Talk:Priory of Sion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Priory of Sion article.
This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Article policies

Contents

[edit] Archives

For an October 2004 deletion debate over this page see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Priory of sion

Archives of previous discussions can be found at:

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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 Wikipedia: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)

[edit] About the External Links

We should follow the Wikipedia: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.

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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

[edit] 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 before 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)

I am Here ... I am.

[edit] 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


[edit] 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 Wikipedia:Citing sources and Wikipedia:Attribution? (Especially Wikipedia:Attribution#Reliable_sources and Wikipedia:Attribution#No_original_research) Additionally, although Pierre Plantard is deceased, guidelines under Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons may be relevant here. -- 201.51.231.176 13:46, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Obviously Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia:Citing sources and Wikipedia:Attribution. Thanks for your attention on this. Have a good one. -- 201.51.231.176 18:45, 6 March 2007 (UTC)


[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../p/r/i/Talk%7EPriory_of_Sion_4ca2.html"