Talk:Priory of Sion/Archive 4

Bias?
This article seems to be very one sided and biased. There are no sources used to back up the 'debunking'. Any other opinion besides the skeptical ones are given no respect or consideration whatsoever. I think this article is therefore fundamentally flawed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.67.188.141 (talk) 12:03, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

A comment on this article.
I haven't checked back here in a LONG time. But someone has done a damn good job of rewriting the entire article. I personally think there is some evidence to indicate it wasn't entirely a hoax, as in, ulterior motives of the "members", etc... however, Wikipedia deals in fact, and this article has become a truly stellar example of this. Andrew 23:33, 1 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm happy to hear you to say this. Can you help us in improving the article in order to get Featured Article status? --Loremaster 23:38, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Steps towards Featured Article status
In light of the international interest in The Da Vinci Code and The Holy Blood & 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 -, 1) the Lead section can probably be doubled or tripled in size. After all, for Wikipedia 1.0 leads are supposed to be a complete summaries. Ask yourself: if somebody just reads the lead, do they get a good summary of the ENTIRE article now? 2) There are a lot of short (2-4 lines, 1-2 sentences) paragraphs. They should be merged into fewer larger paragraphs since it looks more academic; 3) 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)'''


 * The Lead section no longer needs improvement. --Loremaster 21:42, 14 August 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)

About the External Links
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 should avoid 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)

Please, see below my discussion with Paul about one of your external link that I find very disturning. Marc T.

About See also
According to a Wikipedia rule of thumb: 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)

About the History section
The History section is too long and has too many sub-sections. The sub-section titles should all be removed and the remaining text should be trimmed down to information of encyclopedic value. --Loremaster 21:33, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Confused to say the least
After reading the sour discussion involving some contributors of this page and Smith, I feel this article could gain in clarity if it would differentiate two types of information. If it is your belief that The Prieuré de Sion is all but a hoax that found its source in the action of Plantard, then you should start this page by stating so and follow a structure that reflects this assertion. However, it seems to me that this page deserve an annotation (or perhaps a new page) regarding the origin of Sion (which the page Abbey de Sion fails to do). There are some (not many but some) elements that points towards the existence of a religious “something” that bears the name of Sion and lead to the confusion as whether or not the Prieuré de Sion really existed OR/AND had something to do with the Templar Order (which seems to be the source of the legend of the Prieuré of Sion). Whether it is a secret society or a religious order or both is to be demonstrated by those who believe so. May I suggest an addition to your External links? http://www.rennes-le-chateau.org/rlctoday/eng-PrieureDeSion.asp All the best Marc T.

And also troubled

I have an ethical problem with your very first note that comes at the very end of your introduction ("Nevertheless, many conspiracy theorists insist on the truth of the Priory's role as a powerful secret society") offers a link to a web page titled SATANIC BLOODLINE OF THE ANTICHRIST & FALSE PROPHET. This site is the public voice of Barbara Aho, an evangelist whose goals and true faith many seem to question (she has obviously a problem with Jews and like to use them as scapegoats in a conspiracy against "real" Christians). In addition, every mention on this page of the Prieuré de Sion takes its source from the book Holy Book, Holy Grail and Plantard’s hoax. I do not think you really need to prove your point in such way. Unless you want to give this questionable figure free advertising, it will do a lot of good to this article to simply offer a link to Conspiracy_theory Wikipedia page. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_theory) Best, Marc T


 * The link is to a "conspiracy theorist" as the note says. I don't think inclusion implies endorsement, but please feel free to add other links to other believers. I don't think you link to http://www.rennes-le-chateau.org/ is useful as it is in French, and the English version is written in a semi-gobbledegook version of English. As for the French version, it just repeats the standard "plot" taken from the Dossiers Secrets etc as if it is fact. I don't know what you mean when you say that we "deserve an annotation (or perhaps a new page) regarding the origin of Sion". Of course there were lots and lots of references to Sion/Zion before Plantard, and many organisations that used the word. That's hardly surprising, since Zion is just another name for Jerusalem, and in particular for the location of the Temple, so the word pops up a lot in Catholicism, Fremasonry etc. "Zion" (rather like "Mecca") became an image of an ideal location or holy place that can be built or rebuilt. However you would need to show that a "Priory of Sion/Zion" corresponding in some way to Plantard's claims existed before the 1950s in order to sustain the claim that some sort of "legend of the Prieuré of Sion" existed before that date. Paul B 10:15, 22 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I am sorry to insist on my points. The note does not specify it is a link to "a" conspiracy theorist. In the introduction you (or another) make mention of "many". Barbara Aho is a religious fanatic (I have only found out about her through the proposed link). It does great service to your article in a sense that it depicts how some conspiracy theorists can be ... how could I say ... off the track. If you have read Aho's web page, this is nothing but a usage of the book HBHG and of Plantard’s forgey to nurture her religious fanatic and hate of the Jews. I have a problem with that, like I have a problem with everything that is anti-Semitic. I feel it will do justice to all to propose a link to a more moderate conspiracy theorist. Brown, for example? ☺
 * As for my other point, your introduction suggests that the Prieuré de Sion has some legitimacy while in fact it is and only has been a hoax. Everything is a result of that hoax. Nothing has contributed to that hoax but the actions of a few individuals in France. For instance, calling Plantard a pretender is wrong and can only give credit to a so-called Prieuré de Sion. He was a wannabe pretender, but not even close to be one. The term “shown” (has been shown to be a hoax) is too light. It has been proven. Case closed.
 * Thank you for your attention. Marc T.


 * The link to that webpage was added by someone anonymous in the main article. I moved it to a footnote. The fact that it's deranged nonsense should be obvious to anyone. I'd prefer that more conspiracy websites were added to the footnote, simply so that readers can see them for what they are. We have to maintain a balance between people who say "It's a proven hoax and you should say so more assertively" and people who say "how dare you say it's a hoax, you are trying to suppress the truth!" Hence I retained the website in the footnote - simply as an illustration of conspiracy theory, rather than just ditching it and generating accusations of censorship. But that was just my approach. Others may,of course, think differently. Paul B 23:40, 22 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I am sorry that you do not take my points into consideration. I can accept that you want to "maintain a balance" between both argumentations (although the pro-POS have to prove the Prieué de Sion ever existed, which they have not been able to do so far, and which you use yourself in your argumentation - re archive 1 and 2), and this is precisely why I was offering the term legend. But it is very difficult to understand why you give or let someone give a platform to a fanatic and an anti-semitic. When I see this I can't help but to remember some dark period of humanity. Marc T.


 * I have taken your points into consideration. I just happen to disagree. Others may agree. BTW it's not an "external link" as such, its a reference. if you look at the Protocols of the Elders of Zion page you will see many footnoted references to webpages maintained by fantics and anti-semites. The contributors to that page, who are often Jewish, do not add them because they agree with them, but to provide evidence in support of the article's assertions that such views exist. Paul B 21:14, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm still not sure what you were after when you asked for an "annotation (or perhaps a new page) regarding the origin of Sion", but I guess you were wanting a link to the word "Zion". I assume that the Annemasse hill (like many others) was named after the Jerusalem hill, but since I have no evidence of that I just added a sentence about the origin of the name and the fact that the use of "S" rather than "Z" has no special significance - it's just the normal way of spelling Zion in French, as emphasised in earlier organisations such as the Congregation of Notre-Dame de Sion. Paul B 21:47, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

A Mastermind Speaks
copied from my talk page:

Guess what, Paul Barlow, your [sic] Priory of Sion article is getting worse and worse - first you [sic] cite material from a website run by Mark Naples who cannot tell the difference between historical fact and pseudo-history --- and muddles the two together without citing his sources.

NOW - NOW - you are making BASIC MISTAKES in the article which you WILL NOT ALLOW ME TO RECTIFY.

IT IS A MISTAKE THAT PIERRE PLANTARD'S NAME IS INCLUDED IN THE DOSSIERS SECRETS LIST OF GRAND MASTERS - THE LAST NAME ON THAT LIST IS THAT OF JEAN COCTEAU.

AND THIS, THIS STATEMENT WITH REGARD TO THE LATER GRAND MASTERS LIST "Although Thomas Plantard de Saint-Clair is on this list, young Thomas was ignorant that his name had been used in such a manner." --- IS SIMPLY LAUGHABLE BECAUSE THOMAS PLANTARD TOOK OVER THE RUNNING OF THE SCAM BETWEEN 1991-1993 --- HE WAS THE EDITOR OF THE RE-VAMPED "Vaincre" DURING THE YEARS IN QUESTION.

MUDDLES. MISTAKES. ERRORS. THESE ELEMENTS ARE BLOOMING AND FLOWERING IN THE WIKIPEDIA ARTICE ON THE PRIORY OF SION. AND CALLING A GRAVE A "TOMB" IN THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE BECAUSE YOU WANT TO BASE THINGS ON FRENCH IS A JOKE. THAT SUMS EVERYTHING UP. WHAT A SHODDY SHAMBLES.

PAUL SMITH


 * OK genius, I currently have 323 pages on my watchlist. I try to delete obvious nonsense from this page, while also accepting legitimate edits from other contributors, but I don't know everything about the topic. Edits occur all the time. Watchlists only record the most recent. So I and other editors are bound to miss some alterations. In any case, it's not my article. It's every contributor's article. The tomb/grave issue is utterly irrelevant to anyone with any sense of reasonable priorities. Paul B 22:58, 31 August 2006 (UTC)


 * BTW, no-one stopping you rectifying mistakes. Just do it, with an edit-summary explaining your reasons. Paul B 10:15, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Priory of Sion Spam and Scam
Copied from my Talk page:

And guess what Paul Barlow --- EVERYTHING ABOUT THE PRIORY OF SION is a SCAM AND SPAM --- there is NO "middle ground objective approach" whereby "negative" and "positive" can be "distilled together to form a coherent impression" that produces something that can be described as being "legitimately interesting" --- this is a Paul Barlow/LoreMaster false quest that emanates from sheer ignorance. The impression by Paul Barlow and LoreMaster is that anyone who calls the PoS BS being the "work of a fanatic". Plantard was THE maniac and FANATIC who made things up as he went along --- the Priory of Sion had no "legitimacy" outside of Plantard's poor imagination. It was pure hokum and absolutely nothing else. Why include things about the "legitimacy of the Priory of Sion" on Wikipedia? What on Eath is that all about??? WHAT WAS THE "LEGITIMACY" OF THE PRIORY OF SION??? And there they are --- Paul Barlow and LoreMaster trying to turn the Plantard fantasies into something legitimate. I have just read the latest rubbbish in the Philippe de Cherisey article and find myself wondering === WHERE ON EARTH DID ALL THAT COME FROM AND WHERE ARE THE REFERENCES TO IT ALL??? It seems that any old stranger to Wikipedia can come along and make any allegation and it simply gets accepted. No sources are required - just write the allegations and it remains on Wikipedia. In the meantime those who can question and discredit these latest allegations without substance remain gagged.


 * The Philippe de Cherisey page is not on my watchlist, so there is no point in leaving a message on my talk page about it. Point out any errors on the Talk page for that article, or correct them in the article itself, keeping in line with WP:NPOV policy. Paul B 14:16, 1 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I think this article does a good job of presenting the allegations and making it clear they're not founded on hard evidence. It also makes the evidence of the POS being a hoax readily available. The theory obviously has some popular support so it needs to mentioned, and may serve to educate people further. Information isn't just about "facts". As long as the allegations are presented as such, and I think they are, I see no reason for them to be removed.

User:Graham Thomas

Real Real Real Priory vs Alleged Priory and Actual Priory
Nothing in the entire article is written by anyone knowing anything about the real Priore de Sion.

As there IS such an entity.

It has been here on earth back until time of early man. It is made up of those chosen by God himself to be the FIRST OF SION.

None of that has ANYTHING AT ALL TO DO WITH ANY OF THE PARAGRAPHS in this entire ARTICLE ... OR ... with ANY of the paragraphs on this entire discussion page.

Member/ Nautonnier PS


 * Fine, can you present any evidence to justify your assertions? Also, if it was on "earth back before man", and was also "made up of those chosen by God himself", then who did God choose before man? Maybe dinosaurs, or small mammals? The holy meetings of the most secret order consisting of carnivorous animals must have been something to behold. MarkThomas 09:37, 4 September 2006 (UTC)


 * See Bible's (and other) discussions of Melchesiak and Jesus biblical verses saying he is same as Melchesiak with Melcheziak being a priest after the ancient priesthood (of Melchesiak), which are those priests chosen by God-as Melcheziak and Jesus.  /s big Naut Sr


 * I am Here ... I am.

The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" in this context means that readers should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed.

Verifiability is one of Wikipedia's core content policies. The others are No original research and Neutral point of view. Jointly, these policies determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in Wikipedia articles. They should not be interpreted in isolation from one another, and editors should try to familiarize themselves with all three.--Alf melmac 19:46, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Removed
I removed the following uncited assertions added by user:Khundun. They appear to be derived mostly from The Holy Blood... If they derive from a more specific version of the story, we can readd the material with an indication of its source. Paul B 16:24, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

In the different hypotheses and theories of the "Priory of Sion", there is also the one created as the directing class of the jews, meaning the king and his court, usually considered to be the twelve leaders of the twelve tribes, although many mythologies preceding Mahomet also include the chiefs of the twelve tribes of Ismael ergo Apocalypse 4-4 the twenty four elders. The priory of Sion considers the Apocalypse to have been written by none other then Jesus-Christ himself. They also consider Barabbas from Matthew 27:16-26; Mark 15:7-15; Luke 23:18-25; John 18:40; as the son of Jesus since Barabbas means in Aramean "this father's son". They also believe that Merowig is the first known king from this lineage ergo the merovingians being all the descendants of Merova worthy kings of Europe being the descendants of Jesus Christ. The last eldest of the eldest known from merova believed by the priory of Sion is Theudebert II (French: Thibert or Théodebert) (586-612), king of Austrasia (595-612)and it explains why is son Merova was said to be assassinated since it fenced the existence of the merovingians. Chlodomer had his sons assassinated by Clotaire I, one of whom escaped. Albeit "Arth-Ursus" (which is a nickname) the surviving son exiled to britain reunited the franks against the teutons. Earliest traditions of Arthur Britain, c. 500 AD. Arthur first appears in Welsh literature. In a surviving early Welsh poem, The Gododdin (ca. AD 594). So in fact Plantard is not only pretending to the throne of France but to the throne of the world trough a hoax of descendance and of being the eldest of the eldest of the descendants of Jesus-Christ. Meaning he could have become the equivalent of the King of England representing the monarchy of France and the eldest of the family of Jesus-Christ reigning upon religion at the same time. The Priory considers that they need to keep the descendance of Jesus-Christ secret until Revelation 19:11 (King James Version); And I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse; and he that sat upon him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he doth judge and make war. When King Arthur speaks of the holy graal he wants to reestablish his merovingiang legitimacy. He is saying Sang real or royal blood from the descendance of Jesus-Christ. That is why the descendance of King Arthur tries to reestablish the legitimate descendance of Jesus-Christ back on the throne of God by founding the version of the priory of Sion that initiated the first crusades, after Mahomet, the false prophet, unrighteously invaded Jerusalem and name "Godfrey of Bouillon", king of Jerusalem.

So the Hoax spoken of over here involves the hoax of descendance of Plantard to the head of the priory of Sion by a false descendance. Plantard also invented a belonging to a priory of Sion that he incorporated so as to pretend to be part of the priory of Sion. Unfortunatly this hoax does not bar the existence of a priory of Sion which of course is the inside court of the ruler and his close ruling class originating from the Israelite and Ismaelite councils.

I need to Know more about the Priory and if it still exists. Please e-mail me at cleatskitten@yahoo.com

Cites
The article asserts as fact that Priory of Sion is a hoax. I do not dispute this. However, Wikipedia users are entitled to ask: '' "Who says that?" "When did they say it?" "What kind of people think that? Where are they? What kind of bias might they have?" "Why is this of any significance?" '' (all quoted from WP:WEASEL). This article, like all Wikipedia articles, must cite its specific sources for all specific assertions. The criticisms of Pierre Plantard and Priory of Sion in this article appear to derive mostly or entirely from "Paul Smith. Priory - of - Sion . com " '''Does this site meet Wikipedia guidelines under Citing sources and Attribution? (Especially Attribution and Attribution)''' Additionally, although Pierre Plantard is deceased, guidelines under Biographies of living persons may be relevant here. -- 201.51.231.176 13:46, 6 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Obviously Biographies of living persons is not relevant, since, as you say, he is deceased. There are many sources provided. Smith's website is simoply a convenient link to some of them. Paul B 14:05, 6 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Although Biographies of living persons of course does refer specifically to living persons, I believe that the basic principles mentioned therein are generally applicable to all Wikipedia articles. But for the sake of the discussion, I'll leave Biographies of living persons out of it.


 * That still leaves the other policies and guidelines that I mentioned. Again, my point is that we should be individually citing specific sources for all specific assertions. I don't think that saying "Smith's website is simply a convenient link to some of them" is adequate. We (Wikipedia) are saying here that Priory of Sion is a hoax. I personally agree that in all likelihood it is a hoax. But why should J. Random Wikipedia-reader believe that? Because I say so? Because Paul B says so? Because Paul Smith says so? Who's "Paul Smith"? What's his evidence? Why should we believe him? Again, don't take my word on this, take Citing sources and Attribution. Thanks for your attention on this. Have a good one. -- 201.51.231.176 18:45, 6 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree. Much of this article is written as like personal research in a narrative style.  The entire "Hoax" section includes a total of 2(!) citations.  This thing needs better citation and a better correlation to references.  Linking to a site that has the same exposition is not enough.  Link to the forged documents and articles relating to them directly.  For example, the actual source for the Palat affair section also lacks any citations. It's a just a rehash of the exposition already on wikipedia.  That sort of citation is pointless and only detracts from the credibility of the argument60.225.147.118 05:51, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Fake
The Priory of Sion is not what it is portrayed as in The Da Vinci Code. I'm confused from the article. The Priory of Sion did not have Victor Hugo, Leonardo Da Vinci, etc. as it's masters right, so the entire thing was a pretense. The real Priory of Sion was formed late in the 1960s. Am I getting this right? Please explain, I am very confused.68.110.232.148 23:39, 18 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Confused about what? Paul B 23:55, 18 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I have reread the article and think I know what it means.76.160.161.135 11:07, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Journal's title
''It was indicated as a "Bulletin d'Information et Défense des Droits et de la Liberté des Foyers HLM" ("News Bulletin for the Defence of the Rights and the Freedom of Council Housing") ''
 * What makes you think foyers is council housing? May-be it could be something like "homeowners", or meaning "middle-class", or along these lines?
 * The second question about that: Who indicated? Was it named so by the Priory or by the suspicious authorities?
 * And further on that: look at http://www.wordreference.com/fren/foyer.

One translation is "hometown" - I'd stay with that (in case they called it that themselves).80.235.69.166 23:09, 26 March 2007 (UTC) OK, I think I got it from HML, but it still seems rather strange. Still, 1) was it a subtitle of the journal, and 2) shouldn't you add "inhabitants of" to "council housing"? 80.235.69.166 23:14, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Unnamed woman
It was signed by someone claiming to be Plantard's former private secretary, Gino Sandri under the title of General Secretary, and an unnamed woman as "President" («Nautonnier» - an Old French word for a navigator and which means Grand Master in the Priory esoteric nomenclature)
 * What is the reason for saying that the Nautonnier was a woman, when she was unnamed?80.235.12.143 19:45, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

why?
Why was this hoax done? I mean, there must be a reason --201.231.111.46 22:47, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

To promote Pierre Plantard as the direct descendant of the Merovingian King Dagobert II. The Priory Documents and even the myths changed between 1964 and 1993 but that central element remained the same.

wfgh66 —Preceding comment was added at 01:15, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Nonsense
I have never done this before so excuse me if I have done some thing wrong, but in the "Da Vinci Code" subsection someone has said domething which I do not think belongs in the article.

"So dark the con of man, all Brown did was write a fictitious book which told the story which many people still believe. I don't see how "The author has presented this as fact in a non-fiction preface". The book has few parts of fact, but come on the 95% is fiction, from the characters,the plot, and most importantly, the proof."

Just letting you know.

Sheavsey33 01:09, 9 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, thank you. It's been deleted. Paul B 01:12, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

The 'REAL' Priory?
I believe this is not a neutral page and extremely favors the 'fact' that the Priory was nothing but a hoax. I suggest that the page be completely re-done to be neutral.
 * Facts are fact. It was a hoax. To say otherwise can never be neutral. Str1977 (talk) 07:37, 10 October 2007 (UTC)


 * This article IS a hoax as it claims that the PS was a Hoax, which is BS.
 * The existence of the PS is clear from its power over time and PRESENTLY,
 * where its GM (of PS) rules.
 * GM PS —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.58.179.179 (talk) 05:25, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not publish original research or original thought. This includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position. This means that Wikipedia is not the place to publish your opinions, experiences, or arguments. Citing sources and avoiding original research are inextricably linked: to demonstrate that you are not presenting original research, you must cite reliable sources that provide information directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the information as it is presented.

No original research (NOR) is one of three content policies. The others are Neutral point of view (NPOV) and Verifiability (V). Jointly, these policies determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in articles. Because they complement each other, they should not be interpreted in isolation from one another, and editors should familiarize themselves with all three.--Alf melmac  —Preceding comment was added at 19:55, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Current article dated 20 October 2007
The current article as of today 20 October 2007 is more-or-less reasonable and about 70 per cent devoted to the verifiable facts. Of course, verifiable references to Plantard's criminal convictions of the 1950s and his reprimand by Judge Thierry Jean-Pierre during the 1990s cannot be produced because judicial records of this nature are usually sealed for about 80-100 years (similar period of time exists in the United Kingdom) - although the Police Reports about Plantard's activities during 1942-1943 have been made available by the Paris Prefecture of Police - File GA P7 (because they are not, strictly speaking, judicial records): http://priory - of - sion. com/psp/id170.html

That Plantard served time in prison in 1953 is attested by the existence of a letter written by the Mayor of Annemasse dating from 1956 which refers to it - which unfortunately cannot be photocopied because that would break French Law - you need to consult it in person to see it - to go to the Sub Prefecture of St Julien-en-Genevois - and this is what some documentary makers have actually done. Plantard's second spell in prison between 1956-1957 is only known about through unofficial and underhand means.

The minutes relating to the Pelat case are also under lock and key but we know that this incident between Plantard and Judge Thierry Jean-Pierre happened because it was referred to in the French Press at the time - although the precise details cannot be officially divulged and so therefore nobody anywhere is in any position to support what actually happened. Many accounts have been written of what actually 'happened' but they are all unofficial in nature.

Thomas Plantard was not so 'young' between 1989-1993 when the Priory of Sion was revived during that period - he would have been in his mid-20s. He now lives a very private life choosing not to be linked to his past involvement with the Priory of Sion and wishes to be left alone.

wfgh66 —Preceding comment was added at 01:57, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

About.com
The lead section seems to be cited only to about.com. I didn't think about.com was considered a reliable source by Wikipedia standards. 77.49.252.57 (talk) 22:09, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Deletion
Please do not delete valid information just because you disagree with it or it has recently lost its source due to blacklisting. The source exists and removing it as unsourced is unacceptable. Str1977 (talk) 16:15, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Abbey of Sion
If Wednesday Next would bother to actually read the article, he would see that the "original" organisation is referred to in the text at the appropriate place. It only becomes a meaningful part of the story when Plantard et al discover that an insignificant organisation with a similar name once existed, and they could appropriate it to their mythology. You have added a good link to CENSUR website, an organisation of university scholars. This states exactly what the article already said. A magazine created by Califorian new agers is far less authoritative. Paul B (talk) 07:47, 7 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I have moved the CENSUR link to the appropriate place. Paul B (talk) 09:06, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Progress report
Unless it is radically edited, I am quite satisfied with the content of the Priory of Sion article in and after the 18:16, 15 March 2008 version. Now we simply need to more aggressively provide citations for verification. Although we started doing this a while ago, we don't seem to be proceeding according to the guidelines of the Wikipedia style guide for citing sources. Let's be mindful of this from now. --Loremaster (talk) 22:18, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

About the In popular culture section
Numerous articles contain sections titled "Trivia", which often list references to the subject in popular culture; or sections titled "In popular culture" or "Cultural references", which exclusively list such references. There is ongoing debate about whether such lists are worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. Some claim that they distinguish Wikipedia from more traditional encyclopedias in a good way, are verifiable, and contain facts of genuine interest to the reader that wouldn't otherwise become known. Others claim that they are useless or trivial cruft, give Wikipedia a bad reputation, and are poorly maintained by those who profess for them. Such sections are discouraged but not forbidden. --Loremaster (talk) 21:48, 13 March 2008 (UTC)


 * The rule of thumb I follow is whether the subject of the article is a significant element of a highly notable derivative. I do not consider mere references or use in games to be significant enough to mention in such sections, whereas being a major element of a notable piece of literature or film deserves mention. Wednesday Next (talk) 21:57, 13 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I would argue that if the Priory of Sion is a major element of a game or comic-book and said game or comic-book is relatively popular rather than extremely marginal the game or comic-book deserve to be mentioned in this article. "High culture snobbery" should be avoided especially in a section focusing on *popular* culture. --Loremaster (talk) 22:12, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I think we need to come to some agreement about the content of the In popular culture section to remove the trivia tag once and for all. I stand by all the current mentions but I will trim the one about the Preacher comic book to avoid seeming to give it undue importance. --Loremaster (talk) 00:07, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Trimming done. Let's talk. --Loremaster (talk) 00:14, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Trivia
The Priory of Sion hoax and the Jesus bloodline myth are two separate things which got combined fairly late in the game. Most of the entries in the "popular culture" section related to the latter and arguably belong appended to that article rather than this article. Unless they specifically refer to the "Priory of Sion" as such, or some citable third party has written about the relation with the Priory of Sion, these remain unverifiable original research, simply based on similarity. Wednesday Next (talk) 19:43, 24 March 2008 (UTC)


 * That's a good point. I've therefore restored most of the content with some clarification. I'll provide sources as soon as possible. --Loremaster (talk) 03:19, 25 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I've removed again, because I don't think there is a source that directly compares with the Priory of Sion. Making the comparison ourselves is OR. But I've got no objection to adding these to Jesus bloodline as the reference there is direct. Wednesday Next (talk) 14:40, 25 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I've gone ahead and moved to Jesus bloodline despite the fact that I don't believe they are notable enough to be more than trivia. IMO, they have to be well known or have a demonstrable influence on subsequent popular culture. If they are only known to their own audiences and have not had their own influence, they are trivial details and the relationship to the Priory of Sion should only be mentioned in the article on the topic... Wednesday Next (talk) 14:48, 25 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I have restored the deleted content and will be providing sources as soon as possible. --Loremaster (talk) 19:15, 25 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I have compromised and only removed the two which only had primary sources. This is OR unless you can cite a third party source that makes the comparison. I don't think these items are notable enough to be more than trivia, in any case. Wednesday Next (talk) 19:22, 27 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I will provide third-party sources for entries. Leave the section be for now. --Loremaster (talk) 20:00, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia and Fringe Theories
Quote:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard ''This noticeboard aims to serve as a place to report incidences where undue weight is being given to fringe theories. Often, such fringe theories are promoted in order to push a particular point of view, which violates our rules on neutrality. As the guidelines given at Wikipedia:Fringe theories state, theories outside the mainstream that have not been discussed at all by the mainstream are not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia. Wikipedia aims to reflect academic consensus.'' Wfgh66 (talk) 23:09, 18 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Yup, but that doesn't justify overenthusiastic and opinionated debunking using biased, prejudicial and overly emotionally-charged language. Sticking to the facts without trying to introduce one's own interpretations and opinions, and keeping the tone and language neutral will lead to a better and more readable article. Wednesday Next (talk) 23:22, 18 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Priory of Sion has justifiably been categorised into pseudohistory. Sticking to the objective facts about this subject matter produces the conclusions already expressed in the article.Wfgh66 (talk) 23:25, 18 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Editorial conclusions are not appropriate for encyclopedia entries. Wikipedia expects the facts to be presented in such a way that the reader is allowed to draw their own conclusions, not be led or have conclusions spoon-fed to them. The tone of much of your work is not neutral. Articles should not read like they were written by someone with an ax to grind. Wednesday Next (talk) 23:34, 18 March 2008 (UTC)


 * It has been extensively and widely reported that Priory of Sion is a scam. Summarising that fact is not against Wikipedia guidelines.Wfgh66 (talk) 23:39, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
 * But summarizing it with a non-neutral tone is against Wikipedia guidelines. A leading "conclusions" section is in any case redundant to the more neutral summary in the lead section. Wednesday Next (talk) 23:44, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Despite the fact that your zeal is clearly well-intentioned, I think you have a tendency to overreach. That being said, the section has been renamed and its tone has been neutralized. --Loremaster (talk) 00:03, 19 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Facts are fact. It was a hoax. To say otherwise can never be neutral.Wfgh66 (talk) 00:04, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Ivory Tower Academia
Let's not underestimate the fact that academia has different agendas as well. Academia attempts to discredit or co-opt many vibrant movements in the real world (i.e. governed by actual experience rather than vicarious distortion through secondary or tertiary sources) as much as fringe theorists attempt to inform people through 'undocumented' means. Many academics are not into getting their hands dirty but enjoy co-opting the legacies of those noble people who blaze the trail through action and the personal risk which derives from being the first person to go to any new place. FOMCForesterFault (talk) 13:38, 22 March 2008 (UTC)


 * And your point is in the context of improving the Priory of Sion article? --Loremaster (talk) 20:00, 22 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Plantard's stencil-kit and typewriter is in evidence in most documents dating between 1961-1985 (Thomas took over 1989-1993). Wfgh66 (talk) 22:16, 22 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not following the logic of this debate. --Loremaster (talk) 02:14, 23 March 2008 (UTC)


 * "Priory of Sion" was not an entity existing independently from Plantard's imagination. It isn't just "Academia" that has debunked the "Priory of Sion", but also by folks who actually knew Plantard, as evidenced by the French books. Wfgh66 (talk) 09:30, 23 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh I knew that. I guess you weren't being clear enough so that what you said earlier could be seen as a direct rebuttal to FOMCForesterFault's comments. --Loremaster (talk) 10:07, 23 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, the real "substance" of the "Priory of Sion" is what was claimed by Plantard in his usage of his  stencil-kit and typewriter. There is no external evidence to corroborate any of his claims.Wfgh66 (talk) 10:43, 23 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Agreed. --Loremaster (talk) 12:31, 23 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Hello Folks. My point is that I'm putting up a topic for discussion on this talk page, in the hopes that people can maintain an open mind on the subject.  I do assert that 'debunking is as debunking does', so to speak.  People who seek to 'debunk' have agendas just like those who espouse fringe theories.  I am doing research on primary sources at the moment which I believe will 'debunk' some of the previous 'debunkers' on this topic.  LOL. FOMCForesterFault (talk) 16:44, 24 March 2008 (UTC)


 * This talk page exists only for discussing improvements to the Priory of Sion article not debating the agendas of academics or debunkers. Unless you provide published references for criticisms of the sources of this article, this "discussion" is over. --Loremaster (talk) 18:04, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Questions for Wfgh66

 * 1) In Pierre Plantard's mind, what was the treasure belonging to King Dagobert and Sion?
 * 2) How do critics reconcile Plantard's earlier anti-Semitic and anti-Masonic views/statements with his latter philo-Semitic and pro-Masonic views/statements?
 * 3) Who is Laurent Octovono? Is he a journalist or an academic?
 * --Loremaster (talk) 19:20, 17 April 2008 (UTC)


 * To answer your questions:

1)- Never openly explained.

2)- Please explain what you mean in question 2.

3)- Laurent Octonovo is a chemist (not dentist) who likes to obtain primary source materials relating to many aspects of the subject matter, although he seems to be a believer in the mystery. His book is due out anytime now, mainly about Sauniere's account books (that he discovered on microfilm several years ago in a French library and which went missing during the 1970s). His book will also contain new information on the PoS. His website http://www.octonovo.org/ Wfgh66 (talk) 19:28, 17 April 2008 (UTC)


 * In the 1940s, Plantard published periodicals which were frequently laced with anti-Semitic and anti-Masonic views. However, from the 1960s to 1980s, he promoted the Priory of Sion as a Masonic organization and made statements that seem favorable to Jews and Israel. My question is whether his views changed over the years or whether he was never truly an anti-Semite and anti-Mason. --Loremaster (talk) 19:58, 17 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Scandals of the PoS by Cornelius is the closest thing I can think of where Plantard referred to the PoS as a Masonic organization (relating to P2) but that also involved the Knights of Malta which can hardly be equated with pro-Jewish sympathies. Plantard later claimed during the late 1980s in the revived Vaincre that he was affiliated with the Grand Orient but that was only him trying to deflect what Chaumeil had written about his Vichyite past. Wfgh66 (talk) 20:11, 17 April 2008 (UTC)


 * So do you think Plantard held anti-Semite and anti-Masonic views while promoting the Priory of Sion hoax? --Loremaster (talk) 21:01, 17 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, I do. Though I do not think that was high on the agenda after the Second World War. Mitterand's dubious wartime past must have crossed Plantard's mind, which was probably why he promoted his chum Patrice Pelat to Grand Master of the PoS. This is all pure speculation of course. Wfgh66 (talk) 21:07, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Appalled
It is clear that none of the writers of any notes on this discussion page or writers of the main artricle have any knowledge of the PS / Priory of Sion. This historical entity ran the show in both Europe and now the Americas for 100s of years. /s 76.214.45.153 (talk) ~


 * Please remember the guidelines of this talk page, which are: 1) Be polite, 2) Assume good faith, and 3) No personal attacks. As for the substance of your criticism, please provide accessible sources from historical scholarship to support your claims and we will discuss editing the article to reflect this new information. --Loremaster (talk) 18:08, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Blue moon rite
The rite of the blue moon must be understood with its 19/22 periods leading to special powers. See (blue) moons and symbols on column from church at Rennes-le-Château. /s 76.214.45.153 (talk) ~


 * This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Priory of Sion article. How does talk of the "blue moon rite" improve the article? --Loremaster (talk) 18:11, 20 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Which blue moons and symbols on which column in church? Wfgh66 (talk) 20:47, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Priory of Sion history
''The articles of the Priory of Sion as indicated in its statutes also formalized the goal of creating a chivalric order, but the activities of the Priory of Sion bore no resemblance whatsoever to the objectives as outlined in its statutes. Article VII says that its members are expected, "to carry out good deeds, to help the Roman Catholic Church, teach the truth, defend the weak and the oppressed". There is ample evidence that it had several members, as indicated by the numerous articles contained in its journal Circuit, written by a number of different people. Towards the end of 1956 the association had aims to forge links with the local Catholic Church of the area involving a school bus service run by both the Priory of Sion and the church of Saint-Joseph in Annemasse''

I'm slightly confused by this paragraph. Doesn't it contradict itself by providing evidence that the activities of the Priory of Sion did in fact resemble some of the objectives of its statutes? Or is it strictly the objective of creating a chilvalric order that is matter of dispute? --Loremaster (talk) 12:53, 25 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The actual activities of the Priory of Sion as described within the journal Circuit and the articles of the 1956 Statutes are two different things, and the only link between the two is the title of the magazine being the acronym of the Title of the Order in the Statutes. There are two things at play here: Plantard's esoteric ideals and the actual activities of the Priory of Sion as given in the journal. Wfgh66 (talk) 18:31, 25 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Right. Perhaps we should explain this more clearly. Can you work on this? I'll tweak whatever you writer after. --Loremaster (talk) 22:10, 25 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Already adequately explained. Wfgh66 (talk) 00:00, 26 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't think so. It doesn't clearly explain the differences between the actual activities of the Priory of Sion as described within the journal Circuit and the articles of the 1956 statutes. What are they in your mind? --Loremaster (talk) 00:19, 26 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The 1956 Statutes are Plantard's phantom echo of his Alpha Galates past. The articles in Circuit describe what aims the PoS had in improving local authority services and criticising those in power at Annemasse.Wfgh66 (talk) 00:26, 26 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Was a news bulletin for the defence of the rights and the freedom of public housing inconsistent with the registered statutes of the Priory of Sion? --Loremaster (talk) 03:13, 26 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Plantard contrived Statutes for the PoS that had no connection with the actual activity of the Group when it was Registered in 1956.Wfgh66 (talk) 07:43, 26 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I understand. But that doesn't directly answer my question. --Loremaster (talk) 14:42, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
 * That's as far as it can go. Wfgh66 (talk) 15:01, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
 * *sigh* Anyway, I've re-written the Priory of Sion history section. --Loremaster (talk) 15:45, 26 April 2008 (UTC)