Jump to content

Talk:Priory of Sion/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

---

Your definition for "Priory of Sion"

(Copied by →Raul654 from a message on the mailing list.)

Dear Sir,

Your definition for "Priory of Sion" in Wikepedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Priory_of_Sion

is a mish-mash of romantic twaddle.

I keep trying to change the definition by creating a more realistic account but my version keeps getting deleted. Furthermore, the link to our website: http://www.priory-of-sion.com is part of the useless romantic definition

I do not want that article to use a Link to our website because we do not want to be associated with that particular "definition" - it is pure nonsense.

I have used a partly translated chapter from a book by Pierre Jarnac as the main part of my definition - no copyright has been violated because Jarnac and myself interchange each other's material - he uses my material freely in his books.

I enclose the definition on the Priory of Sion that is a reasonable definition below this message - Is there any possibility that you can make this version stick without it being constantly deleted?

Thank you very much.

Most Sincerely Yours, Paul Smith




Pierre Jarnac, Les Archives de Rennes-le-Chateau pp.567-575 (1987)


Historical Note on the Priory of Sion

For the obviously capable reader who has an uncanny ability to transform a tiny French village of 70 inhabitants into the secret society capital of France, then the name "Priory of Sion", itself, appears to be a mysterious and untouchable entity. After the name of this organisation appears on the scene, one Pierre Plantard swiftly follows and with him a whole secret society seemingly hidden away for centuries re-emerges.

In reality, the name "Priory of Sion", given almost 40 years ago by Pierre Plantard to an organisation without any financial goals, is hardly original. Not only is the name "de Sion" found close to where Plantard lived, hence the mountain in Haute-Savoie called, "Mont Sion" on the route to Annecy-Geneva, this name also goes back to a religious community at the time of the Crusades, whose demise came after several centuries on the outskirts of Orleans.

In 1967, those for whom this confusion was to be most profitable, bestowed upon themselves the legacy of this ancient order, one that was far from their own. A book called the LIVRE DES CONSTITUTIONS DU PRIEURE DE SION, allegedly published in 1954 in Geneva and which to everyone's great chagrin has never been seen (it has been established by Pierre Jarnac that this book never existed), claimed a link with the original religious community called "Sion". The only trace of this Phantom Book is to be found in - guess where? - the Bibliotheque Nationale in one of those mysterious pamphlets that were deposited in the 1960s under the name "Dossiers Secrets".

Where a historical connection does emerge is that a "Priory of Sion" was recorded as having existed. Only its real name was the "Abbey of Notre Dame of Mount Sion", or "of the Mount of Sion". Godefroi de Bouillon, in 1099, founded the Abbey of Notre-Dame of Mount Sion in Jerusalem; it was a religious community comprised of monks. Situated at Saint-Jean of Acre it subsisted until 1187, however, in 1291, with the Muslims reclaiming Acre from the Crusades, the monks, having lost their possessions in the Holy Land, fled. The last of the monks from this order went to Sicily on the invitation of Count Roger and his wife, the Princess Adelasie.

In France other monks of this community, who were living close to Orleans, had previously been brought back by Louis VII in 1149 when he returned from the Crusades. They started a priory of Saint-Samson of Orleans. They were given a donation and confirmed by Pope Adrian in 1158. By 1281, this community was already in decline as there are records that show that only two members were in their choir, then in 1289 there was only one member. At this point in time the abbey was on the verge of extinction, but then its other members from Sicily came over to find refuge after years of persecution. This last community, for whom Henri IV offered to build an abbey, died out in the early part of the 17th century for various reasons such as lack of recruitment, ageing monks, no money, etc.

E.G. Rey, an archivist from Paris, living in Orleans during the 1880s became interested in the Abbey of Notre-Dame du Mont Sion. He found out that the archives of the Priory of Saint-Samson, repatriated from Sicily in the 14th century, were kept in the department of the Loiret, where they had been placed during the Revolution. Therein he discovered a Charter of the Acts for the Priory of Saint-Samson of Orleans. In particular, in the Act by Pope Alexander III there is confirmation that the Monks of Mount Sion are the owners of the Priory of Saint-Samson of Orleans. Rey was also able to compile a list of all the Abbots of Notre-Dame de Sion.

The only outstanding traits of this religious community are that they had an illustrious founder, Godefroi de Bouillon, and a religiously inspired name. Otherwise they were an Order without much history and void of prestige. Because of their relative obscurity they were probably chosen by Plantard and Co as perfect fodder for their bogus historical claims.


Note from Paul Smith:

In 1989, following a period of retirement from 1984, Pierre Plantard revived his bogus Priory of Sion with a new Pedigree and Mythological History - the "Dossiers Secrets" version of the Priory of Sion was rejected as a fraud with it being written under the influence of LSD in 1967 by Philippe Toscan du Plantier - the latest 1989 version of the Priory of Sion had nothing to do with either the Crusades or the Templars but had rather been founded in 1681 in Rennes-le-Chateau.

Pierre Plantard also concocted a new and different List of Grand Masters of the Priory of Sion that was to prove his downfall - he claimed that Roger Patrice Pelat had been a Grand Master. When the French Magistrate Thierry Jean-Pierre investigated the financial scandal involving Pelat he ordered the search of Plantard's house in 1993 that yielded a hoard of documents claiming that Plantard was the "true King of France" - detaining Plantard for a subsequent 48-hour interrogation Thierry Jean-Pierre forced a confession from Plantard that the claim was made up. Plantard was let-off with a warning - and he was never to revive his Priory of Sion activities again.

Plantard lived in hiding between 1993 and his death in 2000. This was not the first time that Plantard was in trouble with the French Legal System - Plantard had served time in prison previously during the 1940s and 1950s.

Reply to user. I am not interested in this topic and thus I am not interested in a debate over the appropriate tone of the article. However, the style of your edits was inappropriate. Replacing the article completely is, in most cases, not an appropriate way to edit it, especially with text that is strongly POV, as yours is. Your subseqent resort to outright vandalism in the article (like this [1]) will lead to immediate blocking if you do that again.
Furthermore, the copyright information you specified above regarding the book is grossly insufficient. To include such material would require written permission from the author for the material to be released under the GFDL.
But in any case, replacing the article wholesale is not a good maneuver and will be likely be reverted repeatedly by other edits. If you feel the article needs editing, by all means do so, but please respect the contribution and POV of others and edit the existing article, rather than replacing it. Even if your text were to become the article, you should realize that other edits would change it, likely restoring the very interpretation you wanted to purge. In short, if you want to make a lasting contribution to Wikipedia, please learn to work with other editors instead of riding roughshod over existing articles. -- Decumanus | Talk 18:17, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Paul, a link to your site was added to this article to serve as the best source for anti-Priory of Sion information. Although you may not have noticed, this article is skeptical about the Priory of Sion but in a subtle manner in order for neutrality to be presevered. However, I've added a few comments that I hope will satisfy you. Loremaster 22:09, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)

What concerns me about this is the apparent confounding of two unrelated strange ideas into the same article. What evidence is there to connect the Priory of Sion with the Elders of Zion? Eclecticology 21:49, 2004 Apr 15 (UTC)

There is no such evidence beyond the speculation contained in this excerpt from Holy Blood, Holy Grail. The Priory of Sion is largely known to the public through the claims made by Baigent, Leigh, and Lincoln in their book so it is therefore logical for the article to mention them. Loremaster 22:09, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Email exchange

I've been in contact with the above complaintent. Basically, he completely disagrees with the contents of this article and wants the link to his site removed. I am posting this here because it would be of interest to other users. Unless someone wants to work him to fix the article, I intend to comply, and consider the matter closed. →Raul654 00:35, Apr 16, 2004 (UTC)

My first email to Paul Smith

Mr. Smith -

Jimbo Wales posted the email you sent him to the Wikipedia mailing list, and encouraged others to look into the situation. On Wikipedia, each article has an associated discussion page, where people can comment on individual articles. I copied the comments you sent to Jimbo there (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Priory_of_Sion).

If you would like to address those who have been reverting your edits, you can go there and make your opinion known. If you have differences with what some others have to say, I would suggest you try to compromise with them and find a version both of you find acceptable. For the most part, our contributors are quite willing to discuss differences.

I hope this has been helpful.

--Mark **********
Wikipedia Administrator

His response

Mr **********,

Thank you for your e-mail but my account has been blocked by the person who writes the silly article about the Priory of Sion.

I am blocked from your website.

Sincerely,
Paul Smith

My 2nd email to Paul Smith

Mr. Smith:

The block would have expired in 24 hours, but I have unblocked you ahead of schedule. If you try to talk out your differences with other users, I promise you won't be blocked again.

--Mark

His 2nd response

Dear Sir,

Thank you very much for your e-mail and for unblocking me.

The article on Wikepedia on the Priory of Sion is a load of rubbish: pure romantic drivel that you can find everywhere else on the Internet. The French jetissoned it during the 1980s and Pierre Plantard has long been forgotten about in France (ditto the Priory of Sion).

PLEASE SIR, can you do something to delete the Link to our website www.priory-of-sion.com that exists on that awful article as we do not want to be linked with that article.

PLEASE SIR, can you do that?

Thank you very much............

Most Sincerely Yours,
Paul Smith

It sets a dangerous precedent that someone can come along and insist that we remove a link to his site. Web addresses are a matter of the public record. If he thinks that what is here is so bad, than his proper course of action is to make corrections, or to replace the text with something better. If he doesn't want people to link to his web site, perhaps he should take it off the net. Eclecticology 07:25, 2004 Apr 16 (UTC)

If so, then let me make this crystal clear - I did not remove because he insisted. I removed it because he requested it, and not seeing any harm in complinging, I made a judgement call to do it. Should he have insisted on anything, I probably would have been inclined to do the exact opposite. →Raul654 13:51, Apr 16, 2004 (UTC)
Although is some sense Ec is right, I think it was a polite request and even though we can link there, we lose nothing by not linking. Their proper course is not editing (you have no obligation to do anything to preserve your image), but asking for help. He did try to enhance the article but I think he got tired, though. I am with Raul here. And with Mr. Paul Smith. Pfortuny 20:25, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Paul Smith is overreacting. One would think that he would appreciate that this article links to his website in order for people to find out the truth about the Priory of Sion as he sees it. The article as it is written is meant to be both intriguing and skeptical at the same time in order to remain neutral and avoid a dispute between pro-Priory and anti-Priory editors. It puzzles me that he still can't see this. Oh well! The whinning won't keep me up at night... Loremaster 20:55, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)

This is a subject that's just full of weirdness. I suspect, more than anything, that Paul was reacting to Decumanus' heavy-handed approach. Eclecticology 08:22, 2004 Apr 17 (UTC)

I'm out of reverts for today and the anon vandal keeps coming back and demanding that a link be removed. I don't know why he doesn't just remove the link if he wants it done so badly. Guanaco 16:04, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)

moved from article

[ Raul654 ] withdrew the Link to www.priory-of-sion.com from the fantasy article below and it has been put back on.

I have lodged a complaint with J Wales about this.

The article below is pure fantasy and remove the Link to www.priory-of-sion.com [--195.92.168.179 ]

Why was the link removed? A demand from a vandal is not proper justification to delete something. I would put it back myself if the vandal hadn't caused me to hit the revert limit. Guanaco 21:07, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I removed it (sorry about the IP - it logged me out after I hit save). I took it out because (as we discussed above) we recieved a legitimate request to the mailing list asking that it be taken out. He didn't start vandalizing it until *after* the link was restored. Now, as I said, I don't see any harm in honoring his request and taking it out of the article. →Raul654 21:14, Apr 18, 2004 (UTC)
I find Smith's behaviour to be quite bizarre in this matter. It is quite understandable that an article about the plight of Jews during World War II would not want a link to a Holocaust Denial site because that site makes a mockery of the truth. What we have here is the exact opposite. Smith is highly critical of the Wikipedia article, and probably with good reason. But rather than seeking improvements to the article, he attempts to forbid linkage to his own site, which he presumably considers to be more factually correct. By linking to his site one would hope that the reader would be exposed to a more objective interpretation of a very muddled subject area.
Some of us do agree with Smith's general evaluation of the article, and have attempted to meet specific problems with various improvemtnts to the article. The latest round of whingeing from Smith suggests that he is ready to ignore any such attempts, and that he is even more hostile to the improved article than to its antecedents.
I don't see what he hopes to accomplish by his complaints to Jimbo. Jimbo has consistently avoided being an arbiter of fact in these disputes, and it may amaze Smith to know that that has been one of Jimbo's most significant personal policies contributing to the real growth of Wikipedia. Complaints of this sort about a wide range of topics are common, and I'm confident that many of them are never made public. A good parent avoids taking sides when his children are squabbling; he limits his intervention to matters affecting the safety of those children and their environment.
I restored the link, and will continue to do so, because I feel that Mr. Smith's site provided significant insights into the subject. My feeling that this is a justified act is not diminished. If Mr. Smith does not want people to link to his website, why does he even bother to put it up? Eclecticology 21:23, 2004 Apr 18 (UTC)

In conversations with Mr. Smith, I believe the problem is that the article, as presently written, is apparently complete nonsense. It appears that some prior authors may have been taken in by a hoax? In any event, Paul Smith appears to be sincere, and grateful that we are not interested in publishing fantasy in the place of an encyclopedia article. Now, all that is needed is for one or more of us to get intruigued enough to really dig in and get to the bottom of this so that the article can be improved. I suggest (not order or command!) that we give Mr. Smith a free hand in improving the article, since he seems to know a lot about it, and then improve on it from there.

If I've overlooked something important (possible, because I've mainly been corresponding with Paul Smith, not anyone else, so maybe I don't have a clue here), please let me know. Jimbo Wales 15:50, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I did not enter this debate until Jimbo mentioned it on the mailing list. By that time all that Mr. Smith was doing was removing the link to his site; I did not see that as an attempt to improve the article. From what I grasp from Smith's website (and that site is quite extensive) his primary (and likely correct) thesis relates to establishing that Pierre Plantard was a fraud and hoaxter. Mr. Smith should indeed feel free to improve the article, but he should also be prepared to accept that there are others who may interpret the topic differently. I think that User:Decumanus got the whole discussion off on the wrong foot when, after proclaiming that he knew nothing about the subject, he simply reverted on the grounds that it was not acceptable to replace whole articles. He proceeded to treat Smith as a vandal, and threatened wiki sanctions if Smith did not comply.
Mr. Smith does not help his case by failing to become a registered user. Doing so would go far toward improving his credibility. Most of are justifiably suspicious of anonymous IPs. Being a registered user would also allow others to better communicate with him.
It is easy to become intrigued with this subject. The French have been doing that for centuries, and that's part of the problem. Getting to the bottom of it may never go beyond the status of a dream. We can only hope for incremental improvements. The big problem is with the subject itself. It attracts 2,000 year old threads of delusion, conspiracy theories, and speculation like static electricity attracts lint, then proceeds to weave them into a tapestry of confusion. Eclecticology 21:54, 2004 Apr 19 (UTC)

As the main contributor to the Priory of Sion article and the person who added the link to Paul Smith's website, I am surprised and disappointed by this dispute. It is because I have always been skeptical of the Priory of Sion mystery that I added the link in the first place. I wrote the article as I did not because I have been taken it by the hoax but because I know that an article that is too critical would be edited by pro-Priory editors if not properly written and backep up with sources. Regardless, I am saddened that Paul Smith would resort to the immature tactic of flamming me through my talk page with the following message:

LOREMASTER IS A NUTCASE HE DOES NOT JUST NEED MEDICAL TREATMENT - HE NEEDS BRAIN SURGERY Paul Smith

My only response is that my respect for him has greatly diminished. Perhaps blocking him is in order. Loremaster 00:16, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

As I've said, I find his behaviour puzzling to say the least. I'll give him a few days to come to his senses before I put the link back on the page. Eclecticology 09:27, 2004 Apr 20 (UTC)
Since I've edited the Priory of Sion article to address all the concerns mentioned here, I've removed the dispute message. I hope everyone will be satisfied but I'm not holding my breath. Perhaps Paul Smith would care to expand the Pierre Plantard article instead of trying to start a flame war. Loremaster 20:15, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Nothing raises suspicion of bias more than beginning an article with "It is both an objective and unbiased fact that..." Eclecticology 18:20, 2004 Apr 26 (UTC)

I agree. I've reverted the article to its previous page. Loremaster 22:14, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)

To all future editors:

1. The current introduction that mentions the speculation surrounding the Priory of Sion; and the variations on its name is necessary, which is why I have edited back in and will continue to do so.

2. I am editing out superfluous material which made the reading of the article tedious and whose absence would not diminish our understanding of the Priory of Sion hoax. If people are really interested in those irrelevant details, they can simply check out the Pierre Plantard Archives through the link at the bottom of the page.

3. Please remember that the article is supposed to be a neutral entry in an online encyclopedia not an editorial therefore one should write accordingly. Some comments should be posted on the talk page rather than in the article itself.

Loremaster 17:58, 9 May 2004 (UTC)

On May 9th, Paul wrote the following message in my user description page:

Will you STOP describing the 1956 Priory of Sion as a "charity" - it was an opposition to the Council of Annemasse that it attacked relentlessly in its journal, Circuit. And there is no "mystery" surrounding the name "Priory of Sion." Will you STOP being a jackass. If you carry on sabotaging the facts you will be reading about yourself and Wikipedia on www,priory-of-sion.com - which you like providing a Link to....

1. Please stop editing my user page to talk to me. That's what my user talk page is for.

2. I assume that you are intelligent and mature enough not to have to resort to insults, personal attacks and threats when making a point or a request. It is needlessly inflammatory and counter-productive.

3. I am not sabotaging the facts nor being a jackass. I described the 1956 Priory of Sion as a charity for lack of a better word because, as far I can tell, it was a non-profit organization fighting for low-cost housing and social solidarity unless shown evidence of the contrary. There is nothing necessarily sinister about the Priory of Sion attacking the Council of Annemasse or property developers.

4. I never said there was a mystery surrounding the name "Priory of Sion." I said that 1) there are many variations on the name of the organization and 2) there WAS speculation about what the Priory of Sion is until it was proven to be a hoax. These are introductory facts that people should be aware of.

5. Although the Priory of Sion is a proven hoax and Pierre Plantard a busted liar, you have to be careful to not let your justified cynicism turn into McCarthyite zealotry. You seem to be too emotionally involved in debunking the Priory of Sion hoax. You should really try to cultivate a professional detachment from the subject or, at the very least, learn some behavior guidelines.

6. As long I follow the rules of Wikipedia, I can edit this article as I please. It doesn't belong to either of us.

Loremaster 23:59, 15 May 2004 (UTC)

Paul Smith writes

None of those who have written for Wikipedia on the Priory of Sion really know what they are writing about - none of them have consulted the Priory Documents, none of them know about the activities of Pierre Plantard between 1937-1993, none of them know about the history about the actual story itself in France - showing how various French authors over the years have used this subject matter in that country until its final and ultimate demise during the mid-1980s. When Plantard tried to make a PoS comeback in France 1988 with a revised and modified version of his myth he was already a forgotten man and considered a joke of the past there, without a single author bothering to promote his latest concoctions. The latest attempt to revive this myth in France by Gino Sandri has been universally ignored there - where Gino Sandri is devoid of any credibility whatsoever. Don't take my word for it. Don't do that. Go to France and find out for yourselves first hand.

Paul Smith

Mr Smith, I have placed your comments at the bottom of the page, which is where new comments should be. I must admit I find your action and approach to this issue to be bizarre. Why do you have to be so dismissive and confrontational? All of the articles on Priory of Sion topics very clearly present the view that the P of S was a hoax concocted by Plantard, and yet from the above remarks of yours one would think they said the opposite. Yes, the articles do not aggressively insist on Plantard's guilt, they attempt to maintain a neutral point of view while still clearly indicating what the dominant viewpoint is. That's reasonable don't you think? Your approach, instead of to assist and improve, has in the past been to vandalise the articles. Paul B 10:40, 5 June, 2005 (UTC)


THERE IS STILL A SUBSTANTIAL AMOUNT OF UTTER BOLONEY IN THE ARTICLE - THE THEORIES OF BAIGENT, LINCOLN AND LEIGH - WHERE THEY SUPERIMPOSED THEIR OWN NEW TESTAMENT OBSESSIONS OVER THE PLANTARD MYTHS - IS A DISTRACTION AND SHOULD NOT BE INCLUDED.

AS FOR ME BEING "DISMISSIVE" READ THE LATEST BOOKS ON PLANTARD AND THE PRIORY OF SION THAT HAVE BEEN PUBLISHED IN FRANCE. THEY ARE A BREATH OF FRESH AIR COMPARED TO THE CESSPIT OF NONSENSE THAT YOU HAVE TO OFFER ON THIS SUBJECT MATTER ON WIKIPEDIA.

YOU CANNOT EVEN REPRODUCE THE CORRECT LIST OF GRAND MASTERS FROM THE DOSSIERS SECRETS (THAT PLANTARD PILLAGED FROM A LIST DEVISED BY FRENCH AMORC AND COPIED INTO THE PRIORY DOCUMENTS).

Paul Smith

Yes, the "baloney" has to be in the article so that readers can understand why the Priory of Sion has become famous, what the arguments of the people who made it so were – and what the arguments against their claims are. If you don't understand that you don't understand what a neutral point of view is. If the list of grand masters is incorrect, why don't you correct it instead of spewing abuse? Paul B 11:15, 3 August, 2005 (UTC)

You keep deleting corrections provided by me to the article, and then you progress to calling me a "Vandal" - just because you demand to present the Holy Blood and Holy Grail version of the Priory of Sion at the expense of the true factual history of the subject matter. For example, Godfrey de Bouillon never founded an "Order of Sion" during the first crusade in Jerusalem - the actual proper name of the Order was the Abbey de Notre Dame de Mont Sion and this comes from French Scholarly articles of the 19th century - are you going to keep deleting this correction as well?

Pierre Plantard was the main protagonist to this subject-matter. And Plantard rejected the treatment given to his creation by the authors of 'The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail' that you continually demand to promote. I think that the creator's opinions of his own subject matter are more important to what is written in some worldwide pulp bestseller that distorted what Plantard originally intended to create.

I have provided a factual summary of the Priory of Sion between 1956-1961. Are you going to delete that addition as well, and call me a "vandal" - because I refuse to promote an accretion to a subject matter on the basis of some "popularity"?

Paul Smith (4 September 2005 - and it is September and not August).

Of course Baigent, Leigh and Lincoln should be included! The article should discuss what Plantard claimed and how it differs from BL&L, and also what critics hasve said about both. It should be COMPREHENSIVE. If it weren't for BL&L barely anone would have heard of the Priory of Sion. The "baloney" is part of the history of the subject.
And there is no single "you" who deletes your additions. If you want to make sure thast correct information is not deleted, you have to keep an eye on the article and remove the addition of false information. That's how this open access encyclopedia works. Removing false information does not mean removing references to the theories of B,L&L, or of the characters in the Da Vinci Code, since it is correct to say that these authors have claimed X, Y and Z. If you wish to ensure that accuracy is maintained then explain your edits here. If you point out why you are making corrections, and your explanation is reasonable, then most editors will support you. Paul B 12:12, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Paul Smith: the return

Please note that 195.92.168.167 A.K.A Paul Smith is also now user:Wfgh447, i tried to convince him to use this talk page but he still won't. Martin - The non-blue non-moose 08:33, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

That's right --- confine everything to the Discussion Page so to distract attention away from the looney content of the article. What an original strategy!

Get this: Plantard was a nutcase and the Priory of Sion was his fantasy. A bigger fantasy soon found its way into 'The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail' which was too lunatic even for Plantard who distanced himself from it on several occasions. Plantard's Priory of Sion had nothing at all to do with the "protection of Jesus Christ's bloodline" like you freaks here believe.

Paul Smith

Smith's bizarre actions

I know he has not commented of late, but Mr. Paul Smith's behaviour, in my opinion, gives credence to the Priory of Sion story. Somebody this insane can't be serious.

128.61.41.39 10:37, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Priory_of_Sion/Archive_2&oldid=298747066"