This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Priory of Sion article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5Auto-archiving period: 60 days |
Priory 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. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article was nominated for deletion on October 15, 2004. The result of the discussion was keep. |
This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||
This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
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)
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)
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)
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.
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 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)
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)