Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Priory of Sion/archive1


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 18:17, 6 May 2008.

Priory of Sion
Self-nominator: I'm nominating Priory of Sion, which has recently been listed as a good article under the good article criteria, for featured article because it is well-written, comprehensive, factually accurate, neutral and stable. Furthermore, there has been tremendous popular interest in this topic due to the international success of the book The Da Vinci Code and the film made from it. Loremaster (talk) 21:33, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments. There seems to be a lack of photos. I know it seems rather hard to find free images, but two? Is it me, or does it seem rather overwhelming to have so many inline cites in the lead? I'll do my other comments later when I have the time. So far, it looks good, aside from my comments. --Sunsetsunrise (talk) 21:56, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I added some pictures. I'll work on captions as soon as possible. I'll reduce the number of inline cites in the Lead --Loremaster (talk) 19:59, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The photos? Yes. Check the criteria. The inline cites about the lead I think should be in the MOS. And thank you. Other issues seem to be resolved. --Sunsetsunrise (talk) 20:13, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I had to delete 3 of the 4 pictures I added. I (or someone else) will try to add a picture of Pierre Plantard the man behind the Priory of Sion hoax. --Loremaster (talk) 16:59, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments
 * The following refs are lacking publisher information:
 * Current ref 12 "Klinghofer, David "The Da Vinci Protocols"
 * Current ref 13 "Miller, Laura "The Da Vinci Crock"
 * Current ref 15 "Thompson, Damian "How Da Vinci Code tapped ..."
 * Current ref 21 Anderson, Stephen "Pierre Plantard the .." Also, what makes this a reliable source?
 * Current ref 22 Introvigne Massimo Beyond the Da Vinci Code..." What makes this a reliable source? Also, it says "Preliminary version, do not reporduce or quote without the consent of the author" at the top.
 * Current ref 37 "Burns, Alex "holy blood, holy grail" Also, what makes this a reliable source?
 * Current ref 39, Aho, Barbar "The Merovingian Dynasty..." Also, what makes this a reliable source?
 * Current ref 46 "Les Cahiers des Rennes-le-Chateau" is lacking publisher and other bibliographic information.
 * Current ref 47 "jean=Jacques Bedu Les Sources Secretes .. lacking publisher
 * Current ref 58 "Tomb discovered in france considered knights templar... " Also, this is a press release?
 * Current ref 60 O'Neill Tim "History vs the Da Vinci code.." Also, what makes this a reliable source?
 * Current ref 62 "Prieure of Sion..." Also, what makes this a reliable source?
 * Current ref 63 "Ravipinto, Dan "Gabriel Knight 3 review.." also what makes this a reliable source?
 * Current ref 64 Harris, Craif "All Music Guide..."
 * Current ref 14 "Miller, Laura "Jesus the coverup" actually goes to the Kilnghofer article above. I think the link's misplaced.
 * Current ref 17 is a bare url. Needs formatting and should give a publisher, etc.
 * Current ref 52 "Gino Sandri works for a white-collar trade union..." the website listed is just a bare url, needs publisher and last access dated at the very least, and more bibilographical details would be good.
 * Current ref 56 Bloodline the Movie website is a bare url, needs formatting and publisher and last access date
 * Same for current ref 57 Ben Hammott.
 * Same for current ref 59, which should say it's a french website. Also, what makes this a reliable source? Looks like, (translating through babelfish) that this is a people finder site?
 * All other links worked fine.
 * If I get a chance, I'll try to come back and review this article. (It means I'm going to have to throw some more books in the books to take with pile though...) Ealdgyth - Talk 22:20, 29 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, I can provide all the required sources. I've been involved in this subject matter since the 1970s. Wfgh66 (talk) 06:22, 30 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Because Ealdgyth is traveling, I'm adding a note in her absence that publishers have still not been supplied. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 15:00, 2 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Indopug's vote and comments
 * Strong oppose (continued below): This article was nominated for FAC just a few hours after it passed a rather lenient GA review. It is largely the work of a single editor, and has neither been peer-reviewed nor copy-edited; two things this article sorely needs. The following are an indicative list of problems, not a exhaustive one:
 * Except for the Lead, the Priory of Sion article is largely the work of User:Wfgh66, with the support of other editors, that was written months if not years ago. The article was relatively "dormant" until a few weeks ago when I decided to copy-edit it to raise its quality enough to get both Good Article and Feature Article status. In other words, I've been working to finess someone else's idiosyncratic prose without completely wiping out what this individual wrote. --Loremaster (talk) 16:05, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Prose
 * This article suffers from sentences often running on and on and on; right off in the lead I see:
 * "However, it has come to refer to a mythical secret society plotting to restore the Merovingian dynasty to the thrones of Europe and Jerusalem since the Middle Ages, which was speculated about in, and popularized by, the 1982 controversial non-fiction book The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail, and later claimed as factual in the preface of the 2003 conspiracy fiction novel by Dan Brown, The Da Vinci Code."--I've read short stories that were shorter than that sentence.
 * Fair point. Fixed it. --Loremaster (talk) 16:05, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * "Despite the exhaustive debunking of the Priory of Sion as one the great hoaxes of the 20th century by journalists and scholars, some skeptics have expressed concern that the proliferation and popularity of books, websites and films inspired by this hoax have contributed to the mainstreaming of conspiracy theories, pseudohistory, superstition and other confusions but also of the romantic reactionary ideology promoted in these works."--and novels smaller than this one.
 * Fair point. Fixed it. --Loremaster (talk) 16:05, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Unencylopedic tone: "Indeed, the offices of the Priory of Sion and its journal were at Plantard's apartment." why indeed?
 * Why indeed. Fixed it. --Loremaster (talk) 16:05, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * "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." i had to read this sentence four times before I could understand it.
 * It's perfectly understandable to pretty much everyone I know who read it except you. Although I'm sure you've now "poisoned the well" so to speak... ;) --Loremaster (talk) 16:05, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * "The articles of the association as indicated in its statutes formalized the goal of creating a..." What? Is such overly formally language required? I think there is a grammatical error/error in conveying the meaning there too.
 * Fair point. Fixed it. --Loremaster (talk) 16:05, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't understand the next sentence too; I think the entire prose needs rewriting/editing, as nothing is clear in those first two paragraphs. It is honestly very difficult to read.
 * Although I agree that they could be improved, I don't get why you seem to have such difficulty understanding it. Anyway, fixed it. --Loremaster (talk) 16:05, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * However, the bulk of the activities of the Priory of Sion bore no resemblance whatsoever to the objectives as outlined in its statutes." and then "The first issue of its journal, Circuit, is dated 27 May, 1956, and, in total, twelve issues of the journal appeared."--why are these two sentences next to each other?
 * Because the bulk of the activities consisted of producing a journal. That being said, fixed it. --Loremaster (talk) 16:05, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Also chanced upon this stubby thing: "André Bonhomme played no part since 1956."--in what?
 * Fair point. Fixed it. --Loremaster (talk) 16:05, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Just get a copy-editor who has never seen the text before. The language seems complicated and the sentences very convoluted. Every now and then a word is missing like "was" in the fourth para of History. I won't be crossing these as they were just examples; the entire text needs a cleanup; as I've mentioned. indopug (talk) 19:17, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Easier said than done. As for the language being complicated and the sentences convoluted, its a tricky subject to get a handle on and I've been working to finess the prose but most of it is not mine. As for the missing words, you'll have have to point them out or add them yourself because I don't see any so far (probably because I am tired...). --Loremaster (talk) 20:08, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm barely halfway through the first section and I think I better stop: get a copy-edit from somebody who is not familiar with the text.
 * MoS
 * Dates are formatted wrongly: January 1, 2007 is not correct. Since this is an article about a French organisation, I think it should be 1 January 2007 . (I'm not sure what system France follows)
 * I disagree. I don't think an English Wikipedia article should change its dating format simply because its topic is about a French organization. --Loremaster (talk) 16:05, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * You don't seem to understand the problem; review MOSDATE. Dates are written either as 1 January 2007 (international system) or January 1, 2007 (American system). The current system is simply incorrect.
 * I understand now that the problem has been better explained to me. ;) Fixed it. --Loremaster (talk) 20:08, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Still incorrect. Follow my lead indopug (talk) 16:46, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the lead. Fixed it. --Loremaster (talk) 16:44, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Weird linking, why is France linked in the first paragraph of the History after French etc has been mentioned before?
 * Because "French" and "France" are two different things. --Loremaster (talk) 16:05, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Begging your pardon, but I do believe "French town" implies a town located in France; a link at "marginal French fraternal organisation" in the lead should do. Also there is plenty of overlinking throughout; after the first mention in the body, refer to him only as "Plantard" without first name or link. Common English words like pedigree and hoax should not be linked. indopug (talk) 19:17, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * All fair points except for the internal link in the word "hoax" because the article it links to has an entry on the Priory of Sion. Anyway, fixed all of it. --Loremaster (talk) 20:08, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The sections are named "Priory of Sion history", "Priory of Sion myth" and "Alleged Grand Masters of the Priory of Sion" in an article called "Priory of Sion"--spot the redundancies.
 * Fair point. Fixed it. --Loremaster (talk) 16:05, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * "For more details on this topic, see The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail.": I don't think that's correct or necessary; the book is linked later anyway.
 * Fair point. Fixed it. --Loremaster (talk) 16:05, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Roger-Patrice Pelat is linked to French wikipedia; that is definitely not normal and I'm not sure if its permissible either.
 * Fair point. Fixed it. --Loremaster (talk) 16:05, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Um, no you didn't. indopug (talk) 19:17, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Um, yes I did. I removed the link to the French Wikipedia article but there is no English Wikipedia article on the man last time I checked that's why we were using the French link in the first place. --Loremaster (talk) 20:08, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * If you removed the link, then I never made this edit. indopug (talk) 09:17, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh! I was referring to The Pelat Affair section not the Alleged Grand Masters section. --Loremaster (talk) 16:42, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Try to avoid these "[31][32][33][34][35]", they awfully hinder readability. Try spreading the cites across the sentence.
 * Fair point. Fixed it. --Loremaster (talk) 16:05, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * What about the last paragraph of The Plantard Plot? indopug (talk) 19:17, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Missed it. Fixed it. --Loremaster (talk) 20:08, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Images
 * Image:Prieure de sion-logo.svg is an Svg file meaning it is of potentially infinite size, yet I find that #3 of the fair-use rationale used for that article is "It is a low resolution image, and thus not suitable for production of counterfeit goods."
 * I will leave this to someone else to fix.
 * I've "fixed" this. ЭLСОВВОLД  talk 16:25, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you. --Loremaster (talk) 17:56, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The SVG is back. indopug (talk) 16:46, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I put it back, because I think converting this to PNG is misguided (I reduced the nominal resolution of the SVG, though). We have lots of fair use vector logos. Using vector versions is important for the longevity of the encyclopedia: Screen resolutions will continue to increase (and people have different preferences for the display size of images anyway) and we want to be able to produce high-quality print versions of articles as well. Our fair use claim only requires that the quality be no more than what we need for the purposes at hand, which I believe to be justifiable in this and other cases for that reason. &mdash; brighterorange  (talk) 19:44, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
 * But an SVG file is potentially scalable to infinite size. Criterion #3b of WP:NFCC requires "Low- rather than high-resolution...is used". So a non-free SVG fails the criteria by an, um, infinite margin. I do not think the nominal size matters here; since anybody can scale to whatever size they want anyway. indopug (talk) 19:51, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Indopug is correct. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball; what resolutions might be used are not relevant.  Infinite resolution (i.e. scalable) is not appropriate for fair use images.  The existence of other non-free .svg files is, similarly, not germane to discussion of images in this article.  ЭLСОВВОLД  talk 22:22, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:CRYSTAL is irrelevant here, because it is a content policy, not a statement about how we interpret the future of the encyclopedia itself. I think yours is a dangerous and pointlessly overconservative interpretation of policy. Fair use doctrine requires us to not use a portion of the work beyond what is sufficient for our needs; here the needs of the encyclopedia extend to rendering the logo at multiple sizes and in other media as time goes on. This is quite reasonable. For those needs a fixed-size bitmap is insufficient. Reductionist arguments about "infinite resolution" are non-productive, because the law that the policies are based on don't talk about resolution, and vector graphics don't have resolution. My mention of the other SVG logos is meant as evidence that this is acceptable practice among conscientious editors and that this logo is by no means an outlier. For example, Logos implies that fair-use SVG logos are acceptable by making recommendations on the detail contained within them; we have SVG-Logo; and just look at all the SVGs in category:All non-free logos, including in a number of featured articles like Microsoft. Do you think those are all mistaken? There's no value in deleting useful content if we are not required to by law, so let's not search for reasons to delete, but reasons to keep. &mdash; brighterorange  (talk) 23:02, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Its either dangerous or pointless but not both --Lemmey talk 23:09, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I didn't quote or link WP:CRYSTAL. It's unfortunate that you have failed to comprehend what I'm actually saying: we should not be making content decisions based on speculation.  We don't know the needs of the encyclopedia in the future.  Here and now, policy explicitly requires low resolution (the antithesis of infinite or scalable resolution).  Policy which, by the way, is deliberately more restrictive than law. WP:LOGO is a guideline, not policy, and any implications therein are subordinate to NFCC.   The Microsoft logo, like all text-only logos, is not copyrighted.  SVG is perfectly fine in those cases and, even then, has a minority representation in the category you provided; the existence of other images failing to conform to policy is not a license to do the same.   ЭLСОВВОLД  talk 23:32, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Isn't "Wikipedia is not a crystal ball" precisely what WP:CRYSTAL says? What do you mean you didn't quote it? Either way, we're certainly free to anticipate the needs of the encyclopedia in the future (this is why we work on it), and make and interpret policy in that light. Why not? Policy does not say that you may not use vector graphics as fair use—you are interpreting the policy in an unnecessarily narrow way. We clearly do it in many instances. Also: The Microsoft logo is not copyrighted? Whaa? Where did you get that idea? It's not just text. &mdash; brighterorange  (talk) 02:18, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Why not add free pics of a few more grandmasters? Is there a pic of Plantard? Even if non-free, I think you can argue for fair-use.
 * Fair point regarding Plantard. However, I don't think it would be a good idea to add more free pictures of *alleged* grand masters since the entire list is a *lie*. --Loremaster (talk) 16:05, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * what does the addition of pictures have to do with the fact that the list is a lie? FYI, since he's dead, that non-free pic can used for the infobox in Plantard's article too.
 * My point is that, beyond the popular focus on Leonardo da Vinci, it doesn't really serve a useful purpose to add pictures of people who weren't really grand masters of the Priory of Sion. In other words, it's already bad enough their names have been dragged into this hoax. Do we really need to add their pictures as well? As for the picture of Pierre Plantard, it was my intention to add it to Plantard's article once we find a good one. --Loremaster (talk) 20:08, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Content
 * the lead sentence says (or Priory of Zion) where Zion links to an article about "a term that most often designates the Land of Israel and its capital, Jerusalem." Yet here I find only peripheral mention of Israel. Also, if PoS was named after a mountain, then, well, I'm confused. What I'm saying is: are you sure that the "Zion" in the alternative translation of the organisation's name refers to the Israeli Zion, or is it just a modification of "Sion"?
 * Fair point. Fixed it. --Loremaster (talk) 16:05, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I do hope you realise that that was a pretty serious mistake, which implied incorrect interpretations of the PoS being associated with Israel. indopug (talk) 19:17, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Putting aside that I don't need to be lectured by you, it wasn't a mistake. Pierre Plantard wanted to mislead people in thinking the Priory of Sion was associated with Israel. However, I've removed the internal link since this deception isn't explained in the Lead (nor should it be at that point). --Loremaster (talk) 20:08, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * "In popular culture": this section just makes me laugh. "The band Priory of Brion formed by Led Zeppelin's Robert Plant in 1999 is an amalgamation of the name "Priory of Sion" and Monty Python's Life of Brian." - Really? Wow! Here we have an article about an organisation that claims to have descendants from Leonardo da Vinci and beyond, and we find it equally important to note the origin of the name of a band not notable enough to have its own Wikipedia article! Please, get rid of that entire section; there are guidelines about it too.
 * I strongly disagree with the notion of deleting the entire section. However, I agree that it should more closely follow the guidelines of the "In popular culture" articles page so I will work on it. --Loremaster (talk) 16:05, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I disagree, there is nothing here that is not trivial. What episode of what TV show mentions PoS is not encyclopedic information. Its also funny that Da Vinci code is mentioned there again. Another point is that if you let a section like this stay, IPs and other inexperienced editors will add even more sub-trivial information. indopug (talk) 19:17, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I understand all of that. However, I still support its inclusion unless it becomes the sole reason why the Priory of Sion cannot become a Featured Article. --Loremaster (talk) 20:08, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The article gets too listy towards the end; although the grand master lists cannot be avoided, I do believe that the assertions of The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail can be converted to paragraphs.
 * I disagree. I think the "list format" better illustrates the exact goals of the Priory of Sion. --Loremaster (talk) 16:05, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The most worrying thing I found was a post on the talk page regarding the possibility of Masonic roots; digging a bit deeper and what do I find in the last two days' edit history of the article:, , , , , , , an edit war!
 * Calm down. It's not really an "edit war". Even if it was, it was over an extremely minor issue. Furthermore, the dispute has now been resolved as you can see on the talk page. --Loremaster (talk) 16:05, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Edit wars over minor issues are even worse than major ones and remain a serious violation of the [[Wikipedia:Five pillars |

orange pillar]]. They particularly stem from WP:OWN issues. --Lemmey talk 16:52, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with your first point but the second point doesn't apply to this situation. Regardless, it's been resolved. --Loremaster (talk) 16:42, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Clearly, this article was brought a little too fast to FAC, and needs extensive content reviewing, copy-editing and a peer-review or two. All the same, this is an intriguing subject, and I look forward to seeing it in polished form sometime in the near future. indopug (talk) 09:36, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Although you brought up some good points that have now been used to improve the article, I think your judgement is too harsh. --Loremaster (talk) 16:05, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I hope you're right, but the prose need reworking and I also see Ealdgyth's sourcing concerns are not taken care of. indopug (talk) 19:17, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I am working on the prose. As for the sourcing concerns, User:Wfgh66 said he would work on it. Do you mind crossing out the issues you have raised that are now resolved?  --Loremaster (talk) 20:08, 2 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose per Elcobbola and Indopug. I think the article needs extensive copyediting. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 14:07, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Indopug --Lemmey talk 20:59, 2 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Loremaster, can you please review WP:TALK, particularly about excessive markup on talk pages? The bolded replies are making all of this hard to read.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 21:06, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Oppose Where to begin? The whole tone of the article is non-encyclopedic. Substantial sections are not referenced and, perhaps more importantly, neither are the very many controversial claims. It reads like a conspiracy theory. How on earth did this article achieve GA? The prose is at its best poor. I couldn't bear to read more than than half of it. Graham Colm Talk 21:22, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Although I agree that the tone might be not encyclopedic enough, I find the suggestion that it reads like a "conspiracy theory" absurd when in fact the whole article is reporting the debunking of a conspiracy theory! --Loremaster (talk) 18:11, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

(I'm moving unresolved concerns here, due to unreadability of the thing above. Please do not interrupt my comments, post your replies after them. I'll stike out stuff that's been addressed)
 * Strong oppose
 * The prose is poor. Get an independent, as yet uninvolved, copy-editor to clean it up.
 * I find it hard to understand why you cannot get the dates right, even after I showed you what to do. The syntax is 1 March 2008 and the resulting display, depending on your settings, is 1 March 2008.
 * There seem to be edit conflicts: first regarding Masonic connections, second about some Aquarius logo thing.
 * Popular culture section that mentions all the video games in the world that reference the priory and a Robert Plant band nobody's ever heard of.
 * Ealdgyth's citation worries have been left unaddressed for a week. indopug (talk) 22:09, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments for Indopug --Loremaster (talk) 23:18, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I will try to find a copy-editor but the problem is that Priory of Sion is a very complicated subject. If someone is not familiar with its details, their editing can very easily damage the factual accuracy of the article.
 * I admit that my exhausting schedule during the past week as meant that I've only been able to read and implement recommendations in a relative "rush" due to limited time. However, I still fail to see where I haven't gotten the dates right. Perhaps I am simply too tired to have noticed a mistake.
 * I will try to moderate these edits conflicts once and for all, which were not occuring before the Featured Article nomination process started.
 * Since the In popular culture section has become a problem, I will delete it.
 * User talk:Wfgh66, the person most familiar with the reliable sources for the content of the article, is still in the process of mastering Wikipedia guidelines for citing sources.

I think theres enough issues and recurring issues listed above to warrant tabling this candidate & I ask the FA director to review and make a decision.
 * Motion to table candidate and initiate a copy-edit request
 * This article contains multiple actionable objections have not been resolved in spite of an extensive discussion; and consensus for promotion has not been reached. --Lemmey talk 23:19, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Please read the instructions at WP:FAC and do not create sub-sections on the page. Thank you, Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 01:55, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.