Talk:Priory of Sion

Bruce Burgess

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" [1]. Lung salad (talk) 11:00, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Here's something relating to Rob Howells [2] 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... ;) --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...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. 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. --Loremaster (talk) 19:45, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

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

Don't forget the uncivil nonsense here, this is a violation of No personal attacks 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 --Loremaster (talk) 21:52, 8 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. 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. --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". 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. --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. 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. Paul B (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 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 --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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.123.16.245 (talk) 15:05, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

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... 74.111.24.125 (talk) 02:30, 14 March 2013 (UTC)tominrochester

Contributions

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. Lung salad (talk) 09:50, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

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. --Loremaster (talk) 21:21, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

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 Paul B, and this was considered adequate. And I provided the information to the article in the first place. Lung salad (talk) 21:36, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Paul actually replaced the word “facts” with “assertions”. I support his edit but not yours. --Loremaster (talk) 22:21, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

It's the same thing. Lung salad (talk) 22:34, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

It's better phrased and less confusing than what you wrote, which is the point I always keep making. --Loremaster (talk) 03:27, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

real and fictitious

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? --BjKa (talk) 12:21, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

My reaction as well, @BjKaltalk. --Sile

The History section of the article focuses on the real group while the rest of the article focuses on the fictitious one. --Loremaster (talk) 22:14, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

SHOW IT ALL NOW

the easy way to Lose a mystery in a fog or shadow is to archive parts of this debate area. show all archives immediately.Blondeignore (talk) 00:44, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

I changed it from the misleading "multiple groups, both real and fictitious" to reflect the fact that the entire topic is connected to Plantard's 1956 group. Technically, Plantard's group existed de facto only during 1956, but the entire "hoax" was supposed to be a backstory to his outfit, so it is misleading to imply that there is one "real" and one "fictitious" group. It's all about Plantard, his group, and his hoax. It's "real" in the sense that he went to the local town hall and officially registered his group under the same name he gave to his world conspiracy. --dab (𒁳) 20:46, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

"One of the great hoaxes"

Who classified it as "one of the great hoaxes of the 20th century"? It seems its reception in the Anglosphere is severely distorted by the Dan Brown debacle of 2003ff (which is in the 21st century). The notability of the actual hoax seems to have remained rather limited. Who says it was a "cause celèbre" even in France? It was created in 1961ff. and it was apparently soundly debunked by 1980, so it had a lifetime of about 20 years, and was presumably not widely known during all this time. Perhaps it had some notability for a few years prior to being debunked in the 1970s (following the Chronicle documentaries)? But it would seem that any such superlatives require references supplied by whoever wishes to insert them into the article.

Fwiiw, here is a "listserve.com" list of 10 Great Hoaxes of the Twentieth Century, and the "Priory of Sion" is not on it. --dab (𒁳) 19:17, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

ok, so here is another "Top 10 Famous Hoaxes" list on listserve.com, where the Priory of Sion features as number six. It was posted by one Jamie Frater in 2007. Idk, this seems pretty random. We could say that "Jamie Frater on listserve.com counted it among the top 10 famous hoaxes", but this doesn't feel very rewarding, especially as the Wikipedia claim regarding "one of the great hoaxes" presumably predates 2007 and may well have influenced such internet lists. --dab (𒁳) 19:21, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

fine, I found something quotable, it's "France's greatest twentieth-century literary hoax" according to Katsoulis (2010). --dab (𒁳) 20:37, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

What will happen

What will happen once the bloodliine is found .is it possible to determine if the bloodline is the right one .my family name is de Thierry.i belive im part of the last remaining bloodline of the merovingian dynasty.