Talk:Priory of Sion

"Myth", "debunked"

Can people please stop calling this a "myth"? It's misleading. Yes, journalists will use the word "myth" in this sense, and arguably "myth" in the sense of "lie" is a valid dictionary meaning, but it is still misleading, especially in a context where actual mythology is at least tangentially involved. Call it "hoax" or "narrative".

Also, the "Priory of Sion" cannot be "debunked" as unhistorical, as it is a perfectly real private association formed in 1956, and now considered "dormant". This society was formed as part of an elaborate hoax, but this doesn't make the society itself (or the hoax) unhistorical. What you mean is that the fake pedigree connecting the historical (1956) "Priory of Sion" to the just as historical (12th century) Abbey of Our Lady of Mount Zion has been debunked. --dab (𒁳) 16:55, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

No, not the same thing at all, and Plantard lifted stuff from history in order to embroider it into his fantasies. The original Priory of Sion terminated in late 1956 and the members all went their separate ways never to be involved in it again. It is silly in the extreme to compare the 1956 historical Priory of Sion with the 1960s fantasy Priory of Sion that introduced the Merovingian rubbish that is not "legend" but outright hoax. And it's not a great idea to replace the word "fantasy" with "narrative" - it should be called "fantasy narrative" peculiar and intrinsic to Pierre Plantard and his handful of cronies that since 1967 did not include Gerard de Sede because he did not share his book royalties with a fraudster (even though he helped create the fraud, de Sede himself being as much a questionable individual). --Dickie birdie (talk) 12:49, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

For your information, even the believers in Hokum in France would not quibble with these statements. The Priory of Sion is rejected by the French fringe. --Dickie birdie (talk) 12:51, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Case closed

1. The word "myth" has two definitions in all reliable dictionaries: 1) "a traditional story, especially one concerning the early history of a people or explaining some natural or social phenomenon, and typically involving supernatural beings or events"; and 2) "a widely held but false belief or idea". The interesting thing is that both definitions of the word "myth" apply to the so-called "Priory of Sion mysteries" therefore it is not misleading to use that word.

2. The second paragraph of the introduction of the Wikipedia article on the Priory of Sion specifically stated that it is the "mythical Priory of Sion" that has been debunked not the real fraternal organisation formed in 1956. In other words, the "mythical Priory of Sion" refers to the fictional history of the Priory of Sion written by Plantard as part of his hoax. However, for the sake of clarity, I've replaced the expression "mythical Priory of Sion" with "mythical history of the Priory of Sion".

3. Anyone who doubts that the "Priory of Sion mysteries" have been debunked as a hoax 1) is still under the spell of pseudohistorical books (The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail, The Messianic Legacy, The Magdalene Legacy, The Templar Revelation, etc.) written by self-proclaimed "independent researchers" who have never published their findings in academic or scholarly journals in order for their validity to be peer-reviewed by historians; 2) has never taken the time to actually read the articles and books written by journalists and scholars who have debunked them; and 3) is still unaware or willfully ignores the fact that even the con artists behind the Priory of Sion hoax, as well as some of the first independent researchers who reported it as true, have confessed that it was a hoax! In other words, the statement that the pre-1956 Priory of Sion is a myth/hoax is not a matter of opinion. It is a settled fact.

4. Although there may be a handful of groups that continue to claim to be the "real Priory of Sion", none of them have the importance and influence that people attribute to the mythical pre-1956 Priory of Sion nor do any of them prove the existence of the mythical pre-1956 Priory of Sion.

--Loremaster (talk) 13:19, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

This article has an unclear citation style

I suggest that all contributors to the Priory of Sion article follow the example of the Gospel of the Ebionites article when it comes to notes, citations and sources from now on. —-Loremaster (talk) 17:41, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Alleged "grand master"

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)

GA Reassessment

Priory of Sion

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)

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)

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.