This is an archive of past discussions about Priory of Sion. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
To avoid a POV dispute, please provide sources to support claims you add to the article otherwise they will be removed. Also, check your spelling. Loremaster 21:30, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Jeffrey Lang edits
Twice, someone has edited this article to allege that someone named "Jeffrey Lang" (from either Karlstat or Manchester...) was involved in exposing the Priory of Sion hoax. I think this was vandalism, but if there actually is anything to it, someone should provide a source. Gwimpey 20:51, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)
'Hoax' claim usubstantiated?
Though it states in the introduction that the Priory is confirmed as a hoax, nothing in the text seems to support this. Comment? Pedant 15:03, 2004 Dec 23 (UTC)
Although extensive information confirming that the Priory of Sion is a hoax is provided in the External links section, the last paragraph of the History section mentions that "in 1993, thinking he was dealing with a P2-like organization at first, Judge Thierry Jean-Pierre investigated and suppressed all activities related to the Priory of Sion hoax." I'll edit the wording for clarification. Loremaster 15:27, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Maybe a "Hoax" section is in order, explaining why the PoS is regarded as a hoax. Someone lately seems to be trying to remove that from the article. Gwimpey 20:39, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)
I don't think a Hoax section is necessary because the entire History section is quite clear about the reasons why the Priory of Sion is a hoax and the majority of these claims are supported by the Priory of Sion: The Pierre Plantard Archives 1937-1993, which can be found in the External links section. Loremaster 21:12, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
POV Check
The recent additions by Loremaster, as well as the article as a whole, seem to me to be in need of a POV-check although I'm not knowledgeable enough about the subject to do it myself. Haukurth 19:24, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Those were not my additions. They were made by 68.78.233.244 and 68.248.166.249. I have reverted the article to an older version that was free of POV. Loremaster 04:23, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Phrasing
The following sentence seems very long and convoluted. By the time you get to the end it is not clear who 'these authors' are.
"French authors like Franck Marie (1978), Jean-Luc Chaumeil (1979, 1984, 1992) and Pierre Jarnac (1985, 1988) have never taken Pierre Plantard and the Priory of Sion as seriously as Baigent, Lincoln and Leigh, always concluding that it was all a hoax in their respective books and outlining the reasons for their verdicts that these authors never reported comprehensively since their books were pro-conspiracy-theory-oriented."
How about changing it to:
French authors like Franck Marie (1978), Jean-Luc Chaumeil (1979, 1984, 1992) and Pierre Jarnac (1985, 1988) have never taken Pierre Plantard and the Priory of Sion as seriously as Baigent, Lincoln and Leigh. They quickly concluded that it was all a hoax, outlining in detail the reasons for their verdict, and giving detailed evidence that the Holy Blood authors had not reported comprehensively. They imply that this evidence had been ignored by Baigent, Lincoln and Leigh in order to bolster the mythic version of the Priory's history. Paul B 12:31, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
November 2005.
Based on the available evidence, if Plantard believed in the JC bloodline, he and his acolyte, de Cherisey, would have forged a document and attached a fake date on it in order to lay the ground for some researcher to identify Plantard as the descendant of JC. To the best of my knowledge, that was their style. But there is strictly no evidence that he had forged such documents; 'all' Plantard wanted was to create the impression that he was the rightful heir to the French throne - apparently such notions/fantasies are common and mainly harmless.
Politis
I hesitate to get involved in any way on this page, but I wanted to mention something about the Latin...there isn't really a rule against using "ego sum", it's an acceptable way to say "I am", it's just kind of redundant in Latin. Either word on its own can mean "I am" - that's what "sum" always means, but the pronoun alone can also imply the verb "to be". I understand that motto has to be a certain way for anagrammatical purposes or whatever, but I thought I would mention this anyway. Adam Bishop16:49, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
This is right, from a Latinist's perspective. I deleted some inaccurate statements about Latin grammar. Both the Latin and the English, "And in Arcadia I," require one to supply the verb "am"/"sum" for the phrase to mean anything. On that basis, supplying "sum" makes sense in terms of Latin grammar. Ron Kane 3/10/06.
What is right? What you say actually contradicts what Adam Bishop says. He says "ego sum" is "kind of redundant in Latin", which is exactly what the page said. You say "both the Latin and the English, 'And in Arcadia I', require one to supply the verb "am"/"sum" for the phrase to mean anything." I'm no Latinist myself, but your view seems to be the non-mainstream one here. It's also worth noting that this phrase was not invented by Poussin, but is first known to appear in a painting by Guercino, so if it has any special hidden meaning, then Guercino would be the source of it, not Poussin - a fact that makes nonsense of most claims about the Poussin painting. Not that Guercino probably invented it himself. It's typical of the kind of tags that appear in emblem books at the time.Paul B23:18, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
I believe it is more redundant in classical Latin than in medieval/liturgical Latin, which generally does not leave the "sum" implied. At least, that's what I remember from Latin class. CaliforniaKid17:21, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
Archeological find?
Hi. I live in Caen, France. Caen is located in the normandy region. A few years back there was a large castle restored near where i live. While tearing down a wall the workers found a chamber that was not known to the new owners. It was a medium-small room that held several chests and desks. In the furniture the workers found some old documents. When given to the local historian( Perrie howvarve) he said they were at least 300 years old and said Prieurede Sion on the front and it had some paragraphs and then a list of names. If anyone knows anything about the subject please list it.
I think you can find Priory of Sion discussion groups online that would more appropriate to discuss your alleged discovery. This page should only be used to talk about the content of the Wikipedia article on the Priory of Sion. --Loremaster16:19, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
Internal inconsistency
At the end of the "Plantard Plot" and at the beginning of the "Holy Blood Holy Grail" sections we read,
Plantard and de Cherisey needed to create 'independent evidence'. So during the 1960s, they deposited a series of forged documents, the so-called Dossiers Secrets or "Secret Dossiers", at the Bibliothèque nationale de France (BnF), in Paris. Therefore, people who set out to research the 'Priory of Sion' would come across these fake documents at the BnF. One of those researchers was Henry Lincoln... Lincoln joined forces with Michael Baigent and Richard Leigh. Their research led to the pseudohistorical Secret Files of Henri Lobineau at the BN, compiled by Plantard and de Cherisey under the pseudonyme of "Philippe Toscan du Plantier"; the three authors also met up with Plantard and de Sede.
This seems to make quite clear that "Plantier" was a Plantard pseudonym and the Lobineau documents were forged. In the "alleged grand masters" section, however, we read:
The following list of Grand Masters is derived from Les Dossiers Secrets d'Henri Lobineau compiled by Philippe Toscan du Plantier (1967)... A second List of the Grand Masters of the Priory of Sion that included the names of Roger Patrice Pelat and Thomas Plantard appeared in 1989, but it should not be confused with the above list that belonged to a version of the Priory of Sion that Plantard rejected. When Plantard tried to make a comeback and a revival of the Priory of Sion in 1989 following his retirement in 1984 he claimed that the above list was bogus and a part of the "Secret Files", which by then had been exposed as a fraud by French researchers and authors.
This intimates that Plantard was lying when he confessed to the forgery of the Plantier list, and that the list really was compiled by someone named Plantier. It also intimates that the connection between the Plantier list and the Lobineau files is established only by Plantard's "claim".
This inconsistency is confusing and should be resolved. It seems to me that the latter argument is probably misleading, and the Plantier document was probably associated with the Lobineau files even before Plantard "claimed" he had forged them. But I am fairly unfamiliar with the issue, so any help a more informed individual could provide would be appreciated.
Thanks. I made an edit to try to clarify the sequence of events. Feel free to further edit or revert if I got it wrong. CaliforniaKid19:58, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
Ref template
Please note that the {{ref}} template and note system has been deprecated in favour of the <ref> and <references /> system. See WP:FN. Any new references should use this system. Ansell23:22, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
NPOV? Bold claims pertaining to Da Vinci Code trial
"In early 2006, Baigent and Leigh filed suit against Brown's publishers, Random House, alleging that significant portions of The Da Vinci Code were taken from Holy Blood, Holy Grail, and are copyright violations. They lost the case. Nevertheless, it is obvious that most of what Dan Brown "knows" about the Priory is based on their book, which in turn is inspired by the Secret Dossiers that Plantard and his companions salted into the French National Archive.
Brown also worked into his plot Baigent, Lincoln and Leigh's theories regarding the ultimate "secret" of the Priory: Jesus and Mary Magdalene were married, their descendants intermarried with the Merovingians, and the sacred bloodline survives into modern times. In the universe of the novel, unlike our own, this scenario seems to be widely accepted among historians and academics (while the general public remains ignorant because of the influence of the Bible and the Church). In short, The Da Vinci Code describes a world where Pierre Plantard's hoax was the truth, where the Secret Dossiers were genuine and not forgeries, and where people who support such ideas are reputable historians rather than conspiracy theorists and fringe researchers."''
Right. Firstly, "it is obvious that most of what Dan Brown "knows" about the Priory is based on their book" is arrogant, undocumented, and spiteful. Dan Brown claimed in the case that he read HBHG after writing the Code, which is a claim that can be documented with sources, unlike what's there now. The debate surrounding this in the trial can be included, but the way it is, this is unacceptable. Saying "what Dan Brown "KNOWS"" with such obvious contempt and disapproval isn't acceptable either. "Writes" would be OK, but I think what I've written justifies the removal or rewriting of the above paragraph.
The second paragraph claims that Brown worked into his plot HBHG theories, despite Brown's claims to the contrary, and the court ruling in his favour. It also claims that the book presents an alternate universe. This is not true. It presents our own universe, with the claim that it is our own, and with the claim that differs from the status quo on the subject. Simply saying that, instead of writing off the entire book and its plot as copying others' ideas and falsifying history, would be acceptable. The two paragraphs that are here now are not. In fact, they seem immature and unprofessional in their rhetoric and argumentation in a manner that is insulting to, and disrespectful of, Dan Brown and his fans.
I'm putting an NPOV warning at the top of The Da Vinci Code section.
I just changed the wording around to be more neutral and less presumptious, it now makes it clear that not all experts and scholars agree that Dan Brown read HBHG before writing the Code. 128.175.93.5118:17, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
--User:Punanimal This article is written with abundantly clear prejudice - for example the use of the word 'evidence' in single quotes makes the author's cynical viewpoint very clear. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.68.168.38 (talk • contribs) 09:07, 25 April 2006.
Whether Brown's claims, made in the context of a lawsuit against him, are credible is one thing. However, he needn't have read HBHG to be familiar with its content, as HBHG is the originator of a whole range of literature. So even if Brown has read HBHG only after finishing DVC (or rather most of it, after all the book appears in the novel) he clearly has all Priory ideas originally from HBHG.
I find it disgusting that Wikipedia is wasting Paul Smith's valuable material.
The subject matter is well known in France. Nowadays, there is enough documentation available to allow an impartial observer to establish, without the slightest shadow of doubt, that the Priory of Sion is a hoax.
I've been researching the Priory of Sion saga since 1996, I've accessed "fac simile" reproductions of all the relevant original documents. I've written and published in Portugal a 400 page book complete with transcriptions of real historical documents, so I know what I'm talking about. It is pure nonsense to write a Wikipedia article using mainly pseudo-history claims taken from The Da Vinci Code and from Holy Blood, Holy Grail.
Mr. Smith's anger is understandable. I know that an open source encyclopedia is difficult do maintain, but readers should be protected by the mythmaking maniacs and Priory lovers. Historical truth should not be deleted!
It is pretty easy to find Mr. Smith's work and impartiality often quoted and recognised by all the major experts on this subject. In fact, Mr. Smith is one of the major experts on the subject matter. He has been conducting a profound research on this matter for the last decades and he has collected a vast archive of historical data. Trying to ignore Mr. Smith's expertise is not acceptable at all.
(author of "Do Enigma de Rennes-le-Château ao Priorado de Sião"[2], Lisbon, April 2005).
I find your comments as bizarre and incomprehnsible s Mr Smith's. This article states repeatedly that the Piory story is a hoax. The introduction states "It has been characterized as anything from the most influential secret society in Western history to a modern Rosicrucian-esque ludibrium, but has ultimately been considered a hoax. Most of the evidence presented in support of claims pertaining to its historical existence, let alone significance, has not been considered authentic or persuasive by established historians, academics and universities. There was a very small medieval monastic order known as the Priory of Sion, but it and all its assets were absorbed by the Jesuits in 1617." The same view is repeated over and over in more detail throughout the article. Only someone with blinkers on could miss it. Paul B15:16, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Reply to Paul B
In my opinion, the article is not explicit enough. I understand that you see in the article a concern for neutrality, which is good, but when the facts are facts, no one should avoid presenting them as facts. You see, if the Priory of Sion is a CLEAR hoax, if one starts using words as "but has ultimately been considered a hoax", one is not being totally neutral. Do I make myself clear?
Let's try to make a simple comparison...
If I'd write something like "Hitler has ultimately been depicted as a dictator", would I be neutral? Why not write simply "Hitler was a dictator"?
I recognise that this article has evolved greatly. In its present form, it is full of important information. My remarks about Paul Smith's credibility are not to be seen JUST in the context of the article's present form, but more generally in context of the unexplainable battle fought these last months by some people against Paul Smith's presentation of historical facts.
Do you want me to send you a copy of E G Rey's 1888 article where he refers to THE ABBEY OF SION (EMPHASIS - NOT "PRIORY OF SION")? You keep altering everything to "Priory" when no such description applies at all - even a Papal Communication refers to the religious community as an ABBEY OF SION (transcribed by E G Rey in his article).
Why do you keep changing things to "Priory of Sion" all the time?
I'll send you a copy of Rey's article - don't take my word for it - read Rey's article.
I'll send you a scan - what's your e-mail address?
Paul Smith.
I haven't changed anything from "Abbey of Sion" to "Priory of Sion" as far as I know. If such a change has been made, then someone else made it. AFIK, the shorthand terminology for the medieval organisation is usually given as "Order of Sion" (or "Zion", the spelling is simply a matter of preference). An article at that title already exists, and I have linked to it. My email address is paul.barlow@unn.ac.uk. Paul B14:29, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
IMPORTANT:Discovery about the "The Da Vinci Code"
On the back page, there is a word which can explain all the mysteries, puzzles and contraversy it has set forth ....
FICTION
History of the Tomb and owners section
I've deleted a new section and text which was added by Paul Smith because this article is about the Priory of Sion not some tangent on the Et in Arcadio ego tomb. I've also added a merge tag in the relevant section in light of this point. --Loremaster19:50, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
"Some tangent on the Et in Arcadia ego" motto has been in the article since it began in April 2004.[3] It's got longer, for sure, like the other sections, but it seems odd suddenly to object to its presence now. Paul B00:14, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
The section that was "added" was just a subdivision title. No new content was added. However, I was referring to the merger tag you have added to the section itself. A merger usually implies that the two articles are completely absorbed into eachother so that one ceases to exist (Wikipedia:Merging and moving pages). It's debatable what counts as specifically "Priory" material, but since the debate concerning the history of the tomb is directly connected to the claims of Lincoln et al and their imitators it seems relevant. Paul B07:15, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
You are correct. I therefore only object to the new subdivision title. As for the content, I simply think it should be more concise. I will remove the merge tag. --Loremaster14:43, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
You are also, I think, correct that it's too long and too tangental in parts. I've resisted moving this material to the Et in Arcadia ego article, because i felt that it was a more "traditional" art historical article that should not become too heavy with conspiracy theory (a problem was some art history articles). But I think you are right that it's time to move these details re the history of the Les Pontiles tomb. Paul B20:05, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
The Plantard Plot section
Although I agree the Plantard Plot section used to be too long, it has now been reduced to an uninformative stub so I've restored most of the information. --Loremaster15:39, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Lead
There was a very small medieval monastic order known as the Abbey of Sion, but it and all its assets were absorbed by the Jesuits in 1617. The mistake is often made that this Abbey of Sion was a "Priory of Sion", but there is a difference between an Abbey and a Priory. The French scholar Emmanuel Rey discovered the historical references to the L'Abbaye de Notre-Dame du Mont-Sion and published his findings in 1888 (Mémoires de la Société nationale des antiquaires de France, tome XLVIII) - the File Reference Number to this article in the French National Library in Paris is 8-O2F-762.
On the removal of the section 'French scholar Emmanuel Rey'. It has to stay out. If we are to include this reference, we might as well start including all the Greek and Latin references to Sion... including the Swiss city of Sion, etc... Politis16:21, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
I agree. I've incorporated the first half of this paragrah in the The Plantard Plot section while the second half was moved to the Order of Sion article. --Loremaster16:26, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Order of Sion, Abbey of Sion
There was no official organization named the Order of Sion so I've created an article for the Abbey of Sion. I've moved an edited version of the content from the Order of Sion page to this new article and placed a redirect tag on the old page. --Loremaster17:39, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
If it's a "monastic order" in the "abbey of mount Zion", then "Order of Sion" or Order of Zion" is surely a legitimate short form for the "Monastic Order of the Abbey of Notre-Dame of Mount Sion". Surely this terminology should not be presented as a fabrication, but as a legitimate, but certainly manipulative, way of contracting and spelling the name of the order, to stress the similarity to the name "Priory of Sion". Paul B16:33, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
I disagree but only to a certain extent since Paul Smith's overzealous debunking is responsible for giving the impression that everything is a fabrication. However, I think the term "abbey" is being used as a synonym for "order" rather than "monastery". Regardless, the official name is the Abbey de Notre Dame de Mont Sion and therefore should be refered to as such. --Loremaster16:45, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
In light of the fact that this user is engaging in unWikipedian behavior but hasn't *recently* crossed the line into vandalism yet, I won't push this issue further. Futhermore, I will edit the article to reflect a compromise that accomodate the views of all parties involved in this dispute. --Loremaster15:12, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
The entire article is written by those having no knowledge of the subject.
O yes they know the Plantard story which has little or nothing to do with the real story of the ancient PS - Priore of Sion. Except Plantards very real input was putting out the very ancient symbols of the PS which PROVE ENTIRELY the existence and workings of the PS down through history for approximately 5000 years of recorded time, and perhaps back seeral 100s of 1000s of years before that .... As the PS Symbol creates changes that begin deification to one that has the "seeds" - genetic history to be deified. And the Sword symbols are example of the power possessed by one deified that of easy annihilation, lliterally the same as the prophesied "and a sword shall came out of his mouth" for Christ at the second comming.
So While disputed in the articles paragraphs by the uninformed, the orignal "PS" or Priore de Sion was an ancient society possessed of the secrets of the Mysteries, those ancient rites whereby one becomes deified. The proof of such a statement is simple, it is in the symbols which when understood do just that, deify one. The next disclaimers and endless harrangues about hoaxes are silly to the point of absurdity and written by the
undeducated and massively uninformed and surely not deified, rabble.
/s/ Present GM Willy , PS > AO
(the GM position is not one selected or hereditary is it part of the deification)
152.163.100.139, all claims for and against the Priory of Sion, or otherwise, should be accurate, properly attributed, and well-referenced. This article must be the best possible resource for anyone, whether he be an academic, journalist or layman who is interested in the subject. Despite having conflicting views, we must cooperate in an effort to make the article comprehensive, rigorous and stable enough to be considered a good article according to Wikipedia standards. Therefore, I suggest that you take the time to discuss any major addition or deletion of article content in this talk page before proceeding otherwise the article may be reverted to an older version. --Loremaster01:05, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
NPOV?
The article states that the POS has been "proven" to be a hoax. Doesn't taking a stance against this conspiracy theory (however marginal and crazy it is) conflict with wikipedia's NPOV policy?
I agree. I think the word "demonstrated" is more neutral than "proven". However, an anonymous user obsessed with debunking the Priory of Sion will probably revert my edit. --Loremaster20:40, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
I think I was the one who originally wrote 'proven'. But 'demonstrated' is acceptable and accurate. Politis14:58, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps extending the sentence to say proven in a court of law would be more accurate and seem like less of a personal judgement.
I think we would need to know exactly what the judge was able to prove or disprove about the Priory of Sion before making such a statement. --Loremaster00:01, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
The Priory of Sion was registered in 1956. According to historical evidence and according to French law, that is also when it first appeared. After that date, there no activities registered to its name. But, on April 7, 1973, the original President of the POS, Andre Bonhomme, sends a letter announcing his resignation from the POS, to the prefecture of St Julien. The reason is that though he never did anything in the POS and had not met Plantard since 1956 or 1957, his name was mentioned by Plantard in a program on Radio Suisse Romande. Bonhomme did not like having his name mentioned about something that did not concern him. The POS is considered dormant. But since no original members are alive, it cannot be revived and no one can legally use the appelation. Politis11:10, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
What do these facts have to do with the issue of whether or not PoS was "proven" or "demonstrated" to be a hoax? --Loremaster13:31, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
These facts are the only concrete evidence that the Priory of Sion existed as a specific institution for a very short period and that there was/is nothing more to it - other than what people's imagination has grafted on it. Therefore, the fact demonstrate that anything other than what we know, is a hoax (if presented as fact), or fictitious (if presented as such). Politis13:52, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
"Shown" or "demonstrated" is preferable, because there can't ever really be proof that a secret organization did not exist. Paul B22:05, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
This article from the very beginning sentence, appears to be written with a single aim to prove it as a hoax. I think a pov check tag is suitable for this article.Bharatveer04:10, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
I disagree. The article isn't attempting to prove it is a hoax. NPOV does not require us to be sympathetic, when the evidence is overwhelmingly for it being a hoax and that is the consensus of the vast majority of historians etc. who have looked into the matter, it would be POV to describe it otherwise. JoshuaZ04:58, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
It's been not only proven to be a hoax, but the perpetrators admitted it was a hoax. Phillipe de Cherisey admitted having fabricated the Latin documents which were allegedly found at Rennes-le-Chateau, and Gerard de Sede, who had written Le Tresor Maudit based on Plantard's manuscript and Cherisey's forgeries, later wrote his own book denouncing the fraud. De Sede's son Arnaud was also interviewed in a 2005 TV documentary, confirming that the entire thing was "piffle." --Elonka05:38, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
I think you need to show specific bias, not just write a vague single sentence. Note that this point was discussed in detail in the page Protocols of the Elders of Zion before it was made a featured article. The featured version clearly stated that that the Protocols were fraudulent, so presenting this view, if that is the scholarly consensus, is not deemed to be POV. Paul B09:10, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
I think that section is way too POV and it seems to attack Dan Brown and his novel. Can someone please modify it so it is more Encyclopedic? dposse02:58, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
I agree. I would do it, but I don't know much on the subject of the Priory other than what I have read from the novel.
In the list of Alleged Grand Masters, I changed the Da Vinci dates from (1452-1519) to (1510-1519). Da Vinci was born in 1452, but he is alleged to have become GM of the P of S in 1510.
If you look at old versions of the article, you see that the Da Vinci date was originally given as 1510 but was changed to 1452 by someone who mistakenly thought that those dates were birth and death years. 128.230.13.6401:52, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Hiya, can we get a citation on this one? I agree that it seems intuitive that Plantard named his Priory of Sion after the medieval Abbey of Sion, but I've never actually seen any reference for that. The sources that I have, say that he chose the name of Sion after a hill or mountain in France which was near his home, and that it had nothing to do with the Abbey. There's definitely a lot of conflicting information though, so does anyone have a reference saying otherwise? Thanks. --Elonka16:15, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
The article states that he claimed this in the 1960s. There is no suggestion here that he actually named it after the abbey. Paul B17:08, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks Paul, do we have a citation for Plantard's claim though? I've been having trouble finding one. The article has wording which seems to imply Plantard's intention or where he got an idea, and I'd just like to make sure we have this one nailed down in terms of source. --Elonka05:24, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
The article also explains that Plantard named the original priory after a French mountain called Sion. --Loremaster23:59, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
The 1956 statutes state that, “With the aid of its members the Association will create at the said place: Montagne de Sion (Hte-Savoie) a PRIORY that will be a centre of studies, mediation, rest and prayers.” So there we have it, Plantard wanted to raise funds to build some sort of institution at the base of the Montagne de Sion (it is a hill). How many times do we have to loop the loop answering questions? Most contributors to this article base themselves on available facts. There is no room for speculation. Politis16:20, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Self-styled pretender
The article had "self-declared pretender", with "self-declared" removed as tautology, and then replaced with "self-styled". I looked at the article Pretender, and saw that Footnote 1 said:
"Note that the French word prétend, a source of the English word "pretend", simply means "claim", with no implication of falsity, and that for the present purpose the English word retains the sense of the French word and not the modern English definition. In the context of the modern languages, they are, therefore, false friends, because the two words have noticeably different meanings in the two languages despite being almost identical (except for the acute accent in the former, bearing in mind that French has adopted the use of diacritical marks only since the French Revolution). Therefore a pretender, whether to a throne or anything, as the phrase meant in the past, is simply a claimant. Indeed in the cases of pretenders to a throne, they would not be a serious problem if there were no hint of validity to the claim. Contrariwise, persons with a potential claim to a throne automatically become pretenders, whether they press their claim or not, and this has led such persons to take extraordinary measures, such as emigrating to a foreign country under an assumed name, to preserve their safety against threats from other claimants or their allies."
Yes, yes, I know. "Never use a Wikipedia article as a source for another article." So I looked up the Oxford English Dictionary.
A claimant to a throne or the office of a ruler; orig. in a neutral sense, but now always applied to a claimant who is held to have no just title.
Now it would seem that "self-styled" would be perfectly okay with the original meaning of pretender, according to the OED, and with the meaning according to the Wikipedia article. However, since words change their meanings, and since Wikipedia articles aren't infallible (I might have a go at editing the Pretender article after dinner), it would seem that Pretender is going to read as "someone who pretends he's the true king", and "self-styled" in that context would mean, "someone who says that he's pretending to be the true king." That's a bit of a contradiction, because if he admits that he's pretending, he's not really pretending. To avoid ambiguity caused by false friends, and caused by development of language, I think it would be better not to have the "self-styled", even though a case could be made for it, according to the more old-fashioned meaning of pretender. AnnH♫18:14, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
I have to admit, I've been kind of uncomfortable with using the word "pretender" to describe Plantard's activities, but have used it simply to try and keep things consistent between different articles. It does feel somewhat pretentious to me though, and I can't personally recall having seen any outside third-party references that use that term. Could we perhaps think of a way to simply recast the sentence and avoid the use of the word "pretender" altogether? --Elonka20:52, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Ann, that was the historian who likes the original and the technical definition. And actually, pretender is probably way too much for PP - he rather was a wannabe pretender. But again, that is using the older meaning of the word. Str1977(smile back)21:09, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
And that was the linguist who, while loving archaic words, still doesn't like using a word that people are likely to misunderstand. So, if you're still speaking to me after being reverted ;-), what would you suggest? "Self-styled claimant to the French throne"? AnnH♫21:29, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Ann, I have no issues at all with being corrected by the more knowledgable. ;-) You proposal sounds good, though maybe we should use an adjective that underlines the imaginary quality of that claim. Str1977(smile back)12:49, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
Blimey, you two love to make a meal of such Great Matters don't you? Possibilities:
would-be claimant
alleged True King of France (satirical captials. I love them)
self-styled inheritor the Merovingian dynasty's claim to the throne of France.
As the person who edited in, 'self-styled', I agreed when its tautological coupling was pointed out. As for the term 'pretender', to my knowledge, Plantard never went on record, officially claiming the French throne. He prefered to leave traces and document (forgeries), signed by fictitious or dead people, that hinted at his title. In this respect he was not a 'pretender' in the style of the Duc of Orlean but... he conspired through the manipulation of document to encourage third parties to officially recognise him as the rightful heir of the French throne. Politis13:10, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
Look I'm not the expert...and I haven't read every single word of this disussion...but jeez louise, the entire POS article is slanted and a horrible read. The "bad editor" (whoever that may be) needs to be stopped. I don't care what stuff (i.e., supposed proof) is out there did anyone think maybe, JUST maybe, that that is a great ploy by POS. Throw speculation out as a debunk and thus "the mass" stops looking and reverts to just a few. That may not be true either, but in the claimed secrecy of the societyn dating back to 11th century, isn't at least POSSIBLE someone (or somegroup) was getting too close for comfort? If hoax is a possibility, then so all others. Aug 1: Daddy-o
Re:
I noticed the debate going on about whether the Priory of Sion is a real organization or not. For those of you who think that PoS is really legit and that Pierre wasn't proven to be a hoaxer concerning the facts, let me ask you something: If the evidence shows that Pierre made up a bunch of garbage named the PoS, then did he make up the organization or not? Well? Did he or didn't he? In order to find out, you're going to have to research the facts about the PoS and Pierre Plantard. Once you have the facts, you aren't going to find some fuzzy and vague explanation about Pierre and the PoS--you're going to find out the truth. And the truth is going to be tough because then, you'll have to decide whether you're going to go against the facts and believe a lie--or humbly admit that you were wrong and accept the truth for what it really is. One more thing in closing... Truth is POV! --JJ
Finally!
Finally someone had the sense to see past The Da Vinci Code and related garbage and write something accurate about the Priory. I glad to know that it's a hoax. Da Vinci as the grandmaster my ass.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.43.124.144 (talk • contribs) 15:30, 16 August 2006.
