Talk:Pierre Plantard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]

Please rate the article and, if you wish, leave comments here regarding your assessment or the strengths and weaknesses of the article.

Contents

[edit] Moved to talk

I moved the following section from the article to here because I didn't really see how it made sense. If anyone can edit this section to a point where it does make sense to the average reader, feel free to do so and return it to the article. --Roisterer 01:11, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Opposing View

Pierre Plantard may well be a hoax or dupe of others, but in fact he appears to have done exactly what he wanted to do... put out to the public key symbols heavily imbedded with extreme amounts of information.

One example of this is the symbol for Priory of Sion (from Plantard's literature - Paul Smith's correction - from Philippe de Cherisey's literature - de Cherisey may have supported Plantard but his take on the Myths was quite different, being a surrealist humourist, de Cherisey introduced elements of the bizarre in opposition to Plantard's pragmatic style of myth-creation: Paul Smith); and another example is the star of David symbol on one of the Plantard brochures with sword superimposed on the star.

Both symbols are key symbols.

(This approach of rumor, claims of hoax & controversy has been a hallmark of many other secret organizations e.g. as the similar long winded controversy over Rosicrucians.)

[edit] NPOV

He became an impostor who claimed to be a Merovingian pretender to the throne of France during the early 1960s, his position being influenced by an article that he had read by Louis Saurel in the French magazine Les Cahiers de l'Histoire Number 1 (1960). M Plantard claimed to have descended from Dagobert II.

I really don't think this paragraph is fair to Plantard. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 17:56, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The popular version of the Priory of Sion that involved Dagobert II, Godfrey de Bouillon, the Templars, and so on, is all historical fiction that was created by Plantard from the early 1960s onwards, following Plantard's teaming-up with French author Gerard de Sede and following the publication of his 1962 book 'Les Templiers sont parmi nous' - involving the allegations surrounding Gisors by Roger Lhomoy - who was the equivalent of Noel Corbu at Rennes-le-Chateau: what Plantard did to the story of Rennes-le-Chateau he had already previously done with Gisors. This is all straightforward stuff which is very easy to follow. The format style of Louis Saurel's 1960 article was later copied in a 1964 Priory Document and in a 1978 book by Louis Vazart.

See: com/psp/ime/cahiers.html

All interest in Pierre Plantard in France became terminated by the mid-1980s where he is now considered to be a joke of the past. They are all suffering from Da Vinci Code fatigue in France.

Pierre Plantard in reality was the son of a butler ultimately descended from a 16th-century peasant who picked walnuts.

Plantard is no different to Michel Lafosse who designates himself as "Prince Michael of Albany" and who claims direct descent from Bonnie Prince Charlie - Lafosse's genealogical claims were professionally discredited as long ago as 1980...and the proof exists online on at least a couple of websites run by professional genealogists.

Why is there a NPOV flag up for this article. If you put it up Sam Spade, what are your concerns? I hate seeing NPOV flags up without any detailed justification. It just makes Wiki look bad. --Maustrauser 13:19, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
IMHO the problem is that, despite all the detractors, and those with a professional interest in "exposing the hoax", the Plantard story throws up a number of serious questions. For example, whether the Merovingians were betrayed by "Secret Masters" within the then-hierarchy of the then Only True Church; whether the supposed connections between obscure paintings exist; and how Saunière was able to finance his activities. While ever these questions remain, there will be dispute over M.Plantard's role, and the attachment of the "Hoax" tag is inherently POV. NPOV might call for a three-page treatment: 1) facts; 2) pro-"hoax" arguments; 3) apologia. --Simon Cursitor 07:03, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)


Simon Cursitor's comments belong to Mind, Body and Spirit --- not to the History Department. Interest in Plantard was finished in France by the mid-1980s and the one current promoter of the "Priory of Sion" -- Gino Sandri -- is regarded as a Lone Nut over there. There were of course professional agendas in promoting Plantard's hoaxes and the source of Sauniere's wealth can be inspected in the Sauniere Museum in Rennes-le-Chateau. Tens upon tens of thousands of requests for masses with enclosed payments exist in the form of Documentation that Sauniere left behind -- and which was left under Marie Denarnaud's bed following the priest's death -- and which was eventually passed onto the Corby family -- portions of which are displayed in the Sauniere Museum (this was first explained by Rene Descadeillas, the former Chief Librarian of Carcassonne, in 1974 -- and many times since in France, in books that have never been translated into English). The paintings allegations linking them with Sauniere was a Plantard invention, promoted most successfully by Gerard de Sede during the 1960s, the ghost of which still haunts us today. Adrien Bourrel remembers the construction of the Louis Lawrence tomb at Les Pontils during the early 1930s, and the accounts claiming that the landscape background in the area corresponds with one featured in a Poussin painting can be considered as a joke (the village of Rennes-le-Chateau cannot be seen from that location, either; and the one-time tomb that was demolished in 1988 stood directly next to a farmhouse - not isolated in the middle of nowhere in obscure countryside).

Two very good recent French books provide explanations to both Plantard and to Sauniere and all based on solid evidence (don't hold your breath to see these titles available in English):

Marie-France Etchegoin, Frédéric Lenoir, Code Da Vince: L'Enquête Éditions Robert Laffont, Paris, 2004.

Jean-Jacques Bedu Les Sources Secrètes du Da Vinci Code Éditions du Rocher, 2005


A recent French television documentary compared the Rennes-le-Chateau "mystery" to the belief in the Loch Ness Monster. [Paul Smith 17:23 21/06/2005]

[edit] Plantard in Annemasse (by Politis)

I am intrigued that new information should be so quickly eliminated or text reverted when it is obvious that the person who does the reversing obviously had no time to double check. At Annemasse we find Plantard's alter ego gradually taking shape. We discover the banality of his life (no offense meant) jusxtaposed with the ambition and megalomania of his aspirations. Unless someone has carried out a thorough investigation in the region, I suggest they refrain from such hasty 'reversions'.

I suspect it was considered rather too circumstantial and digressive. Paul B 02:21, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

You are probably right. I will try and come back with a more relevant text. Politis (temporary name)

[edit] Thomas Plantard

Thomas Plantard redirects to this page, but isn't mentioned in the text at all - "what" was Thomas Plantard, an alias of Pierre Plantard? Poulsen 10:55, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Thomas Plantard was (is) the son of Pierre Plantard. He has never indicated any desire to be associated with the involvments of his father and is not on record of having done so; besides, he was too young at the time to have been able to do so. Also, any use of his name has almost certainly been done without his knowledge or approval. Politis 12:14, 27 January 2006 (UTC)


COMPLETELY WRONG FROM WIKIPEDIA.
NONSENSICAL REPLY.
Paul Smith —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.92.168.163 (talk • contribs) 13:02, March 31, 2007
To my knowledge, the information that is in this article comes from video documentaries about the subject. If you have a reliable published source which disputes this information, can you please provide a link to it, so that it can be verified? Thanks, Elonka 19:55, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Unfortunately, Mr Smith, who is is very knowledgable on this subject, has for many years chosen to rant, rave and vandalise rather than to contribute constructively to this article. Paul B 21:38, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

More unreliable and inaccurate comments from Paul Barlow, who wants us all to think that there was something to Pierre Plantard, and any descriptions of Plantard as being a hoaxer, fantasist and creator of third rate mythologies belong to uneducated and ignorant people who do not know what they are talking about.

wfgh66

[edit] Looking for logic

I find it hard to find logic between the following statements in the article:

1: Plantard's group published a periodical called Vaincre (Defeat), which was frequently laced with anti-Semitic, anti-Masonic, and mystical nationalist views.

Comment: It is not the first time Plantard is accused by certain people (Paul Smith and his followers) of being anti-Semitic. Here it seems to be a fact.


2: It is believed that Plantard chose the name of the Priory of Sion after a local mountain in Schwitzerland of the same name.

3: During the early 1960s, Plantard put himself forward as a Merovingian claimant to the throne of France, descended from King Dagobert II

4: Plantard further embellished the story by claiming that this treasure included parchments that substantiated Plantard's descent from Dagobert. Plantard began writing manuscripts, and produced forged medieval "parchments"

Comment: Plantard founded in 1956 a property company. Despite being anti-Semitic he choose to call it Priory of Sion - Sion, the strongest Jewish symbol to be found - simply because there is a Mount Sion nearby. Logic? He then embellish the story in the parchments with the key sentence:" This treasure belongs to Dagobert II King and to Sion," since he " put himself forward as a Merovingian claimant to the throne of France, descended from King Dagobert II." But then - being anti-Semitic - he later deeply regrets to have mentioned Sion, since Henry Lincoln unexpectedly and foolishly came up with the idea Sion could have anything to do with Sion, which Plantard seems to have overlooked. Logic? But the "logic" in this is basic to the logic in whole suggestion how Plantard is involved in a hoax. I suggest all the "theories" and accusations from Paul Smith and his followers should be removed from this article. Ulrik Løvenkilde

Ulrik,
  • if Vaincre, written and published by the late Mr Plantard, contained antisemitic utterances it is because he put them there. He also wrote to Marshall Petain with anti-Jewish accusations.
  • Sion is not exclusively a Jewish symbol - it is as much a Christian term. And it wasn't Plantard that founded the PoS but he and three other guys.
All in all, Mr Plantard was a hoaxer and has been long exposed, while unfortunately certain publisher prefer to keep credulous readers in the dark.
PS. New comments are added at the bottom. Str1977 (smile back) 22:03, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Manuscripts of ...?

Plantard began writing manuscripts, and produced forged medieval "parchments" (created by his friend, Philippe de Chérisey) with the claim that Saunière had supposedly discovered these documents whilst renovating his church in 1891. Please tell me, what exactly are meant by manuscripts here - manuscripts of what? A book, books, documents, ...?--80.235.69.166 18:01, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Not "manuscripts" but typewritten A4 pages.
If you are so interested in the PoS why don't you obtain photocopies of these worthless "documents" from the Bibliotheque Nationale instead of engaging in guesswork all the time. You will then see for yourself that it is all a load of home-made rubbish that was hyped-up by "Holy Blood and Holy Grail" and perpetuated by "Da Vinci Code".
Paul Smith —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.92.168.163 (talk • contribs) 12:59, March 31, 2007

[edit] Gisors - Normandy, not Paris

I edited out the link to Gisors that is part of Paris, the Gisors in question relating to the article being the town located in Normandy. Wfgh66 15:11, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Robert Ambelain and The Holy Blood and Holy Grail

The authors of The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail never mentioned Robert Ambelain, whose theories they rejected. Various updates of The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail have been published since 1982 giving supplemental information relating to the idea of a married Jesus Christ but without ever once mentioning the works of Robert Ambelain. Here's what Massimo Introvigne actually said: http://www.cesnur.org/2005/mi_02_03d.htm

"Lincoln meshed Ambelain’s story about the marriage of Jesus with that of the Merovingians suggested by Plantard, and «revealed» that the Merovingians protected by the Priory of Sion were important, not because they were the heirs to the throne of France, as much as because they were the descendants of Jesus Christ and Mary Magdalene. The latter suited Lincoln better than Ambelain’s Salome because both of her connection with the parish church in Rennes-le-Château and of the Medieval legends claiming that she escaped persecution and eventually settled and died in Southern France (sans «husband» and children, however, which were never part of these legends)." Wfgh66 (talk) 13:29, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. My point was: if there is no causal link between HBHG and Ambelain or between Plantard and Ambelain, the latter author doesn't belong here. Just a mere agreement on some things is not engough. By "causal link" I mean that one side adopted an idea from the other, even if only partially, or was influenced, or inspired an idea in the other. Str1977 (talk) 14:12, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
The only causal link between Robert Ambelain and The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail is the claim of a married Jesus Christ. "In Contrast to" rather than "based on" would be a better description. For example, when French researcher Pierre Jarnac reviewed Holy Blood he stated he preferred Ambelain to Baigent, Lincoln and Leigh. Wfgh66 (talk) 14:20, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
What a minute: "The only causal link ... is the claim of a married Jesus Christ." That is no causal link. A causal link HBHG took that idead from Ambelain. Simply the two books agreeing on one idea is not enough. "In contrast to" doesn't work either as anything aside from Ambelaine providing HBHG with one element of their book makes Ambelaine totally irrelevant. Str1977 (talk) 15:45, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Plantard and Evola

It's an important point, if someone is going to argue that Plantard was influenced by Evola, you would expect that someone to produce a reference to Evola in Plantard's writings Wfgh66 (talk) 20:11, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

We are not arguing anything. We are reporting an attributed opinion. Wednesday Next (talk) 00:33, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Given that Richardson is not the most reliable of sources, the request is reasonable.
Most importantly, PP's political ideas are not the same as his claims. Evola certainly remained silent on Merovingians and Jesus bloodline. Str1977 (talk) 01:28, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
It can be reported that Richardson did not produce a reference to Evola from Plantard's writings, if he did not do such a thing. Wfgh66 (talk) 07:58, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Richardson mereley argues that Evola's idea of a phony bloodline influenced Plantard's. That is all.--Cúchullain t/c 21:42, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
How can Richardson's argument be notable if Plantard never mentioned the Grail and 'Holy Blood, Holy Grail' was rejected both by Plantard and De Cherisey during the early 1980s, and that the source of Plantard's genealogical claims is known to originate from "Les Cahiers de l'Histoire" (1960) and not from the Grail Romances? Wfgh66 (talk) 21:49, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Richardson's only saying the idea of a phony bloodline originated in part from Evola. He notes the striking similarities in ideas and themes between Evola's claims and Plantard's. Clearly it doesn't matter if Plantard didn't mention the Grail, he can still be influenced by someone who did.--Cúchullain t/c 21:56, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
There is no evidence that Plantard used Evola, whom he never mentioned. I have already explained about the similarity of ideas and themes - that can be found just as easily in works by French esoteric writers - no need to look to Italian writers. Plantard cited French writers he admired in his issues of 'Vaincre'. Wfgh66 (talk) 22:00, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Again, we're just reporting an attributed opinion here. Obviously Richardson believed that Evola did in fact partially originate the idea of a phony bloodline, even if you don't, and he presented it in a published article which seems reliable enough to me.--Cúchullain t/c 22:10, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Phoney bloodlines go back well before Evola. Stein's "Grail Bloodline" mentioned in Richardson's article goes from Charlemagne to Godfrey de Bouillon - nothing to do with the Merovingians. As for Richardson's reliability, references to his article are missing from books like Putnam & Wood's Treasure of Rennes-le-Chateau, a Mystery Solved (2003) to Picknett & Prince's Sion Revelation (2006).Wfgh66 (talk) 22:21, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Richardson's article was published in a New Age journal, not in a scholarly review. And it shows. Wfgh66 (talk) 22:23, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
If think he's not reliable, you should have said so before. It would be a lot easier to discuss this if you would be clearer with the issues you have. You keep jumping around.--Cúchullain t/c 22:47, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Did Evola mention Stein in his book on the Grail, or was this another one of Richardson's fabrications, foisting Stein over Evola in the same way that he foisted Evola over Plantard. Citing unreliable authorities like Richardson is not a good thing. Wfgh66 (talk) 05:10, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
I have no idea what you are talking about, but it doesn't seem like this Stein is particularly relevant to this artile. Again, you'd do well to be clearer on the problems you have with the material, rather than jumping from problem to problem. I looked up the magazine Richardson's article was published in, Gnosis (magazine), and it does not look like a reliable publisher. You could have saved a lot of time and effort by bringing this up before, instead of just bringing up several much less serious problems on all talk pages for articles where Richardson is mentioned.--Cúchullain t/c 06:00, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Robert Richardson failed to demonstrate Evola's influence on Plantard, or Plantard's interest in Evola. Richardson picked up Evola's philosophy and tried to shoehorn it into Plantard's mindset. That's not historical research. No author has used Richardson's article on Plantard and the Priory of Sion. Wfgh66 (talk) 19:01, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

If RR is mentioned, this should be restricted to what RR is actually saying and the nature of the observation as well as the lack of acceptance of it should be made clear. Str1977 (talk) 09:20, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Pierre Plantard: Antisemite or Zionist or both?

From Interview with Guy Patton, Co-Author of Web of Gold:The Secret Power of a Sacred Treasure By Tracy R. Twymany:

DR: Are you convinced that the Pierre Plantard and other members of the Priory of Sion were involved with the Nazi movement and the Vichy government in France? If so, how does this reconcile with the Priory’s seemingly Zionist agenda, supporting the restoration of monarchy based on the Biblical House of David?

GP: Plantard may not have been directly involved with the Nazi movement but he was certainly a supporter of Marshal Pétain and his Vichy government. The Vichy ideology was based on a belief in a national regeneration of France by an elite which would promote a blend of Christian and Chivalric ideals. This may have paralleled the Nazi agenda but was independent and strictly French. As to the Priory of Sion - Jewish question, a differentiation between political (and cultural) Zionism and the more religious Judaic tradition is crucial. The Priory of Sion does not support Zionism, but in its Dossiers Secrets does appear to acknowledge that Jesus Christ was of the biblical line of David. A bloodline of Jesus, in which they include the Merovingian monarchs, must therefore be Jewish. It is evident that the Priory of Sion have had to find a mechanism of reconciling their essentially Christian beliefs with Jesus’s traditional Jewish roots. And this may well lie at the heart of the Priory’s mythology. It should be noted that during the war, Vichy persecution of Jews was almost exclusively confined to the deportation of Askenazi Jews that had fled into France from eastern Europe. The resident Sephardic community was left largely untouched.

I think I have found an answer to this question in the Antisemitism article:

Brown University historian David Kertzer, working from the Vatican archive, has further argued in his book The Popes Against the Jews that in the 19th and early 20th centuries the Roman Catholic Church adhered to a distinction between "good antisemitism" and "bad antisemitism". The "bad" kind promoted hatred of Jews because of their descent. This was considered un-Christian because the Christian message was intended for all of humanity regardless of ethnicity; anyone could become a Christian. The "good" kind criticized alleged Jewish conspiracies to control newspapers, banks, and other institutions, to care only about accumulation of wealth, etc. Many Catholic bishops wrote articles criticizing Jews on such grounds, and, when accused of promoting hatred of Jews, would remind people that they condemned the "bad" kind of antisemitism.

I am therefore positing that Pierre Plantard considered himself a "good antisemite". --Loremaster (talk) 08:43, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Except that Guy Patton is a goofball who thinks that Plantard and the PoS were "serious entities", like Tracy Twyman: neither of whom cite blatant anti-semitic quotations from Vaincre. Patton's book doesn't even mention Article Seven of the Statutes of the Alpha Galates stipulating that the Order was closed to Jews. I would love to know about the "Priory’s seemingly Zionist agenda, supporting the restoration of monarchy based on the Biblical House of David", and how this fantasy originated. They certainly do not produce any PoS material to substantiate the validity of the premise! Wfgh66 (talk) 11:27, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Quote: The Priory of Sion does not support Zionism, but in its Dossiers Secrets does appear to acknowledge that Jesus Christ was of the biblical line of David. Where??? I have the Dossiers Secrets, no such reference. Wfgh66 (talk) 12:41, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes. I did notice all those problems you mentioned. However, if you delete the mention of Jesus, do the Dossiers Secrets mention the Merovigian in connection to the Davidic line at all? --Loremaster (talk) 15:42, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
The Merovingians are connected to the Tribe of Benjamin, not Judah (that was of the line of David) See here, where the city of Jerusalem is situated on the border of Tribe of Benjamin and Tribe of Judah. Wfgh66 (talk) 16:21, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Interesting. I always assumed that Pierre Plantard claimed descent from both the Merovingian and the Davidic line but not the Jesus bloodline. --Loremaster (talk) 00:52, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
From the Tribe of Benjamin article:

Despite its ethnic connection to Ephraim, the main tribe in the Kingdom of Israel, Benjamin instead associated with the southern tribes and became part of the Kingdom of Judah. Benjamin was very much a minor partner; kings came from the tribe of Judah and it was Judah which gave its name to the kingdom. As part of the kingdom of Judah, Benjamin survived the destruction of Israel by the Assyrians, and instead was subjected to the Babylonian captivity; when the captivity ended, the distinction between Benjamin and the other tribes in the kingdom of Judah were lost in favour of a common identity as Jews.

--Loremaster (talk) 07:03, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Avoiding an edit war

I recommend that User:Wednesday Next and User:Wfgh66 use this section of the Pierre Plantard talk page to discuss any statement that is in dispute rather than engaging in an edit war. --Loremaster (talk) 18:15, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

The Bibliotheque Nationale Catalogue of Paris is a verifiable source of information, and that does not list anything by Thomas Plantard de Saint-Clair since Le Cercle of 1993. That's a citable source of reference.Wfgh66 (talk) 18:18, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Thomas Plantard de Saint-Clair has been discussed on various French newsgroups and has been traced, and he refuses to be interviewed or comment anything at all about the PoS or his past involvement with it. Leaving a blank space relating to 1993+ will invariably create the impression amongst believers that he could still be active in PoS activities.Wfgh66 (talk) 18:21, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree. --Loremaster (talk) 18:24, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
It's actually dated 1992.
Type : texte imprimé, monographie
Auteur(s) : Plantard de Saint Clair, Thomas
Titre(s) : Le cercle [Texte imprimé] : Rennes-le-Château et le prieuré de Sion / Thomas Plantard de Saint Clair
Publication : Colombes (110 rue Henri Dunant, 92700) : Vaincre, 1992
66-Perpignan : Impr. Vaincre
Description matérielle : 86 f. : ill. en noir et en coul. ; 30 cm
(Br.) : 150 F
Notice n° : FRBNF35532011
Wfgh66 (talk) 18:29, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Doing a survey of available material and drawing a conclusion from it falls under the definition of original research, no matter how obvious you think that conclusion is. You must cite a source which reaches that conclusion independently of yourself. Wednesday Next (talk) 18:31, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Hmmm... I agree. --Loremaster (talk) 18:32, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
"Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent." (Ludwig Wittgenstein) Wednesday Next (talk) 18:39, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Not so. Reading the Bibliotheque Nationale Catalogue of Paris is like reading Einstein's Theory of Relativity or St Matthew's Gospel, in order to describe what it contains. I did not create the Bibliotheque Nationale Catalogue of Paris just like I did not create Einstein's Theory of Relativity or Matthew's Gospel but you have to read those works in order to write an article about them. The Catalogue and myself are two different entities. And if the Bibliotheque Nationale Catalogue of Paris lists Le Cercle as Thomas Plantard de Saint-Clair's last work then that is not a "conclusion" but the repeating of information. Every single Wikipedia Editor who cites a reference to an article does exactly the same thing. If I am guilty of OR because of looking for an independent reference to back-up a statement then so is every Editor of Wikipedia. Wfgh66 (talk) 18:54, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Catalogue de Bibliotheque Nationale de Paris is used as an independent Wiki reference here: http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dossiers_secrets_d'Henri_Lobineau Wfgh66 (talk) 15:32, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Stephen Anderson

Stephen Anderson is a believer in the Priory of Sion. If he makes meaningful observations, his final conclusion is always biased towards the existence. Wfgh66 (talk) 23:25, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

So? Who isn't biased? --Loremaster (talk) 23:27, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
We can't just call someone "fringe". That runs afoul of the policy on living persons. We can report that someone has called him "fringe", with a citation, of course. If he really is fringe, which I don't dispute, then by WP:FRINGE, his views should not even be mentioned in the article, and certainly not in the lead section. Wednesday Next (talk) 23:27, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
The belief in the existence of the Priory of Sion is fringe, and Anderson believes in the existence of the Priory of Sion; to him it is not a "hoax". Wfgh66 (talk) 23:30, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
That's original research. In particular synthesis. Your opinion doesn't count (from the standpoint of Wikipedia). You must cite a third party source. Wednesday Next (talk) 23:31, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Wfgh66, if we were citing Anderson to rewrite the article in such a way to present the Priory of Sion as not being a hoax, I would agree with you that he is not a reliable source. However, we are only citing for having provided the most logical motive behind Plantard's actions. So trying to discredit him as "fringe" is pointless. --Loremaster (talk) 23:37, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Again, if he is fringe and his opinion about Plantard's motive is questionable, which it appears to be, the whole thing should simply be removed. Wednesday Next (talk) 23:39, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
I've removed him for other reasons so I consider this dispute over. --Loremaster (talk) 23:42, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
That looks like a good resolution to me. Wednesday Next (talk) 23:52, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Whatever decision you come to, make it here instead of on the article with discussion through edit summaries. 2 of you just got unblocked after earlier edit warring...and what's the first thing you start to do after the unblock? --Onorem♠Dil 23:32, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I have stopped editing the article and am trying to discuss. Isn't that what I'm supposed to do? Wednesday Next (talk) 23:33, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Reading Anderson's articles from "The Rennes Observer" shows that he is a believer in the PoS. Is repeating that considered OR? Wfgh66 (talk) 23:36, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Formulating an opinion rather than repeating one is introducing your own opinion. We aren't supposed to be doing that. Wednesday Next (talk) 23:41, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
From reading Anderson's articles that he is a believer in the PoS is not "formulating an opinion" but reporting and repeating facts. You do not formulate Einstein's Theory of Relativity by reading it written by Einstein Wfgh66 (talk) 23:44, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
I was referring only to the use of the word "fringe", which opinion would require citation to a third party. Wednesday Next (talk) 23:54, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Anderson is not notable enough to be commented by anybody in any book. So even here Anderson fails the Wiki Notability test. Wfgh66 (talk) 00:00, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Plantard and Chyren

Anderson is not required for the explanation of the Nostradamus/Chyren link. That can be retained in the article by using another source. Chaumeil published in 1973 a transcript of the 1956 Statutes of the PoS where Plantard's signature was mentioned being accompanied by the name "Chyren". That's good enough as a citation. Wfgh66 (talk) 23:49, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Good. --Loremaster (talk) 23:50, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
It may even be mentioned in The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail. The Nostradamus/Chyren link with Plantard is certainly not Anderson's OR. Wfgh66 (talk) 23:52, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Has Chaumeil or any close to Plantard ever explained why he wanted people to believe he was a Merovingian dynast and the Chyren of Nostradamus prophecy? --Loremaster (talk) 23:56, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Here's a reference to Plantard = Chyren = Nostradamus
Marie-France Etchegoin & Frederic Lenoir, Code Da Vinci: L'Enquete (Robert Laffont, 2004), page 61. Wfgh66 (talk) 00:18, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
During the early 1960s Plantard was offering his services as a clairvoyant using the name "Chyren". Independent source:
http://www.cesnur.org/2005/pa_introvigne.htm
Whatever income Plantard made was by offering his services as a psychic under the name of “Chyren the Seer”
Wfgh66 (talk) 23:59, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Thank you. I've edited the Priory of Sion article according to information Introvingne's article, which I hadn't read in a long time. --Loremaster (talk) 00:43, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Problem with BNC catalog link

There are two problems with the link. The first is that it doesn't even work except for you, Paul. The rest of us get "session expired" because the site requires cookies or something.

The second is that Wikipedia reference policy specifically excludes the use of search links of any kind as "references". They are not. Wednesday Next (talk) 21:47, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

No it is not a "dead link" you need to click on the Tab to

activate the Search Engine. And search links exist independently of the editor as does the BNF Catalogue meaning there is no OR involved (like looking in an index in a book for particular information). Wfgh66 (talk) 21:51, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

They are still against policy. Wednesday Next (talk) 21:52, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Google is a Search Engine. That's not against policy. There is no difference between Google and BNF Catalogue online. They are both Public Search Engines. Wfgh66 (talk) 21:59, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
A link to a Google search is not permitted either. Wednesday Next (talk) 22:01, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Then delete the link to Google from here

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google I also note links to dictionaries and thesaurus' on Wikipedia.

Wfgh66 (talk) 22:04, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

It is specifically to "searches" that the policy applies. Wednesday Next (talk) 22:11, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
So far, there's only you complaining about this. Wfgh66 (talk) 22:13, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
That's a lame excuse. I can't find the policy right now but I know it exists. You should take some effort to ask at an appropriate place yourself... Wednesday Next (talk) 22:17, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Looking up the online BNF Catalogue is no different to consulting it in person in Paris. Neither action involves OR since the catalogue exists independently to the researcher. Wfgh66 (talk) 22:25, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Proving something from the results or lack thereof using a search is both unreliable and may change over time. We simply don't use search links as references, we use other written sources. Wednesday Next (talk) 22:27, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
The material BNF Catalogue is a written source, as is the virtual online version. Wfgh66 (talk) 22:29, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
It's a primary source. Secondary sources are preferred. I would hesitate to call it a reliable, third-party, published source. It's a database, not published material. It is useful for facts about a particular book, but a negative search result is something which is not actually contained in it. Wednesday Next (talk) 22:32, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
That's nonsense. Primary sources may be cited but only for that what they really say, without any added interpretation. E.g. you can quote the Paris phonebook that Thomas Plantard lives in Paris. You cannot deduce from the fact that he's the only Plantard appearing that he's the only Plantard in Paris (Fictional example). So primary sources are allowed. (The difference anyway is empty.) Str1977 (talk) 07:41, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
It's the actual book that is the primary source, not the catalogue or bibliography that lists it. Wfgh66 (talk) 22:33, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
But there is no book. You are citing a negative. Wednesday Next (talk) 22:34, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Correction. I am citing what is listed in the BNF Catalogue. That is not OR. Wfgh66 (talk) 22:36, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
No, you are citing the lack of any listing, which is different. That is not a positive statement of fact made in the source. Wednesday Next (talk) 22:37, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Wednesday is correct. To back that statement up you'd need to find a reliable secondary source which says no other works have been attributed to Thomas Plantard. The search engine is inappropriate.--Cúchullain t/c 22:52, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
You are joking of course, students and authors use the catalogue listings found in libraries for their own research purposes. Library catalogues are secondary sources. Ask any librarian. The actual books listed are the primary sources. Wfgh66 (talk) 23:02, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Uh, no. No author would cite a library search catalog as a source, though they of course use them to find sources. You should look at the definition of primary and secondary source.--Cúchullain t/c 05:18, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
The books listed in Library Catalogues are the primary sources. Without them, the Catalogue would not exist. And there is no difference between looking at a Library Catalogue to looking in indexes in books or Googling. None of this constitutes "original research". Wfgh66 (talk) 13:28, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
No one's saying you can't use them. You just can't cite them as your source. Use the books you've looked up (whether they're primary or secondary sources, you must be aware that not all books are primary sources).--Cúchullain t/c 16:16, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion of Family category

Since common knowledge is not regarded as a valid source on Wikipedia, it is best to keep deleted the category Family that dealt with Thomas Plantard de Saint-Clair on this article. To keep the category on the article would have implied that Thomas Plantard de Saint-Clair was still involved with Priory of Sion activities, which is clearly not the case because Thomas ceased all his PoS activities in 1993 following the perquisition of his father's house by the Paris Police during that year. Thomas Plantard de Saint-Clair since that period of time has wanted to live a private life and refuses to give any interviews about his father or his past PoS activities. It would be quite wrong to imply anything different on a Wikipedia article. The sources on Thomas Plantard de Saint-Clair are derived from various French newsgroups, internet discussion lists and social networking websites. The last time Thomas Plantard de Saint-Clair went into the Public Arena was to announce his father's death in 2000, again information only found in sources not appropriate to Wikipedia. Wfgh66 (talk) 13:25, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Perfect. I've been saying all along that this section was dubious on the grounds of lack of notability (would not qualify for own article), inadequate sources, and unnecessary invasion of privacy. I am glad you have finally come around to the same view. Wednesday Next (talk) 16:14, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Thomas Plantard de-Saint-Clair is notable to the subject matter, having been declared Grand Master of the PoS and being the Editor of the revived journal Vaincre during the late 1980s and early 1990s. Wfgh66 (talk) 21:42, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Several occurences about him are notable - those in which he appears in relation to the PoS.
It is also notable to say that PP has a son called Thomas.
More detailed things not pertaining to his father or the PoS should go into a (currently non-existing) article "Thomas Plantard (de Saint Clair)". Str1977 (talk) 07:35, 30 May 2008 (UTC)