to peer review to improve the writing and then nominated for Feature article. Wednesday Next (talk) 21:47, 13 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree. --Loremaster (talk) 23:20, 13 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I've nominated the Priory of Sion article for GA status. --Loremaster (talk) 14:05, 2 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Bfigura is reviewing below the Priory of Sion article for GA status. --Loremaster (talk) 21:23, 29 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The 14:22, 29 April 2008 version has been listed as a good article under the good article criteria. Thank you Wfgh66 for your enormous help! Now we can proceed with nominating Priory of Sion for Featured Article status. --Loremaster (talk) 20:24, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Priory of Sion is now a featured article candidate. Please express your support on the nonimation page now. --Loremaster (talk) 21:40, 29 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The FA nomination failed because we skipped the Peer Review step... --Loremaster (talk) 21:25, 8 May 2008 (UTC)


 * After having had the Priory of Sion article copyedited and peer-reviewed, I've renominated Priory of Sion as a featured article candidate. --Loremaster (talk) 22:22, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

About External links sections
We should follow the External links guidelines. --Loremaster 20:08, 13 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm in the process of standardizing this section. I haven't deleted anything yet but I think we should all avoid leaving or adding links to fringe websites, especially when they are of poor quality, and focus more on adding links to good analyses and critiques from notable sources especially if they are mainstream journalists or academics. --Loremaster 02:24, 15 May 2006 (UTC)


 * The External links section was renamed Further reading a long time ago. --Loremaster (talk) 06:51, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

About See also sections
According to the advice of some Wikipedia administrators: 1) if something is in See also, try to incorporate it into main body 2) if something is in main body, it should not be in see also and therefore 3) good articles have no See also sections. --Loremaster 16:18, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Proofed
This article, or a prior version of it, was copyedited by the League of Copyeditors on 17:31, 11 June 2008 (UTC). SlackerMom (talk) 17:31, 11 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you. :) I'll move the Priory of Sion article to Peer review soon. --Loremaster (talk) 19:04, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Peer Review
I made a request for the Priory of Sion article to be peer reviewed to receive a broader perspective on how it may be improved. Accordingly I've made some edits I saw see fit to improve the quality of this article. As a registered member of the Wikipedia community, you are encouraged to comment on the PR page. --Loremaster (talk) 20:08, 14 June 2008 (UTC)


 * The Priory of Sion article received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. --Loremaster (talk) 22:03, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Revised Myth subsection
A subsection devoted to Revised Myth would be a good idea. I have moved a paragraph relating to this from the "Messianic Legacy" subsection because this material was never mentioned at all by Baigent, Lincoln and Leigh, and additional material relating to the revised Plantard bloodline claims can be added Lung salad (talk) 10:29, 11 July 2011 (UTC)


 * It is a good idea but I've removed superfluous details that are written in a way that will confuse readers. --Loremaster (talk) 20:40, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Grand Masters
This discussion was created from this one.

So, if we need in formation about a lie we ask what did the liar say, not if that was truth.--77.49.154.248 (talk) 18:32, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Regardless of the sources used, I do not think it is appropriate to create and add a succession box for “alleged Grand Masters of the Priory of Sion” in Wikipedia articles about historical figures since the Priory of Sion has been debunked as a hoax. --Loremaster (talk) 18:40, 13 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree with Loremaster. --John (talk) 19:26, 13 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I originally brought the issue up on ANI. It is not appropriate to link people together via something that was "alleged" and then later proven false.  If said figures were alive, it could be considered defamatory, and again, the lack of proof (or rather, the presence of the confession of the hoax) renders the whole thing null and void.  Nevertheless, let me ask this of the IP: what value is there in creating a succession box for something you yourself admit is a hoax?  Why is it not sufficient to have the information in this article alone, where it is most pertinent? MSJapan (talk) 19:51, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Grand Master Ferrante Gonzaga
He died in 1557, not in 1575. And the question is (and taking into account that all is a hoax): Who was the Grand Master in 1557-1575???????? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.85.148.202 (talk) 18:16, 19 September 2011 (UTC)


 * According to Priory of Sion documents, Ferrante Gonzaga was grand master between 1527 and 1575. That fact that he died in 1557 indicates that there is a mistake in these documents and further proves that the whole thing is indeed a hoax. However, we cannot correct a erroneous/false claim in a document to reflect a historical truth. This is why I have and wil continue to revert your edits. That being said, if the Priory of Sion was a real organization, one can speculate that the post of grand master remained vacant or was filled by an administrator not worth naming while the group was in dormancy or searching for a new grand master... --Loremaster (talk) 18:09, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, but the next GM was Gonzaga's son, who was adult when his father died so -not because I believe that the priory was real but because I believe that Plantard was clever- I claim that it was a typographical error--The Theosophist (talk) 19:56, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Whether or not it was typographical error, we cannot correct a claim made in a (pseudo-)historical document. We must report what the document states as is. --Loremaster (talk) 20:32, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Would you really say that if Plantard was alive?--The Theosophist (talk) 20:37, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes I would since Plantard's opinion is irrelevant when it comes to the issue of reporting claims made in a crucial document (with all the typographical errors it may contain) of the Priory of Sion hoax. Furthermore, the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth — what counts is whether readers can verify that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true. --Loremaster (talk) 21:52, 8 October 2011 (UTC)


 * If Pierre Plantard were alive today he'd tell you he had nothing to do with the Grand Masters List found in the Dossiers Secrets, that he claimed was the fabrication of Philippe Toscan du Plantier whilst under the influence of LSD. Lung salad (talk) 21:02, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Anyone who has extensively researched the Priory of Sion hoax knows that Plantard was a pathological liar who would throw anyone under a bus to try to save his reputation. You must be one of the last persons on Earth who thinks Plantard's word is worth anything. LOL --Loremaster (talk) 21:52, 8 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Sure, I believe in the truth of BOTH Grand Masters Lists. LOL Lung salad (talk) 22:06, 8 October 2011 (UTC)


 * So, should we put a footnote which will say that this was a typographical error?--The Theosophist (talk) 09:04, 9 October 2011 (UTC)


 * We do not know without asking Plantard if this was a typographical error - who knows what was in his mind? During the 1990s no longer believed in his own Dossiers Secrets. My above statement was about Plantard, not about me. Lung salad (talk) 09:26, 9 October 2011 (UTC)


 * For once, I agree with Lung salad! In other words, No, we should not put a footnote. --Loremaster (talk) 18:05, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia Guidelines
Let's respect Wikipedia guidelines, and let's not quibble over something as petty as syntax. What good is grammatical style if it contains nonsense. Visitors to Wikipedia articles are not silly. The statement within the book by Robert Howells that "In Holy Blood, Holy Grail Plantard claimed that the key to the mystery of Rennes-le-Château was that Jesus and Mary Magdalene were married and had children" is not just a factoid, it something more substantial than that. Lung salad (talk) 13:32, 17 October 2011 (UTC)


 * A factoid is a questionable or spurious—unverified, incorrect, or fabricated—statement presented as a fact, but with no veracity. --Loremaster (talk) 19:18, 17 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Tell me something else I "do not know". Erroneus fact is closer to the mark than the recently devised word "factoid" that is not used in everyday language. Lung salad (talk) 23:01, 17 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I disagree. --Loremaster (talk) 04:33, 18 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I really don't know what an "erroneous fact" is. Something either is a fact or it is not. Otherwise it is fiction. Paul B (talk) 10:00, 18 October 2011 (UTC)


 * The term "erroneus fact" is usually used in the legal professions. Also found elsewhere. eg, "After the first speaker finishes, the listeners get to raise their hands and point out which facts were wrong. Each erroneus fact that the audience does not catch counts as a point for the speaker as does each correct fact that is identified as incorrect." Doni Tamblyn, Laugh and Learn: 95 Ways to Use Humor for More Effective Teaching and Training, page 185 (Amacom, 2003). ISBN 0-8144-0745-5. Lung salad (talk) 10:29, 18 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Still opposed it since, as Paul Barlow points, it can be confusing. Factoid is less confusing and more consice. --Loremaster (talk) 20:26, 18 October 2011 (UTC)


 * The fact that you've managed to find someone somewhere who used the phrase does not make it normal or acceptable. You could probably find published instances of many unacceptable phrases. Your source hardly inspires confidence ("95 Ways to Use Humor for More Effective Teaching and Training"). 'Factoid' is more precise, but it is a neologism, not recognised by everyone. "Errors of fact" is better, and it's easy to find many usages of that in proper books . Paul B (talk) 20:41, 18 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Error of fact is used by legal professions. Lung salad (talk) 20:45, 18 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Err, obviously. That's clear from the link I provided. Your point is? Paul B (talk) 20:50, 18 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I did not just cite Tamblyn's book above. Lung salad (talk) 21:07, 18 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes you did. Your first sentence is not a citation. Also your reply is a non sequitur. Is there some point to this need constantly to dispute? Paul B (talk) 21:10, 18 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm not disputing anything, just answering your question. Lung salad (talk) 21:17, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Contributions
All of my contributions to Wikipedia have been made in good faith reflecting a productive and positive attitude. I like to think that I have made notable contributions in such a way that can be appreciated. My edits always contain valid and scholarly citations hoping also to add up-to-date new material. However, the Wikipedia articles in question are not "mine" and I do not think that I "own" them. Wikipedia articles are produced as a result of collaborative effort by all editors who contribute in good faith, without seeking sole dominant control of articles. Lung salad (talk) 09:50, 18 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Despite the fact that many of your edits are poorly-written and/or superfluous and/or tangential, I have never doubted that your editing of Wikipedia article has been done in good faith. Beyond personal attacks against, and the inappropriate deletion of comments by, other users, the problem has always been your attitude and behavior on talk pages, especially your tendency to systematically refuse to acknowledge arguments that you disagree with or abide by the consensus when it is against you. This is the reason why you should and will be reported to Wikipedia administrators in order to be sanctionned. --Loremaster (talk) 21:21, 18 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Most of this statement contained errors of fact. And I notice that while my original edit to "factoid" was reverted, my edit was restored by Paul B, and this was considered adequate. And I provided the information to the article in the first place. Lung salad (talk) 21:36, 18 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Paul actually replaced the word “facts” with “assertions”. I support his edit but not yours. --Loremaster (talk) 22:21, 18 October 2011 (UTC)


 * It's the same thing. Lung salad (talk) 22:34, 18 October 2011 (UTC)


 * It's better phrased and less confusing than what you wrote, which is the point I always keep making. --Loremaster (talk) 03:27, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Do you understand?
I think in the interests of Wikipedia guidelines, editors should refrain from asking others "Do you understand" since this violates civility. Lung salad (talk) 13:44, 17 October 2011 (UTC)


 * For many months now, I've had several debates with you where your behavior suggest either an inability to understand my arguments or a stubborn refusal to acknowledge these arguments. I therefore asked you "Do you understand?" to determine whether it is the former or the latter in order to know whether I should make my arguments more understandable or whether I should simply stop engaging you in debate because of your bad faith. --Loremaster (talk) 19:24, 17 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Double standards and hypocrisy. Even if a person "does not understand", stating "do you understand" is in itself a violation of the Wikipedia civility guideline. And I have demonstrated that your knowledge of certain subject matters was lacking therefore making your "Do you understand" quite excruciating. Your "arguments" made no sense at all because you were arguing from a position of ignorance with a false attitude of "superiority". Lung salad (talk) 23:00, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Putting aside the fact the fact that any rude comment I've made was out of exasperation and in reaction to your comments that were far more insulting, I am simply tired of having to deal your bad faith and behavior. When I find the time in the coming days, I'm moving to have you sanctioned by Wikipedia administrators. This non-sense has gone on long enough. --Loremaster (talk) 04:32, 18 October 2011 (UTC)


 * There are no valid reasons for making rude comments. Either the Wikipedia guideline on civility has been violated or it has not. When reporting people for breaching this guideline to Administrators please do not forget to include yourself. Also, a lot of preaching about compromise and consensus. Please provide information when you last did that. When did you last engage in compromise with another Wikipedia editor. Please provide an example. Lung salad (talk) 10:18, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * It's really difficult to believe tnhe hypocricy of an editor who can say "there are no valid reasons for making rude comments" after having written "More Supercilious bunk from an over-opinionated big head" in the section above, in response to a perfectly civil message. Either there are two Lung salads or you have astonishing powers of double-think. This switching from abusive remarks to sanctimonious self-righeousness is really destructive of productive discourse. A bit of rudeness on Talk pages can be a minor problem if it is part of a generally productive discussion. Using NPA policy to suppress disagreement while also using personal abuse for the same purpose is deeply unhelpful. Paul B (talk) 10:31, 18 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Fair enough, but what do you think of this message from Loremaster to me made previous to the message you cited by me Lung salad (talk) 10:36, 18 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Anyone who has extensively researched the Priory of Sion hoax knows that Plantard was a pathological liar who would throw anyone under a bus to try to save his reputation. You must be one of the last persons on Earth who thinks Plantard's word is worth anything. LOL --Loremaster (talk) 21:52, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

I respect your opinion,nevertheless I must say, that I don't agree with you. I think it makes a lot more sense, that Jesus was a normal married human with his descendants,wich were attempted to be killed by the church, who believed othervise, rather than a god, due to the many simbols in the paintings of those so called grand-masters and the social rules and customs of that time. Do not forget that Christians are the descendants of the jews. Atleast thats my opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.123.16.245 (talk) 15:05, 2 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Unsigned opinions probably won't have much impact. In addition, "lung salad" has been indefinitely banned from editing on wikipedia, so 'so much' for his arguments...  74.111.24.125 (talk) 02:30, 14 March 2013 (UTC)tominrochester

Bruce Burgess
Just for the record, Bruce Burgess on Facebook and Blogs has now distanced himself from Ben Hammot's "Magdalene Tomb" - calling Hammott a con artist. He was scheduled to criticise Hammott at a meeting, but failed to turn up, probably because Hammott was going to fight back by highlighting Burgess's beliefs in other spurious "artefacts" included in his "Bloodline" movie (for example, possibly the Gerard Thom "parchments").

"Page cannot be crawled or displayed due to robots.txt". Lung salad (talk) 11:00, 15 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Here's something relating to Rob Howells Lung salad (talk) 13:11, 15 October 2011 (UTC)


 * These are details that are not really important for readers of the Priory of Sion article to understand the Priory of Sion hoax. You need to learn that sometimes too much can be as bad as not enough... ;) --Loremaster (talk) 13:21, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the commenter Loremaster, the talk area is very short, any info is compelling, but due to the topic it is going to be very hard to verify info of any issue in this amazing saga.Thanks for all contributions...Blondeignore (talk) 20:27, 29 October 2013 (UTC)


 * That's your opinion. Navigating the web demonstrates how docile even educated people are about this subject matter, hence the importance for clarity even to this absurdity. Lung salad (talk) 13:25, 15 October 2011 (UTC)


 * My opinion is based on Wikipedia guidelines that encourgae to find the right balance between conciseness and comprehensiveness. Furthermore, your personal opinoon is that your edit is good and therefore should be in the article isn't enough. You need to seek consensus for it when it is disputed. --Loremaster (talk) 19:45, 16 October 2011 (UTC)


 * More Supercilious bunk from an over-opinionated big head Lung salad (talk) 23:49, 16 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Don't forget the uncivil nonsense here, this is a violation of No personal attacks Lung salad (talk) 23:03, 17 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Anyone who has extensively researched the Priory of Sion hoax knows that Plantard was a pathological liar who would throw anyone under a bus to try to save his reputation. You must be one of the last persons on Earth who thinks Plantard's word is worth anything. LOL --Loremaster (talk) 21:52, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

"Myth", "debunked"
Can people please stop calling this a "myth"? It's misleading. Yes, journalists will use the word "myth" in this sense, and arguably "myth" in the sense of "lie" is a valid dictionary meaning, but it is still misleading, especially in a context where actual mythology is at least tangentially involved. Call it "hoax" or "narrative".

Also, the "Priory of Sion" cannot be "debunked" as unhistorical, as it is a perfectly real private association formed in 1956, and now considered "dormant". This society was formed as part of an elaborate hoax, but this doesn't make the society itself (or the hoax) unhistorical. What you mean is that the fake pedigree connecting the historical (1956) "Priory of Sion" to the just as historical (12th century) Abbey of Our Lady of Mount Zion has been debunked. --dab (𒁳) 16:55, 19 September 2016 (UTC)


 * No, not the same thing at all, and Plantard lifted stuff from history in order to embroider it into his fantasies. The original Priory of Sion terminated in late 1956 and the members all went their separate ways never to be involved in it again. It is silly in the extreme to compare the 1956 historical Priory of Sion with the 1960s fantasy Priory of Sion that introduced the Merovingian rubbish that is not "legend" but outright hoax. And it's not a great idea to replace the word "fantasy" with "narrative" - it should be called "fantasy narrative" peculiar and intrinsic to Pierre Plantard and his handful of cronies that since 1967 did not include Gerard de Sede because he did not share his book royalties with a fraudster (even though he helped create the fraud, de Sede himself being as much a questionable individual). --Dickie birdie (talk) 12:49, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
 * For your information, even the believers in Hokum in France would not quibble with these statements. The Priory of Sion is rejected by the French fringe. --Dickie birdie (talk) 12:51, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Case closed

 * 1. The word "myth" has two definitions in all reliable dictionaries: 1) "a traditional story, especially one concerning the early history of a people or explaining some natural or social phenomenon, and typically involving supernatural beings or events"; and 2) "a widely held but false belief or idea". The interesting thing is that both definitions of the word "myth" apply to the so-called "Priory of Sion mysteries" therefore it is not misleading to use that word.
 * 2. The second paragraph of the introduction of the Wikipedia article on the Priory of Sion specifically stated that it is the "mythical Priory of Sion" that has been debunked not the real fraternal organisation formed in 1956. In other words, the "mythical Priory of Sion" refers to the fictional history of the Priory of Sion written by Plantard as part of his hoax. However, for the sake of clarity, I've replaced the expression "mythical Priory of Sion" with "mythical history of the Priory of Sion".
 * 3. Anyone who doubts that the "Priory of Sion mysteries" have been debunked as a hoax 1) is still under the spell of pseudohistorical books (The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail, The Messianic Legacy, The Magdalene Legacy, The Templar Revelation, etc.) written by self-proclaimed "independent researchers" who have never published their findings in academic or scholarly journals in order for their validity to be peer-reviewed by historians; 2) has never taken the time to actually read the articles and books written by journalists and scholars who have debunked them; and 3) is still unaware or willfully ignores the fact that even the con artists behind the Priory of Sion hoax, as well as some of the first independent researchers who reported it as true, have confessed that it was a hoax! In other words, the statement that the pre-1956 Priory of Sion is a myth/hoax is not a matter of opinion. It is a settled fact.
 * 4. Although there may be a handful of groups that continue to claim to be the "real Priory of Sion", none of them have the importance and influence that people attribute to the mythical pre-1956 Priory of Sion nor do any of them prove the existence of the mythical pre-1956 Priory of Sion.
 * --Loremaster (talk) 13:19, 24 September 2020 (UTC)