Jump to content

Talk:Priory of Sion: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous edit
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
m Archiving 1 discussion(s) to Talk:Priory of Sion/Archive 1) (bot
 
(43 intermediate revisions by 19 users not shown)
Line 25: Line 25:


|topic=philrelig
|topic=philrelig

|currentstatus=GA
|action5 = GAR
|action5date = 05:28, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
|action5link = Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Priory of Sion/1
|action5result = delisted
|action5oldid = 1228250084
|currentstatus = DGA
}}
}}
{{old XfD multi |date=October 15, 2004 |page=Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Priory of sion |result='''keep'''}}
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1=
{{WikiProject Secret Societies|class=GA|importance=high}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=B|1=
{{WikiProject Alternative Views|class=GA|importance=Low}}
{{WikiProject Secret Societies|importance=high}}
{{WikiProject Skepticism|class=GA|importance=low}}
{{WikiProject Alternative Views|importance=Low}}
{{WikiProject Skepticism|importance=low}}
}}
}}
{{tmbox
|type=notice
{{{small|}}}
|image=[[Image:Clipboard.svg|35px|Articles for deletion]]
|imagesmall=[[Image:Clipboard.svg|20px|Articles for deletion]]
|text=This article was nominated for [[Wikipedia:Deletion policy|deletion]] on October 15, 2004. The result of [[Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Priory of sion|the discussion]] was {{{result|'''keep'''}}}.
}}
<!-- archive must stay multi-line -->
{{User:MiszaBot/config
{{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{aan}}
|archiveheader = {{aan}}
Line 51: Line 50:
{{archives|search=yes|bot=MiszaBot I|age=60}}
{{archives|search=yes|bot=MiszaBot I|age=60}}


== Bruce Burgess ==
== Alleged "grand master" ==

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

"Page cannot be crawled or displayed due to robots.txt" [http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/show/tomb-discovered-in-france-considered,355964.shtml]. [[User:Lung salad|Lung salad]] ([[User talk:Lung salad|talk]]) 11:00, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

:Here's something relating to Rob Howells [http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=136155513121093] [[User:Lung salad|Lung salad]] ([[User talk:Lung salad|talk]]) 13:11, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Wikipedia Guidelines ==

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

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

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

:::I disagree. --[[User:Loremaster|Loremaster]] ([[User talk:Loremaster|talk]]) 04:33, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

:::::::The fact that you've managed to find someone somewhere who used the phrase does not make it normal or acceptable. You could probably find published instances of many unacceptable phrases. Your source hardly inspires confidence ("95 Ways to Use Humor for More Effective Teaching and Training"). 'Factoid' is more precise, but it is a neologism, not recognised by everyone. "Errors of fact" is better, and it's easy to find many usages of that in ''proper books'' [http://www.google.com/search?q=%22errors+of+fact%22&tbm=bks&tbo=1]. [[User:Paul Barlow|Paul B]] ([[User talk:Paul Barlow|talk]]) 20:41, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

== Do you understand? ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

I respect your opinion,nevertheless I must say, that I don't agree with you.
I think it makes a lot more sense, that Jesus was a normal married human with his descendants,wich were attempted to be killed by the church, who believed othervise, rather than a god, due to the many simbols in the paintings of those so called grand-masters and the social rules and customs of that time. Do not forget that Christians are the descendants of the jews.
Atleast thats my opinion. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/109.123.16.245|109.123.16.245]] ([[User talk:109.123.16.245|talk]]) 15:05, 2 October 2012 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

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

== Contributions ==


Under the heading "Alleged Grand Masters", the final sentence states "<i>In 2006, American author Eric Mader-Lin made a public declaration claiming to be the current Grand Master of the Priory of Sion.</i>" The source cited for this claim is a defunct personal website (necessaryprose.com), a Google search of "Eric Mader-Lin" returns just over 1,000 hits, most of which refer to an author of a novel titled "A Taipei Mutt", and which describe him as "A Longtime Taipei resident..."[https://www.isbns.net/author/Eric_Mader-Lin]https://www.isbns.net/author/Eric_Mader-Lin I think it's safe to say that a non-notable individual who was claimed on a defunct, personal website to be the Grand Master of an international organization of great power and wealth, meets neither [[WP:RS]] nor [[WP:N]], and should be removed, as I have done. [[User:Bricology|Bricology]] ([[User talk:Bricology|talk]]) 20:35, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
All of my contributions to Wikipedia have been made in good faith reflecting a productive and positive attitude. I like to think that I have made notable contributions in such a way that can be appreciated. My edits always contain valid and scholarly citations hoping also to add up-to-date new material. However, the Wikipedia articles in question are not "mine" and I do not think that I "own" them. Wikipedia articles are produced as a result of collaborative effort by all editors who contribute in good faith, without seeking sole dominant control of articles. [[User:Lung salad|Lung salad]] ([[User talk:Lung salad|talk]]) 09:50, 18 October 2011 (UTC)


==GA Reassessment==
:Despite the fact that many of your edits are poorly-written and/or superfluous and/or tangential, I have never doubted that your editing of Wikipedia article has been done in good faith. Beyond personal attacks against, and the inappropriate deletion of comments by, other users, the problem has always been your attitude and behavior on talk pages, especially your tendency to systematically refuse to acknowledge arguments that you disagree with or abide by the consensus when it is against you. This is the reason why you should and will be reported to Wikipedia administrators in order to be sanctionned. --[[User:Loremaster|Loremaster]] ([[User talk:Loremaster|talk]]) 21:21, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
{{Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Priory of Sion/1}}


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


The second list is important because it signifies the altered Priory of Sion. Of course it is as equally fraudulent as the first list. But without the second list there would be no reference to the altered Priory of Sion. Unless you want another 200-500 words added to the article. [[User:Octavius88|Octavius88]] ([[User talk:Octavius88|talk]]) 13:31, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
::::Paul actually replaced the word “facts” with “assertions”. I support his edit but not yours. --[[User:Loremaster|Loremaster]] ([[User talk:Loremaster|talk]]) 22:21, 18 October 2011 (UTC)


== Unclear link to Alfeios ==
:::::It's the same thing. [[User:Lung salad|Lung salad]] ([[User talk:Lung salad|talk]]) 22:34, 18 October 2011 (UTC)


Under "Myth: Plantard's Plot" is the phrase "Priory of Sion being a medieval society that was the source of the 'underground stream' of esotericism in Europe"; "underground stream" is linked to the article on Alfeios, a Greek river system. But no explanation here is given for this particular link. As "underground stream" in the figurative sense is self-explanatory, unless someone can identify in the article why that particular river system is apropos, I would recommend simply removing the link. [[User:Al Begamut|Al Begamut]] ([[User talk:Al Begamut|talk]]) 19:08, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
::::::It's better phrased and less confusing than what you wrote, which is the point I always keep making. --[[User:Loremaster|Loremaster]] ([[User talk:Loremaster|talk]]) 03:27, 19 October 2011 (UTC)


:The link has been removed. --[[User:Loremaster|Loremaster]] ([[User talk:Loremaster|talk]]) 17:09, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
== real and fictitious ==


== DOES ANYONE KNOW HOW TO LINK THIS ==
In the introduction to the article it currently says: "''The Prieuré de Sion, ..., is a name given to multiple groups, both real and fictitious ...''", but then the whole article seems to be all about hoaxes and invented and claimed Prieurés. Did I miss something? --[[User:BjKa|BjKa]] ([[User talk:BjKa|talk]]) 12:21, 7 November 2011 (UTC)


Avis de décès de Monsieur Philippe TOSCAN DU PLANTIER paru le 09/03/2000 - département Paris - Libra Memoria
:My reaction as well, @BjKaltalk. --Sile
https://www.libramemoria.com/defunts/toscan-du-plantier-philippe/5f4a528c29c246b983f46fa2ad4bc34a


:The ''History'' section of the article focuses on the real group while the rest of the article focuses on the fictitious one. --[[User:Loremaster|Loremaster]] ([[User talk:Loremaster|talk]]) 22:14, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
THANKS [[User:Octavius88|Octavius88]] ([[User talk:Octavius88|talk]]) 19:33, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 13:32, 18 November 2024

Former good articlePriory of Sion was one of the Philosophy and religion good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
April 29, 2008Good article nomineeListed
May 6, 2008Featured article candidateNot promoted
June 18, 2008Peer reviewReviewed
September 23, 2008Featured article candidateNot promoted
June 16, 2024Good article reassessmentDelisted
Current status: Delisted good article

Alleged "grand master"

[edit]

Under the heading "Alleged Grand Masters", the final sentence states "In 2006, American author Eric Mader-Lin made a public declaration claiming to be the current Grand Master of the Priory of Sion." The source cited for this claim is a defunct personal website (necessaryprose.com), a Google search of "Eric Mader-Lin" returns just over 1,000 hits, most of which refer to an author of a novel titled "A Taipei Mutt", and which describe him as "A Longtime Taipei resident..."[1]https://www.isbns.net/author/Eric_Mader-Lin I think it's safe to say that a non-notable individual who was claimed on a defunct, personal website to be the Grand Master of an international organization of great power and wealth, meets neither WP:RS nor WP:N, and should be removed, as I have done. Bricology (talk) 20:35, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GA Reassessment

[edit]

Priory of Sion

[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • GAN review not found
Result: No improvement Real4jyy (talk) 05:28, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure about the main banner (unclear citation style), but lots of uncited paragraphs and statements; no longer seems to meet the recent-ish standards for citation at GA level. UndercoverClassicist T·C 09:13, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Restored Second List of Grand Masters

[edit]

The second list is important because it signifies the altered Priory of Sion. Of course it is as equally fraudulent as the first list. But without the second list there would be no reference to the altered Priory of Sion. Unless you want another 200-500 words added to the article. Octavius88 (talk) 13:31, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Under "Myth: Plantard's Plot" is the phrase "Priory of Sion being a medieval society that was the source of the 'underground stream' of esotericism in Europe"; "underground stream" is linked to the article on Alfeios, a Greek river system. But no explanation here is given for this particular link. As "underground stream" in the figurative sense is self-explanatory, unless someone can identify in the article why that particular river system is apropos, I would recommend simply removing the link. Al Begamut (talk) 19:08, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The link has been removed. --Loremaster (talk) 17:09, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Avis de décès de Monsieur Philippe TOSCAN DU PLANTIER paru le 09/03/2000 - département Paris - Libra Memoria https://www.libramemoria.com/defunts/toscan-du-plantier-philippe/5f4a528c29c246b983f46fa2ad4bc34a

THANKS Octavius88 (talk) 19:33, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Priory_of_Sion&oldid=1258164246"