Talk:Priory of Sion/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Good Article Review

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance:

   (1) A few small issues on wikilinks: In the The Plantard Plot section, this: underground culture of esotericism wikilink seemed somewhat unclear. Looking at the linked page, I'm not sure if there is a better though. I have a similar issue with Great King link. It doesn't appear to link to a relevant concept, and I can't find a more appropriate article to link it to. (2) In the second paragraph of the same section, there's a reference to a "lost king", but no detail. Can this be explained, or linked? (3) The only other issue some might raise is the "In Popular Culture" section. However, in this article, the section is short, selective, and well-sourced, which I think is fine by consensus.

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   In the "The Da Vinci Code" section: "For the dramatic structure of The Da Vinci Code, Brown chose to replace the Knights of Malta with the Roman Catholic prelature Opus Dei, as the Assassini-like nemesis of the Priory of Sion, in order to capitalize on controversies about Opus Dei." This sounds too speculative to be unsourced. Is this from an interview, or...?

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

   see above.

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

   The sentence "However, re-interpreting the Dossiers Secrets in the light of their own interest in undermining the Roman Catholic Church's institutional reading of Judeo-Christian history, the authors asserted..." in the "The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail" section seems a bit strong to state without a source. It would probably be more neutral if there was a source to establish that the authors had an agenda. (Not that I doubt such a source exists, but it would be good if this line was cited. Does the sources cited in the sub-article for this line speak to this point?).

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

   No evidence of anything but constructive editing in history over the last few months.

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   On hold pending sources for the issues raised in sections (2) and (4). Overall, a great article that does a good job of giving the proper weight to academic consensus while including minority views in an appropriate manner. However a few sentences probably require sourcing.--Bfigura ^(talk) 03:10, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

PS, feel free to drop me a line if I'm unclear anywhere. (Although from the look of things, it looks like the few things that needed fixing are getting taken care of). Best, --Bfigura ^(talk) 16:00, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Hello Bfigura. Thank you for taking the time to review the Priory of Sion article. Now that I've worked on all the issues you have raised, what is your verdict. --Loremaster (talk) 17:53, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I think you've addressed all the main concerns. I'm still a bit curious about what the "Lost King" refers to, but that would only be a FA issue. I'll start updating the site to GA status. Best, --Bfigura ^(talk) 18:03, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you! :) --Loremaster (talk) 18:20, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

P.S. The "lost king" refers to the fact that the Merovingian king Dagobert II was assassinated. I'll see if I can make this more clear. --Loremaster (talk) 18:22, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

De Sede in L'Or de Rennes (1967) bonded together the theme of the lost king and the assassination of Dagobert II. Wfgh66 (talk) 16:44, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Was the Priory of Sion a Masonic body (in theory)?

From page 135 of The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail:

There is Guillaume de Gisors, for instance, who in 1306 is said to have organized the Prieuré de Sion into an 'hermetic freemasonry'.

From page 137:

4) If Sion defined itself an 'Hermetic freemasonry', did each alleged Grand Master display a predisposition towards Hermetic thought or an involvement with secret societies?

Although the pre-1956 history of the Priory of Sion was fake, don't these passages suggest that Pierre Plantard wanted the Priory of Sion to be perceived as a Masonic body? --Loremaster (talk) 22:36, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

No. The Priory of Sion was Catholic throughout, meaning it was incompatible with Freemasonry, which was anti-Catholic and anti-Clerical. In France, Catholic Chivalric Orders and Freemasonry were incompatible. Wfgh66 (talk) 07:29, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

In Vaincre No. 5, dated 21 January 1943, Plantard wrote: I want Hitler's Germany to know that every obstacle to our own (Alpha Galates) plans does harm to him also, for it is the resistance put up by freemasonry that is undermining German might. Wfgh66 (talk) 07:36, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Nope, first of all you overstate the catholic character of the "group". Then, the passage did not say that Plantard wanted to be a member of the existing masons but that he wanted his group to be understood as an masonic order. Not all masonic groups indulged in the kind of bigotry you described, some did indulge in other kinds (e.g. the Grand Occident). Str1977 ^(talk) 07:45, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Here's some history about this from an established historian on the matter. And the Grand Occident is an umbrella term for Chivalric Knighthoods that opposed Grand Orient Freemasonry, if you look it up in French literature on the subject matter.

Here's an Evaluation of the Alpha Galates by H R Kedward, Professor of History at the School of European Studies in the University of Sussex, Brighton; and author of books on the French Resistance.

From a letter dated 3 September 1986: (The Alpha Galates)…one of the very many ‘Occident’ movements which pitted what they saw as authentic French history and culture against the ‘Freemasonic and Jewish Orient’ … they all flowered in the spring of Vichy (1940-41), began to lose momentum in 1942 and mostly lost all political significance in the declining years of 1943-4. The most dedicated and desperate members tended to drift, either into obstinate discipleship to Petain, even after his eclipse by Laval in 1942, or, more rarely, into the Milice. But most just retired from the scene in 1943 and were regarded by local Resisters with the kind of suspicion which sometimes led to punitive action at the Liberation. One who survived all this to go on writing in the post-war years was Henry (sometimes Henri) COSTON, author of a right wing Dictionnaire de la Politique Française (editions Henry Coston, 1967 reprinted 1979). He had written a good deal of anti-Semitic stuff in 1941 including a pamphlet called La finance juive et les Trusts (editions Renard 1941). Franchet d’Esperey is presumably the invalid Marechal who, with Petain, was most courted by right wing groups in the 1930s and was said by Loustaunau-Lacau (at Petain’s Trial) to have been the main army link with the semi-secret, semi-mythical Cagoule (or CSAR) led by Deloncle which was believed to be plotting the overthrow of the Republic (or at least its popular Front government) in 1937 … groups such as those, together with numerous bodies with strange provincial and regional cults as their raison d’etre, flourished mostly in the margin of right-wing politics from the 1880s through to the end of World War Two. There’s a good book to be written on this phenomenon by someone.

And from a letter dated 20 August 1997: Reading the articles in 'Vaincre' tells me the following: the paper and its contributors were part of a fringe right-wing society, which stood against Freemasons and their influence over French society. This had been a passionate, virulent right-wing position in France since the 1870s, and once Petain came to power at Vichy in 1940 all Freemasons were banned from public service, sacked from teaching positions etc., and their names published in the official government organ, the 'Journal Officiel'. In fact the Freemasonic lodges, seeing the writing on the wall, dissolved themselves in late 1940, thereby protecting some of their assets and their institutional documents. This purge and dissolution did not satisfy the extreme anti-masonic lobby, who continued to believe that even the Vichy government was infiltrated and run by masons grouped together in what was held to be the 'Synarchie' movement, a fantasy which became something of a legend (see Richard Kuisel, 'The Legend of the Vichy Synarchy' in the journal 'French Historical Studies Vol. VI, No 3, Spring 1970, pp.365ff.). This fantasy is partly explained by the presence of numerous technocrats in the Vichy government, a presence which convinced the extremists that the old forces of masonic rationalism and technology were making a comeback.

The main masonic lodge was called the Grand Orient, and to signal their complete hostility to freemasonry the right-wing movements, represented here by 'Vaincre', created their own semi-secret societies including various ones with Occident in the title (see 'Vaincre' 21 Nov 1942). Clearly the Alpha Galates was one of these societies, with its emphasis on tradition, chivalry, Catholicism, spiritualism and what can only be called a kind of occult nationalism. The values were ones of order, discipline, obedience and leadership - just the values incarnated by Vichy. Inevitably this led many of these right-wing societies to sympathise with the fascist and Nazi ideology, and thus to become involved with collaboration. Note, however, that many eloquent and powerful exponents of French nationalsim did not go over to the Nazi ideology, but tried to maintain a form of proud independence, normally identified with the cult of Petain. It could well be that the men behind Alpha Galates were of that mentality, since there is no overt support for Nazi Germany in these issues of 'Vaincre'.

'Vaincre' is clearly a legal publication (unlike the Resistance papers which were all clandestine) and thus it was able to advertise its meetings and seances openly. Many of the contributors are named as senators, doctors or lawyers, so there was obviously some notable support for its ideas, but it's impossible to guess from these pages just how influential it really was. Its ideas are a rag-bag of well-known right-wing obsessions and interests, and in peacetime would have been harmless. But under the Occupation any similarity of ideas to those of the occupying power tended to be labelled as a form of collaboration, though that is not to say that any of the names represented in the paper became members of the Milice (the French Gestapo) or betrayed Resisters to the Germans. A great deal of research would have to be done to find out what they actually did do.

Wfgh66 (talk) 07:55, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

So you are completely disputing that the PoS as imagined had any masonic traits? Str1977 ^(talk) 08:27, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

A 1950s to 1980s right-wing entity like the Priory of Sion would not identify itself with something like Freemasonry which in France is opposed to the monarchy (Plantard was putting himself forward as the "lost king") and to the Catholic Church (Plantard once put forward the name of the ultra right-wing and anti-Vatican II priest Francois Ducaud Bourget as the Grand Master of the PoS). "Hermetic Freemasonry" and "1306" is the key to understanding the above passage: pre-Revolution France, a time before Freemasonry in France became agnostic and when it was comprised of the aristocracy and clergy. But even that passage is ultimately classed as fantasy because no form of Freemasonry existed as early as 1306. Wfgh66 (talk) 13:25, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

OK. You've convinced me. The dispute is over. In the future, let's discuss here a problem you have with something in the article rather than engaging in a minor "edit war" that could threaten the Priory of Sion's chances of getting Featured Article status. --Loremaster (talk) 15:05, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Basically, in a nutshell, the French Catholic Chivalric Orders were attempted revivals of pre-Revolution Freemasonry, but they never described themselves as being Freemasonic. Wfgh66 (talk) 15:52, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Wait a minute! Wfgh, you spoke of "Hermetic Freemasonry" - so there is a masonic element to this whole thing, isn't it? That this all is a fantasy doesn't matter because we do mention "chivalric" when the PoS never contained knights etc. This is about the way PP viewed his "group" or wanted others to view it. (PS. Is your problem with the word masonic or with the article it links to? Maybe other articles are better suited.) Str1977 ^(talk) 16:09, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Hello Str1977. The point Wfgh66 is making is that the Masonic elememt was never something that Pierre Plantard emphasized. It was something mentioned superficially in the fictitious origins of the Priory of Sion since Plantard was far more focused on wanting the Priory of Sion to be perceived as a chivalric order throughout its history regardless of what it may have been in 1306. --Loremaster (talk) 16:16, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Was PP emphasizing all the elements mentioned equally. I mean, we are not merely mentioning "chivalric" but also "aristocratic" and "esoteric Christian". I can see how "aristocratic" would go with "chivalric" but what about "esoteric" and "Christian" (IMHO the two should not be simply lumped together.

IMHO PP created a mish-mash out of various elements and I am not sure how we can simply leave out the masonic bit. Currently, we are linking to Chivalric orders, which is in no way what our article here has in mind. At least not anymore than "masonic" referred to the actually existing Freemasons. Str1977 ^(talk) 17:20, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Based on what I have read, I think Pierre Plantard emphasized that the Priory of Sion was an aristocratic chivalric order that was both overtly traditionalist Catholic Christian and covertly esoteric Christian (I'll edit the article to make that more clear). The problem is that the authors of The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail emphasized or de-emphasized certain elements according to their POV which lead to all this confusion as to what Priory of Sion was in the mind of Pierre Plantard. That being said, I disagree with your opinion regarding the internal link to the chivalric order article since this is in fact what Pierre Plantard had in mind. --Loremaster (talk) 18:16, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I disagree: the links leads to any article about actual chivalric orders, not esoteric groups organized like the PoS was supposed to, none of these having anything to do with reviving "pre-Revolution Masonry". Str1977 ^(talk) 09:45, 3 May 2008 (UTC

Both esoteric and mainstream Chivalric orders shared the same agendas and ideals. Just a case of categorising the bodies, nothing else. Wfgh66 (talk) 16:39, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Pre-Revolution French Freemasonry when it was comprised of both aristocrats and Catholic priests, that's what Chivalric Knighthoods attempted to restore, but they could not call themselves Freemasonry owing to what it had become. That was Plantard's position (and other similar groups like Alpha Galates). So yes, the Masonic element existed but it was not called Freemasonry. Wfgh66 (talk) 02:43, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

That is why I included the word "masonic" and not "freemasonry" and raised the question of linking. Str1977 ^(talk) 09:45, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Not good enough, this does not emphasise the distinction between post-Revolution and pre-Revolution French Freemasonic history. Wfgh66 (talk) 16:39, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

On the contrary. It is you who emphasize this distinction but you don't provide any convincing reasoning for your take that this emphasis must be made by the article or that otherwise these masonic traits (to which you admit) should be left uncovered. It is a pity that apparently there is no article covering this aspect of Masonry - or is there? Str1977 ^(talk) 22:59, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

There is a history and tradition in France of the fusion of "aristocratic and esoteric Christianity", again going back to pre-Revolution French Freemasonry that was comprised of the aristocracy and the clergy. Both camps were united in plots to overthrow the French Republic during periods of French History that went against the Concordat, and this ultimately resulted in the split between Church and State in France in 1905. A fringe example of this was the group Hieron du Val d'Or that believed in the theme of Christ the King, itself overlapping with the mainstream Catholic Tradition of the Sacred Heart, that itself was a particular Royalist form of Catholic devotion in France. Wfgh66 (talk) 02:50, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that we should used this concept of "pre-Revolution French Freemasonry" in this way. You constantly repeat it but it is no basis for such a clear distinction as it needlessly narrows concepts. Furthermore, I cannot agree with your take on French history leading up to 1905. Str1977 ^(talk) 09:45, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

You're completely wrong. None of this part of French history is available in English translation. Which is a pity. The best known French "cleric" who espoused pre-Revolution aristocratic and Catholic Hermetic Freemasonry was probably Joseph de Maistre. Now he is mentioned from time to time in English books because of his stature, but you won't get to know this part about him in English books when he is mentioned. Wfgh66 (talk) 16:08, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Here are some quotes from the article The true Freemasonry by Paul Le Cour (Atlantis magazine, number 68, 1938) about Joseph de Maistre and esoteric Christian Freemasonry:

The true freemasonry. – 'This', as Joseph de Maistre so rightly pointed out in his 'Soirées de Saint-Pétersbourg', 'is nothing more than transcendental Christianity, a doctrine made up of Platonism, Origenianism and Hermetic philosophy, on a Christian foundation.

As for Joseph de Maistre, regarding whom it has been said that he was the greatest of all Catholics (Canon Davin, Saint Grégoire) and whom the Reverend Father Pascal, a Doctor of Theology, described as ‘quite simply a genius’, was a freemason from the age of 21 to the age of 36. He embraced Christian esotericism, searched in it for the solution to the problems of belief and envisaged a transcendent Christianity, which is the objective of 3rd degree masonry.

In the 1st degree: acts of charity;

In the 2nd degree (30 years of age): the belief in Christ and in the Revelation;

In the 3rd degree: transcendent Christianity or Christian esotericism

Claude de Saint-Martin and Joseph de Maistre withdrew from freemasonry when it became politicised and agnostic. ‘The whole Masonic set-up’, wrote Saint Martin, ‘became for me more and more incompatible each day with my way of life and with the simplicity of my lifestyle’ (Strasbourg, 1790).

Wfgh66 (talk) 17:07, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I am completely wrong? In what. I did not claim that "this part of French history in English translation" (and BTW, my mother tongue is German, if that is any help.)

I have head of Mr Le Maistre though my knowledge is not detailed. But I thought he lived in the 19th century, way after the ban on Catholics being Masons.

What I am looking for is a solid basis for the concept you mentioned in your posting. Right now it is merely a term used by you - a term that is so complex that it does not explain itself. (And note that it gets bigger and bigger. First we had "pre-Revolution aristocratic masonry", now it's "pre-Revolution aristocratic and Catholic Hermetic Freemasonry".)

Finally, there is need for a formal note: please do not mess up the indent. When you reply to a posting, please move the indent one notch to the right. Or you can start again at the left border of the page. I fixed the malformat for you in this post.

Cheers, Str1977 ^(talk) 22:59, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Grand Orient Freemasonry is anti-Catholic, anti-Monarchist, pro-Republican. It developed into this manifestation following the French Revolution. French pre-Revolutionary Freemasonry was pro-Catholic, pro-Monarchist. It comprised of clerics and the aristocracy who interpreted it as being simultaneously Christian and Hermetic in nature. If I am adding anything it is because I have spotted more to add after reading the French literature. I cannot see anything complicated here. Perhaps you should ask someone who is French? Wfgh66 (talk) 23:31, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

From Paul Le Cour's article, The 18th century and the primitive world (Atlantis, number 46, 1933):

Neither the Masonic lodges nor the writings of the "Philosophes" attacked the royal power. The "Philosophes", who were steeped in Hermetic ideas, wanted to restore government in all its primitive integrity, and drew the people's attention to the ancient character of the monarchy, and to the days when the monarch was at the same time king and pontiff, as in Ancient Egypt, Ancient Greece and elsewhere. This was the very same concept of theocracy to which Claude de Saint-Martin refers in his writings, and which Joseph de Maistre would later champion by desiring to see the two powers (spiritual and temporal) reunited in the person of the Pope."

Wfgh66 (talk) 00:29, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Grand Orient Freemasonry is anti-Catholic, anti-Monarchist, pro-Republican. It developed into this manifestation following the French Revolution. French pre-Revolutionary Freemasonry was pro-Catholic, pro-Monarchist. It comprised of clerics and the aristocracy who interpreted it as being simultaneously Christian and Hermetic in nature. If I am adding anything it is because I have spotted more to add after reading the French literature.

"I cannot see anything complicated here."

The complication is that you are using undefined terms.

And actually I disagree that before 1789, Masons were all pro-Catholic (a claim that is contradicted by your own discriptions of them as hermetic) and pro-monarchy - even if they were not masterminding the Revolution, as was later claimed.

My question is were these Masons that supposedly supported Church and King before 1789 the same that afterwards opposed both?

I can see that there were Masonic groups (as you provided them with Le Maistre) after 1815 that differed with Freemasonry on these issues. However, that doesn't make them "pre-revolutionary". And the question is whether these can legitimately excluded here from the fold of Masonry in general.

Str1977 ^(talk) 20:04, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

You are dead wrong about everything again. You have a problem equating Christianity with Hermetica - to personally see these things as contradictory is your decision, but that does not mean that you have to force your opinions on historical and verifiable facts to suit your beliefs. There were and are Catholics in France who hold esoteric beliefs that you find uncomfortable. This is my very last word to you on this matter. Wfgh66 (talk) 20:56, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Hey, you talked about Catholicism, not mere Christianity. And yes, there is a contradiction with such Hermetic ideas.

But you ignoring the main part, the arbitrary division created by you. Str1977 ^(talk) 21:12, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I did not create any "arbitrary" division, I simply repeated what is found in books on the subject matter. And thank you for admitting that you have a problem with Catholicism and Hermetic ideas. That does not give you the right to question the validity of the existence of such themes in French history. These articles are meant to be objective in nature and free from censorship. Wfgh66 (talk) 21:20, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

So? Then I am waiting for the sources to confirm your pre-revolutionary pro-Church pro-King Masonry is not really Masonry POV.

Regarding the other issue, you mistake my point: just because somebody doesn't want to erradicate the church as Voltaire wanted to doesn't make one pro-Catholic.

And thanks for stooping to personal attacks ("censorship"). May you remember who helped you out when such confrontative behaviour got you blocked? Str1977 ^(talk) 21:26, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

The reason why Catholic Hermetic Chivalric Orders like the Alpha Galates did not call themselves Freemasonic is because they did not identify themselves with the Freemasonry of their period; viz, anti-Catholic, anti-Monarchist, pro-Republic. This is not "POV". So the PoS did not refer to itself as being Freemasonic for the very same reason. But their ideas and philosophies belonged to the pre-Revolution version of Freemasonry that enshrined pro-Catholicism, pro-Hermeticism, pro-Monarchy. Now do you understand? Do you want me to provide a whole translated article from Vaincre where the Alpha Galates took exception to be called Masonic? Just putting this in to avoid being accused of giving POV again. Wfgh66 (talk) 21:38, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Still messing up the ident!

I must say that you have a peculiar definition of "pro-Catholicism" - didn't PP claim that the church killed Dagobert? And how come [Grand_Orient_de_France#History|this article contains nothing about being pro-Catholic? Can you explain to me how "Voltaire,[5] Condorcet,[6] Mirabeau,[7] Danton,[8] the Duke of Orléans,[9] and Hébert[10]" were pro-Catholic and pro-monarchy?

I any case, I did not say "Freemasonry" but masonic. All the while you are both confirming and disputing that there were masonic elements to the PoS - it is this I am concerned up about.

Even if all your distinctions were referenced and accurate, how is that currently the article contains nothing about these elements?

Str1977 ^(talk) 22:21, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Plantard did not say that the Catholic Church killed Dagobert II, the emphasis was on the Carolingian Mayors of the Palace, the usurpers. Wfgh66 (talk) 22:42, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

You've completely messed up this Talk page through your accusation that other people's contributions are "inept". I have explained as simply as possible the difference between pre-Revolution and post-Revolution Freemasonry, in general terms. The personalities you listed had their own individual reasons for supporting the French Revolution; the French Revolution was a composite of different things; it had different histories; historians are still analysing and disputing the real facts concerning it today; the subject matter of the French Revolution is a complex area of study. I was only explaining about the history of French Freemasonry in general terms, and the general history was given in a correct way. Of course, if you want to throw in specific "contradictions" dealing with specific "people" (not in general terms) then that is a different discussion altogether. Because "Mr X" in 1844 was a Freemason and was on the side of the Vatican and the Comte de Paris this does not justify that what I explained in general terms was in any way factually inaccurate. Wfgh66 (talk) 23:18, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how I messed up this talk page. I am only asking honest questions.

Let's cut through all that's been amassed here by our quarrell, and focus on the actual points:

How is it that a masonic traditon (which you call pre-revolutionary ...) which has been used for the PoS is not masonic?

(The question of whether you correctly describe Masonry before 1789 is actually not relevant for the article so a disagreement here isn't that bad. And my take is actually that you painting this picture with too broad a brush, resulting in labels like "pro-Catholic" etc.)

Str1977 07:50, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Will you ever come to your senses, that's the question? And what will the answer be? You are unable to understand why post-Revolution right-wing hermetic groups and chivalric orders refuse to call themselves Freemasonic, even after it has been explained to you not once, not twice, not thrice, but several times over. You still cannot understand it. Wfgh66 (talk) 13:33, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Quoting Plantard from Vaincre number 5, (21 January 1943): People know that we, the watchful guardians of Christianity (Alpha Galates) are spiritualised, and that one of our aims is to prevent the reformation of the freemasonries; also a certain newspaper, subject no doubt to a certain Masonic influence, has adjudged us to be dangerous (!) and, in plain language, has announced that our Order was merely "a reconstituted freemasonry". I want Hitler's Germany to know that every obstacle to our own plans does harm to him also, for it is the resistance put up by freemasonry that is undermining German might.Wfgh66 (talk) 13:44, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I really do not know why you have to insult me all the way?

Also, this never was about me not understanding what you said. The reason why you posted the same stuff several time was not my fault. I understood. However, I disagreed with a certain reasoning.

Str1977 ^(talk) 15:16, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Since this is getting nowhere, let me phrase this differently: What is the best way to include this "Masonic but not Freemasonry" element of the PoS or AG into the article? Should we include the word "hermetic" or something like that? Str1977 ^(talk) 19:40, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

There is no real reason to include either into the Wiki article unless the story of the Alpha Galates becomes included (and the 1956 PoS statutes is what links the AGs with the PoS). Wfgh66 (talk) 20:26, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Compromise?

However informative this debate has been, can we all accept the following sentence in the article:

Plantard set out to have the Priory of Sion perceived as a crypto-political, esoteric Christian, chivalric order, whose mission was installing the "Great King", prophesied by Nostradamus, on the throne of France.

--Loremaster (talk) 00:57, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Plantard and Paul Le Cour / The Symbol issue

Plantard modelled his PoS on the ideas of Paul Le Cour, whose book "Age of Aquarius" served as a template. For example, the Zodiac in 'Le Serpent Rouge' does not begin with Aries but with Aquarius. Segments from 'Les Dossiers Secrets' contain paragraphs from "Age of Aquarius". Le Cour is quoted in the first issue of Vaincre. The article by Paul Le Cour that I quoted from above contains many themes that can be identified in Plantard's documents. And so on. It was completely natural for Plantard to have utilised a logo for his PoS that was a stylised version of the Fleur-de-Lys and the sigil for Aquarius. Wfgh66 (talk) 23:39, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for this info. --Loremaster (talk) 17:30, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I seem to have been blocked from editing the image, show me another Fleur-de-Lys that resembles the PoS Logo. I am not the only person who has spotted that the PoS Logo is a composite of the Fleur-de-Lys and Aquarius. And I cannot understand the objection towards it. Wfgh66 (talk) 18:41, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Wfgh, could you please provide a ref for your claim that the symbol is based on the symbol of Aquarius. I can see no relation between the PoS symbol (a modified fleur-de-lys) and the two waves that usually symbolise Aquarius. It is clear that PP modified the fleur but how and why is not so clear. Hence, please provide a ref or drop it. Str1977 ^(talk) 19:42, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

FOR THE SECOND TIME, the PoS logo is a COMPOSITE DESIGN based upon the Fleur-de-Lys and the sigil for Aquarius. IT IS NOT BASED ON AQUARIUS. GOT THAT? And I am not the only person who has noticed this. And you have failed to provide another example of the Fleur-de-Lys that resembles the PoS Logo. Can you find one? The real question is, when I and others can easily spot the sigil for Aquarius within the Fleur-de-Lys symbol of the PoS, why can't you? And what gives you the right to repeatedly delete things just because you are unable to see them? Wfgh66 (talk) 21:02, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't n eed to show you "another Fleur-de-Lys that resembles the PoS Logo" because that is not what you claim. You claim a very specific thing, namely that "the PoS logo is a COMPOSITE DESIGN based upon the Fleur-de-Lys and the sigil for Aquarius" - in order for this to be included you have to provide a source for it. I am afraid your spotting it is not good enough, especially if others like me see no such thing.

The sign for Aquarius, according to Aquarius (astrology).

And you can repeat this a THIRD TIME, A FORTH TIME, A FIFTH TIME AND SHOUT ALL THE WAY. It doesn't matter. You are adding claims that are unsourced and which appear to be bogus.

There is no such thing as "can easily spot the sigil for Aquarius" - on WP you need a published source for such a claim. And that is exactly what gives me the right to repeatedly remove the unsourced claim. Your repeated restoring it without even addressing, let alone answering the question is quite uncivil.

Str1977 ^(talk) 21:12, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me, but I have answered the question and provided sources. Do you need a published source to show that the Fleur-de-Lys is a Fleur-de-Lys? Where is your published source? Likewise, most people can see that the sigil for Aquarius is present in the Fleur-de-Lys, you have provided the illustration for it. You are too casual in your assertion that you "do not need" to provide an example of the Fleur-de-Lys like the one that is the PoS logo, because it is unique in nature, and you refuse to acknowledge that. Paul Le Cour was very important for Pierre Plantard's ideas from 1936 onwards, and his book "Age of Aquarius" was published in that year. I have provided examples of where Paul Le Cour was cited in Plantard's works. Wfgh66 (talk) 21:28, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Sources? I don't see no sources. Since you mention La Cour, let's have a look at your posting mentioning him:

• "Plantard modelled his PoS on the ideas of Paul Le Cour, whose book "Age of Aquarius" served as a template." - Is this your research or do you have a reference to confirm this?
• "For example, the Zodiac in 'Le Serpent Rouge' does not begin with Aries but with Aquarius." - Nice but irrelevant. We are talking about your claim about the symbol.
• "Segments from 'Les Dossiers Secrets' contain paragraphs from "Age of Aquarius"." - Nice but irrelevant. We are talking about your claim about the symbol. The AoA is nothing special for such esoteric stuff.
• "Le Cour is quoted in the first issue of Vaincre." - If that is so, it goes to show that Le Cour was important to PP, but still: where does it say that the symbold combined Aquarius with the Fleur?
• "The article by Paul Le Cour that I quoted from above contains many themes that can be identified in Plantard's documents. And so on." - Yes, again, where is the source for the symbol thing?
• "It was completely natural for Plantard to have utilised a logo for his PoS that was a stylised version of the Fleur-de-Lys and the sigil for Aquarius." - I don't disagree. But that still doesn't mean that he did it. We need a source.

One more serious mistake on your part: "You are too casual in your assertion that you "do not need" to provide an example of the Fleur-de-Lys like the one that is the PoS logo, because it is unique in nature, and you refuse to acknowledge that."

Nonsense. I give you (and I never disputed) that the PoS logo is special, different from all other Fleurs-de-Lys. Because I don't dispute that, I do not need to bring evidence disputing it. ::::::Also, since I do not want to add that information into the article I don't have to bring evidence at all. It is YOU, who wants to include an assertion, that has to provide evidence. Thus far, you haven't.

Thirdly, that the PoS-Symbol is special (which I acknowledge) does in no way prejudice the issue of how PP made it special. You say "he combined the Fleur with Aquarius" - and for that you have to provide evidence, especially since the common symbol for Aquarius (which I posted above) is not visibly included in the PoS symbol.

"Most people see it" is empty words. Where are these most people? Done a survey? And OR by most people is still OR.

I am still waiting for evidence for your claim.

Str1977 ^(talk) 21:47, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

If I remember correctly, you had difficulty understanding the connection between St Roseline, Rose-Line, and 17 January. Am I correct about this? Wfgh66 (talk) 22:05, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Precisely what is the relevance of this? No, I didn't have difficulty in understanding this but enquired about this because there was lack of information given. Str1977 ^(talk) 22:12, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

The symbols of the Lily and Aquarius are not my creations. If it is okay to describe the diagram of the Lily as a Lily then the squiggle of Aquarius as Aquarius should also be okay, how can one be described as OR and not the other? Wfgh66 (talk) 22:09, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Hey, I still see no evidence coming forth. Time and again I have waited for this now only for your to post irrelevant stuff. Please provide a source that says that the Aquarius sign was included into the PoS symbol. Please do not post anything else!

You are also still messing up indents and your revert warring on the article is intolerable. Str1977 ^(talk) 22:12, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Nobody expects a written source to verify the illustration of a Lily. I have found something else out about the Fleur-de-Lys, but since that needs a written source it would do no good providing an explanation. I shall remain silent about it. Wfgh66 (talk) 22:48, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Good. I am glad that you've come to your senses. Look, I am not totally ruling out that your observation might be right. However, I cannot see it and cannot agree that it is perfectly obvious. Therefore I have my doubts about it. And WP-wise, a source is required. Cheers, Str1977 ^(talk) 07:45, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I only have 3 comments regarding the issue of the Priory of Sion emblem:

1. Since I am currently the most active contributor to the Priory of Sion article, there is no need to raise and/or debate issues about this article on my personal talk page. However, simple requests for me to more quickly intervene on a given issue are welcomed.
2. Please avoid at all cost engaging in an "edit war" when there is a dispute over content (especially when it is trivial)! When there is a dispute over content, simply discuss here until a compromise is reached. Despite the fact the Priory of Sion article has many problems, edit wars alone can and will doom efforts to have any article reach Featured Article status (which is an outcome I assume all of us want).
3. Any claim about the Priory of Sion or Pierre Plantard should be sourced. It goes without saying that there should be no original research in this article regardless of how "obvious" some conclusions are. Therefore, if we do not have a source that explicity states that the Priory of Sion emblem was based on the Aquarius sign, such speculation cannot be added to the article.

--Loremaster (talk) 00:01, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

WHO SAID that the PoS symbol was "based on the Aquarius" symbol? Not me. Show me where I said that. What I said was that it was a composite of the Fleur-de-Lys and the sigil for Aquarius. And where is the written source for the diagram to show it is a Fleur-de-Lys? I see no written source for that? Like you said, regardless of how obvious some conclusions are, if there is no written source that the diagram is a Fleur-de-Lys, then it cannot be described as such. Please provide a written source for the diagram. Thank you. Wfgh66 (talk) 02:55, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Semantics. To me, arguing that an emblem is "based" on the two symbols or is a "composite design" of two symbols means the same thing. Regardless, the point is that we need a source for any statement we make about the Priory of Sion emblem. We don't have anything when it comes to Aquarius symbol but we have The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail as a source for the fleur-de-lis. I was planning on citing it before this dispute started but forgot so I've added it now. We can move on? --Loremaster (talk) 17:10, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Priory of Sion and Chilvaric orders

From The Plantard Plot subsection of article:

Plantard set out to have the Priory of Sion perceived as a crypto-political, esoteric Christian, chivalric order, whose mission was installing the "Great King", prophesied by Nostradamus, on the throne of France.

Str1977, since I don't want to engage in a edit war, can you please explain why you keep removing the internal link to the Chivalric order article? I have to say that is the only one of your edits I find mystifying... :/ --Loremaster (talk) 20:31, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

First of all it is not needed, as we have already linked once or twice to that article. But the actual reason (explained before) is that the article does not cover what PP had in mind, that sort-of-masonic, hermetic order. Have a look at the Chivalric order article, you will see no such thing. It's a pity that we have no article that would make a fitting link. Str1977 ^(talk) 20:58, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Pierre Plantard preached throughout the 1970s, both under his real name and under various pseudonyms, that his PoS was the same as the Abbey de Sion founded by Godfrey de Bouillon in 1090. And he also claimed legitimate pedigree with what Godfrey de Bouillon's order later transformed itself into, the Abbey de St Samson d'Orleans. He never really claimed that the PoS was a hermetic order, that claim belonged to the Alpha Galates of the 1940s. Wfgh66 (talk) 21:05, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

But the way the PoS is described (constitution etc) is not that of an order at all. Str1977 ^(talk) 21:10, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

1956 PoS Statutes is one thing, what Plantard started claiming between 1961-1985 was something different. The creation of the mythical pedigree began when Plantard began collaborating with Gerard de Sede. Wfgh66 (talk) 21:14, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

That doesn't change the fact that the PoS does not fit the article linked to. Have you read it? Str1977 ^(talk) 21:30, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

If it was within the context of 1956, then Chivalric orders does not fit, but does for claims between 1961-1985. Wfgh66 (talk) 21:33, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Please see that I already responded to this argument. Str1977 ^(talk) 21:45, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't matter. Since we are talking about what Pierre Plantard wanted the PoS to be perceived as. The 1956 PoS was a not a real chivalric order but he claimed that it was or what he eventually wanted it to become one. Please keep in mind that almost everything about the PoS is about perception not reality... Regardless, I concede your point about the fact that we have already linked to that article so I won't restore the internal link. --Loremaster (talk) 21:37, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, if we can agree on that, the rest of the disagreement will be irrelevant as far as the article is concerned. Str1977 ^(talk) 21:45, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Good. --Loremaster (talk) 22:31, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Modern goals of the Priory of Sion

• the return to Israel of the lost treasure of the Temple in Jerusalem, which supposedly contains proof that the Merovingian dynasty is of both the Davidic and Zadokite lines;
• the restoration of chivalry and Merovingian popular monarchies in all the member states of a European Union, which has declared federal status as the final step of European integration;
• its control of, or transformation into, a dominant political party in the parliament of the "United States of Europe";
• the election of a Merovingian pretender to both presidency of the European Parliament and the papacy of the Roman Catholic Church; and
• the establishment of the "Holy European Empire" unified through an imperial cult, ideally marking the dawn of an "European Century".

I based these goals on the following quotes from the book The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail:

[Pierre Plantard] declared, for example, that the Prieuré de Sion did in fact hold lost treasure of the Temple of Jerusalem - the booty plundered by Titus's Roman legions in A.D. 70. These items he stated, would be 'returned to Israel when the time is right'. But whatever the historical, archeological or even political significance of this treasure. M. Plantard dismissed it as incidental. The true treasure, he insisted, was 'spiritual'. And he implied that this 'spiritual treausure' consisted, at least in part, of a secret. In some unspecified way the secret in question would facilitate a major social change.

In A.D. 70, during the great revolt in Judaea, Roamn legions under the Titus sacked the Temple of Jerusalem. The pillaged treasure of the Temple is said to have found its way eventually to the Pyrenees; and M. Plantard, in his conversation with us, stated that this treasure was in the hands of the Prieuré de Sion today. But the Temple of Jerusalem may have contained more than the treasure plundered by Titus's centurions. In ancient Judaism religion and politics were inseperable. The Messiah to be a priest-king, whose authority encompassed spiritual and secular domains alike. It is thus likely, indeed, probable that the Temple housed official records pertaining to Israel's royal line - the equivalents of birth certificates, marriage licenses and other relevant concerning any modern royal or aristocratic family.

...a theocratic United States of Europe - a trans- or pan-European confederation assembled into a modern empire and ruled by a dynasty descended from Jesus. This dynasty would not only occupy a throne of political or secular power, but quite conceivably the throne of Saint Peter as well. Under that supreme authority there might then be an interlocking network of kingdoms or principalities, connected by dynastic alliances and intermarriage -- a kind of twentieth century feudal system, but without the abuses usually associated with that term. And the actual process of governing would presumably reside with the Prieuré de Sion -- which might take the form of, say, a European Parliament endowed with executive and/or legislative privileges...

A Europe of this sort would constitute a new and unified political force in interntional affairs - an enitity whose status would ultimately be comparable to tha tof the Soviet Union, or the United States. Indeed it might well emerge stronger than either, because it would rest on deep-rooted spiritual and emotional foundations, rather than on abstract, theoretical or ideological ones. It would appeal not only to man's head, but to his heart as well. It would draw its strenght from tapping the collective psyche of Western Europe, awakening the fundamental religious impulse.

In a very real sense the time is right for the Prieuré to show its hand. The political systems and ideologies that in the early years of our century seemed to promise so much have virtually all displayed a degree of bankruptcy. Communism, socialism, fascism, capitalism, Western-style democracy have all, in one way or another, betrayed their promise, jaundiced their adherents, and failed to fulfill the dreams they engendered... There is a longing for a renewed sense of the sacred that amounts, in effect, to a full-scale religious revival -- exemplified by the proliferation of sects and cults, for example, and the swelling tide of fundamentalism in the United States. There is also a desire for a true 'leader' -- not a führer, but a species of wise and benign spiritual figure, a 'priest-king' in whom mankind can safely repose its trust... There are many devout Christians who do not hesitate to interpret the Apocalypse as nuclear piano. How might the advent of Jesus' lineal descendant be interpreted? To a receptive audience, it might be a kind of Second Coming.

Does anyone disagree with my interpretation? --Loremaster (talk) 11:58, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, someone does:

1. On a general note, some of these stated goals are redundant, presenting details of a larger point already presented as a separate point. This is especially true in regard to all the European Union points - this was one goal of the PoS according to LBL, not several.
2. I grant you that a Merovingian Pope is mentioned, I had forgotten about that, my bad - but this should be integrated into the series of European thrones sequence, as LBL do as well. Note however, there is no "President of the European Parliament" mentioned, nor the political party thing.
3. What is "the restoration of chivalry and Merovingian popular monarchies"? Additionally, "restoration of ... Merovingian popular monarchies" implies that such a thing ever existed. But it didn't
4. Your quote does not support "the return to Israel of the lost treasure of the Temple in Jerusalem" as a PoS goal. PP merely stated: "We have it and will give it back in time." But that's not an real PoS goal, as the context shows.
5. As for "which supposedly contains proof that the Merovingian dynasty is of both the Davidic and Zadokite lines", this is the part and parcel of the secret bloodline thingy, which my version does mention.

Str1977 ^(talk) 20:48, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

1. Although I understand your point of redundancy, I think readers of article who haven't read the HBHG would benefit from reading the details of the "Master Plan" as separate points. That being said, one can simply change the sentence that introduces these goals.
2. I disagree with the notion of integrating the "holy see" into a series of European thrones since LBL are implying that a Merovingian priest-king would be both Emperor of Europe and Pope. You are right that there is no "President of the European Parliament" mentioned, nor the political party thing, since I was paraphrasing. However, there is a mention of PoS becoming the European Parliament. Anyway, I'll edit the goals to reflect a more strict interpretation of the quotes from HBHG.
3. I agree that the use of the word "restoration" is not appropriate in relation to the Merovignian monarchies. I've been wrestling with that for a while so I will correct that now.
4. We will have to agree to disagree because I believe the quote does support "treasure return" as a goal.
5. I think your version sounds more awkward.

By the way, have you read the Messianic Legacy? --Loremaster (talk) 21:12, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

1. We disagree here. I don't mind including more detail (if it is accurate) but I insist on making this one item and not several.
2. If you do not want to place the Holy See into this sequence, we could include it into the Holy European Empire bit. However, I disagree with your characterisation: LBL mention the Holy See en passant. And if they intend to merge it with the Emperor, this something different: then we should talk about this. "since I was paraphrasing" - Paraphrasing what is not there. The PoS becoming the EP is something totally different and again one of these details. If includable, it is part of the European item, nothing separate. "I will correct that now." I already did that by inserting "establishment of", which allows for a new phenomenon.
3. But the treasure return was not described as a goal.
4. Mine at least doesn't create things out of thin air. PP or LBL didn't say the physical treasure contained proof.

Yes, I have read it a long time ago. I do not have it at hand. I do have HBHG in translation. Str1977 ^(talk) 21:29, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

1. The problem is that you are confusing Merovingian monarchies with the Merovigian empire.
2. Although this new suggestion for the mention of the Holy See is better than previous one, my characterization is fair in light of other material that can be found in HBHG. I was paraphrasing the sentence "a modern empire and ruled by a dynasty descended from Jesus. This dynasty would not only occupy a throne of political or secular power, but quite conceivably the throne of Saint Peter as well." As for PoS becoming EP, I don't think it should be dismissed as a detail since this would be major change in the nature of what this organization would become. Anyway, I noticed and support your insertion of "establishment of".
3. When someone says that returning a treasure would facilitate a major social change and connects that with establishment of Merovingian monarchies, I think it is a goal regardless of how cryptic he may want to sound.
4. It's the expression "Merovingian/Davidic/Zadokite pretender" that I find awkward. LBL said repeatedly that the treasure contained proof and linked to the Jesus bloodline/Merovingian bloodline in quotes I didn't provide due to the length of the material. Can you please re-read the conclusion of the book?

--Loremaster (talk) 22:02, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

1. What does that mean?
2. Calling something a detail is not dismissing it. But it is a part of one item, not an item by itself. A major change indeed (in contrast to your earlier version)
3. Only noone says this. Let me quote: [Pierre Plantard] declared, for example, that the Prieuré de Sion did in fact hold lost treasure of the Temple of Jerusalem - the booty plundered by Titus's Roman legions in A.D. 70. These items he stated, would be 'returned to Israel when the time is right'. But whatever the historical, archeological or even political significance of this treasure. M. Plantard dismissed it as incidental. Then he goes on to speak about the spiritual treasure and says In some unspecified way the secret in question would facilitate a major social change. But that is not the Treasure of Jerusalem. Nor is he talking about the treasure's return causing social change but about the revelation of the secret. Hence, you argument falls apart.
4. I don't like that long string either and we can always reword it. The Zadokite ancestry anyway seems overdone. What we do have is PP's claim to Merovingian ancestry mixed with Baigent's Jesus Bloodline which in turn leads back to David. Str1977 ^(talk) 22:12, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

1. All member states of the United States of Europe would have Merovingian monarchies. France would have Merovingian king X. England would have Merovingian king Y. Germany would have Merovingian king Z, etc. However, the United States of Europe itself would become an empire ruled by Merovigian emperor A.
2. The Messianic Legacy makes it clear that many of the goals are separate, which is why Plantard claimed that members of the Priory of Sion wanted to drop Merovingian restoration in favor of only focusing on European integration.
3. When LLB say that PoS becomes the EP, I logically interpreted that to mean that the PoS becoming a dominant party or the single party in the EP (since literally becoming the EP simply doesn't make any sense). This would also be a major change for the PoS since it's allegedly a secret society that works behind the scenes.
4. LLB goes to explain exactly what the treasure is and why it would it facilitate social change. Regardless, you need to re-read the entire concluding chapter of HBHG to understand how Plantard'S word was re-contextualized by LLB.
5. So "Merovingian pretender" is simply better after all. However, let's go with "Merovingian sacred king" instead.

--Loremaster (talk) 22:27, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Here are the revised goals I have inserted in both the Pos and HBHG articles:

• the return to Israel of the lost treasure of the Temple in Jerusalem, which supposedly contains records that could be used to trace the Merovingian dynasty back to both the Davidic and Zadokite lines of the Tribe of Judah;
• the establishment of the "United States of Europe" as a "Holy European Empire", renewed through the restoration of chivalry, and unified through an imperial cult centered on a Merovingian sacred king, occupying the throne of Europe and possibly the Holy See,
• the establishment of an interlocking network of Merovingian popular monarchies across Imperial Europe; and
• its transformation from a secret society into the parliament of Imperial Europe.

I based these goals on the following quotes from the book The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail as well as other speculation contained in the last chapter of the book entitled Conclusion and Portents for the Future:

--Loremaster (talk) 15:36, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Except for your good point about Zadok and the Zadokite line (which is something that was introduced and expanded upon by LB&L in The Messianic Legacy), I strongly disagree with everything else you, Str1977, have said and I could mount a case to defend the text I wrote based on recent and full reading of the concluding chapter of The Holy Grail and the Holy Blood, which, no offense, you don't seem to fully grasp. However, I won't since I am no longer interested in being involved in the disputes of the Priory of Sion article and some (but not all) its related articles. I will simply tweak your text and move on. --Loremaster (talk) 15:26, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Re the "archiving" - you did not do this well. When archiving, one archives all of a discussion (once it is finished and no longer needed, not just because it is bulky). One certainly does not archive only the replies to one's own posting.

Re your answers:

1. Sure. I agree. The point?
2. I have no objection to split up these, as long as this does not create redundancies.
3. But LBL did not merely say the PoS would become the EP but that it would do the actual government through a EP.
4. But this treasure is about the "spiritual treasure", the "secret".
5. Either way. The "sacred king" has the advantage of including another concept dear to LBL.

Re the revised goals:

• "the return to Israel of the lost treasure ..."

No, no and three times no. This is no goal of the PoS. Stop misreading LBL.

• "the establishment of the "United States of Europe" ..."

I object to the term "Holy European Empire" (not used by LBL according to my version), the hiding of theocracy behind Holy - theocratic should be clearly spelled out as LBL use it, the link to European Empire which contains something different. Otherwise okay.

• "the establishment of an interlocking network ..."

No objections.

• "its transformation from a secret society into the parliament of Imperial Europe"

Hey, it doesn't make sense if you repeat the same false stuff all over again. See my objections above.

I have reread the chapter and don't see where I am supposed to be wrong, hardly how everything except Zadok could be wrong. It is clear that you consider something called incidental to be a major goal, going so far as to place at the top of the list. And any inaccuracy contained in your tweaks will be tweaked by me. Str1977 ^(talk) 22:20, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

1. Putting aside the fact that every word that came out of Plantard's mouth was a lie intended to build and perpetuate a hoax, the notion that the PoS had a treasure hidden in Gisors or Rennes-le-Chateau (the latter having become a magnet for treasure-hunters) is at the heart of the hoax! Plantard explains that the lost treasure of Jerusalem contains or is itself a "spiritual treasure consisting of a secret" while LL&B speculate about exactly what it might be: 1) official records pertaining to Israel's royal line - the equivalents of birth certificates, marriage licenses and other relevant concerning any modern royal or aristocratic family; 2) Jesus' mummified body; 3) Jesus's marriage license; and/or 4) birth certificates of the children of Jesus. Any or all of these secret items might have been referred to as the Holy Grail and all of them have spiritual (or, more precisely, theological) implications. However, since we know that Plantard never wanted to connect his hoax to any of that wild speculation, we are left with the opinion of Paul Smith and others who have researched the subject that when Plantard talked of a "spiritual treasure consisting of a secret" he was implying that the lost treasure of Jerusalem found in France contains or is "proof" that the Merovingians were descended from the Tribe of Benjamin! Regardless of whether or not this is true, Plantard argues that this proof and, logically speaking, its public revelation would "facilitate a major social change". Since Plantard and his accomplices always framed the Priory of Sion's agenda as being the restoration of the Merovingian dynasty to power, it seems that they believed that proof the Merovingians were descended from the Tribe of Benjamin would help in the "marketing" of this restoration, and successfully returning the lost treasure of Jerusalem to Israel (which contains or is that proof) would further amplify this "public relations coup". Ultimately, although one could legitimately argue that the return of this treasure to Israel might be incidental, I would argue that the public revelation of this "spiritual treasure consisting of a secret" is a crucial goal not simply because it would be the archaeological find of the century, as LL&B described it, but without it none of the other goals can happen as easily or at all! Therefore, I think the following sentence (or a version of it) should be added to the article:

   the public revelation of a secret tied to the lost treasure of the Temple in Jerusalem which would facilitate Merovingian restoration in France.

2. I'm not sure why we are having a debate about Pos becoming EP when LL&B clearly said that "the actual process of governing would presumably reside with the Prieuré de Sion -- which might take the form of, say, a European Parliament endowed with executive and/or legislative privileges". Everyone I have asked who read this passage as logically interpreted it to mean that the semi-secret society known as the Priory of Sion is transformed into a (single-party) parliament which actually governs a Europe that LL&B described as a "modern empire". Although you may not care for my particular paraphrasing, the accusation that I am "repeating the same false stuff" or "creating things out of thin air" is both ridiculous and needlessly inflammatory.
3. I have no problem with you or anyone else tweaking my edits. However, I have sometimes found that some (but not all) your contributions, tend to make things more nebulous than clear.

--Loremaster (talk) 00:05, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

1. That PP was a liar and a hoaxer is understood. Sure a treasure is at the heart of the matter (see Gisors, see Fr. Sauniere's sudden wealth, see the Grail). My argument is not with a treasure per se, not even with the treasure of Jerusalem but with portraying the return of the latter ot Israel as a major goal of the PoS. I have no objection to mentioning this "we got a treasure and will shock you all" item. Since this is in the context of presenting LBL's take on this, I see no problem with presenting it the way LBL do. Sure, the publication supposedly bringing about change is importance - however, the return to Israel is incidental. So yes, I agree with

   the public revelation of a secret tied to the lost treasure of the Temple in Jerusalem which would facilitate Merovingian restoration in France.

2. LBL do not say that the PoS would become the EP. They say "the actual process of governing would presumably reside with the Prieuré de Sion - which might take the form of, say, a European Parliament ..." - doesn't this refer to "the actual process of governing"? You may not be "repeating false stuff" (I never talked about "thin air") but (thus far) you were simply repeating (without arguing) what you know to be controversial. And I don't think that is very helpful.
3. If the clarity is not so clear from the source I reject it. It is a recurring feature of this that things are "nebulous", thanks to LBL and PP.

Str1977 ^(talk) 09:34, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

1. Good. I'll add it now to both the Pos and HBHG articles.
2. Our initial dispute was the following sentence: "its control of, or transformation into, a dominant political party in the parliament of the "United States of Europe";". It was in reaction to your criticism that I replaced it with: "its transformation from a secret society into the parliament of Imperial Europe". So I didn't feel I was repeating anything controversial. That being said, I accept the current sentence so I consider this controversy over.

--Loremaster (talk) 17:26, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Great. Thanks for the good work despite the arguing. Str1977 ^(talk) 17:34, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

;) --Loremaster (talk) 17:36, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Clarifyme tags and other tweaks

Apart from cleaning up the references (which were totally inconsistent - of course I could not provide the inconsistently lacking information), I inserted two clarifyme tags:

• "Martin Kemp, on the documentary The History of a Mystery, BBC Two, transmitted on 17 September 1996."

What did he say? What is this reference sourcing? This is not clear.

• "Gino Sandri works for a white-collar trade union for civil servants in the social security sector (French website of 'Syndicat National Force Ouvrière des Cadres des Organismes Sociaux')."

What is the relevance of Gino Sandri's occupation to this article.

Two more changes:

• I reorganised and reworded the bit about the switch from the 1st to the second list, also making clear that this second list brought about the investigation that forced PP to disown the first list. But was it only the first list he had to disown? Not the second as well? I did this also to clarify the time line. The old version read like the second list followed the Pelat Affair. I also removed the link to an article on Thomas as it is merely a redirect to his father.
• IMHO the assertions made by L/B/L were misreprsented here and on other articles. Many assertions were not made or are merely elements of things already mentioned. Regarding the Sages of Sion document, the older version attributed to L/B/L things that are actually historical consensus (that the Basel convent could not have produced these) or didn't make clear what L/B/L's original take was (academics find that Nilus produced the document, based on earlier writings - L/B/L differ merely on the nature and context of these earlier writings).

If you disagree about the second change, please provide reference where L/B/L make these assertions here on this talk page.

Cheers, Str1977 ^(talk) 19:54, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Regarding your "tweaks":

1. I have corrected those changes you made in the Alleged Grand Master section because it wasn't the police investigation which forced Plantard to disown the first list. It's all the "exposés" by journalists and researchers which forced him to do that.
2. I strongly disagree that the assertions made by LB&L are *currently* misinterpreted in the Priory of Sion and The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail articles. I have restored most of the original content and will provide the text which it is based on in the section below.

--Loremaster (talk) 00:05, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about the confusion regarding the two lists. I was trying to make sense of the information presented in the previous version.

I insist on my point about misrepresenting LBL but will respond in the section you created below. Str1977 ^(talk) 20:36, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I asked for a clarification of who said what, not for including longish quotes that seem to say little on the actual topic to be include in footnotes, something I consider to be stylistically bad. Str1977 ^(talk) 21:28, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I've removed both the mention of Sandri's occupation and the new quote from Octovono about him. Now, although User:Wfgh66 is our expert on sources for the Priory of Sion , he does not seem to be strictly following Wikipedia guidelines for citing sources. After deciding on one citation style, can you help us standardize the citing of sources in this article? --Loremaster (talk) 01:22, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I was not talking about Sandri. Str1977 ^(talk) 20:36, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

What were you talking about? --Loremaster (talk) 20:43, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Go check out Wikipedia's articles on Pop Stars and Actors. Each Pop Star and Actor has a category "Private Life". What's a suitable category for a Pop Star and Actor should also apply for evertything else. Is this some sort of joke? Wfgh66 (talk) 03:06, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

No, it's not a joke. Sandri's private life and/or more personal attacks against him isn't useful information to help us to better understand the nature of the Pierre Plantard's Priory of Sion. To use your analogy, let's not turn this article into a British tabloid which exploits the private lives of pop stars and actors... One of the reasons why our first attempt to get Featured Article status failed is because much of the language and some of the content of this article is not encyclopedic! So let's be mindful of that from now on. Ok? --Loremaster (talk) 16:42, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I could live with either version, though I tend to restrict this a bit more - such information should at least be integrated into the text. If that's not possible, that's an indication that it is off topic. This is not the article on Mr Sandri but on the PoS. But more importantly, please do not let this plummet into a bad faith war by terms like "censorship". Str1977 ^(talk) 20:36, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I should updated my comments about this subject: I think the second quote about Sandri is appropriate (unless people in peer review disagree). It's mentioning his day job that I found superflous. (Furthermore, Sandri is not pop star nor an actor so he obviously can't held to same standard.) --Loremaster (talk) 20:40, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree about the day job. This should go to any article on GS but not into the PoS article. Str1977 ^(talk) 21:16, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I could easily find out the private lives of others being mentioned in Wikipedia articles (politicians, sports stars, etc). Gino Sandri is the PoS following Plantard's death, and he was one of his accomplices during his lifetime. For example, Sandri accompanied Plantard during his interview for the BBC on the 1979 BBC documentary "Shadow of the Templars". And showing that these shady characters have ordinary day jobs whilst claiming to possess earth-shattering secrets that could change Western Civilisation is pertinent. Extremely pertinent. Wfgh66 (talk) 20:47, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

That would be OR. And no, GS is not the PoS. The PoS is and remains a sham, while GS is a man of flesh and blood. What you call "extremely pertinant" seems to be argument by implication. And even that is a fallacy - it would be conceivable for a butler's son to be the lost king. Sure, it is not true but that is because of the evidence, not because of modest day jobs. Str1977 ^(talk) 21:16, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Gino Sandri is the present day PoS. Did you not read what I said? Wfgh66 (talk) 21:20, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I did read it. Only, just because I read does not mean that I agree.

Please, post in sequence and mind the indent. Str1977 ^(talk) 21:22, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

If I want any advice, I'll ask for it. Wfgh66 (talk) 21:30, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

If I want the talk page not to be messed up, I'll ask for it too. In fact, I do. Str1977 ^(talk) 21:37, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

No, it's not "Original Research", Sandri is actively trying to revive the PoS as its spokesman and there's plenty by him to use (interviews, DVDs, Bloodline, etc). Please don't keep inserting that non-sequitur "OR" just to win an argument. And citing people's day jobs is pertinent to this sort of summary, and that is not "OR" if it is cited on websites. Wfgh66 (talk) 21:27, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

If you find out things about his private life that is not contained in published sources, it is OR. Sure, if it is already published, it is admissable. That doesn't mean that it is relevant but it would be admissable.

It is both relevant and permissible. Wfgh66 (talk) 21:51, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Wfgh, could you please stop to turn any tiny bit into warfare? I did not employ non-sequiturs (I left that to you in the Aquarius issue) and am not involved in any argument on this issue. As stated, I could live with either version as long as WP principles are adhered to. Stop the vitriol. Str1977 ^(talk) 21:37, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

So stop leaving out info on Gino Sandri's private life when the private lives of pop stars, sports people, actors, politicians, etc, are given on Wikipedia. And I have yet things to tell you about the Aquarius link. Don't get too cocky! Wfgh66 (talk) 21:51, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I am not leaving things out about Sandri at all.

Your comparison to pop starts does not hold if you compare this article with a personal article. Over there, anything on the person is relevant.

What you never seemed to understand is: I am all ears about the Aquarius thing. Only, you never brought anything forth. If you do have conclusive evidence for your take, bring it one (whenever you feel ready). Str1977 ^(talk) 22:12, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

pop stars, sports people, actors, politicians, their private lives can be explored and publicised, but not Gino Sandri's? I do not agree with such selective and arbitrary decisions of this nature. Wfgh66 (talk) 22:59, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Do you understand the difference between an article on a living person and an organization that he claims to belopng to? It should be obvious that there is information from the former that we don't need to know in the latter to help us better understand the organization. --Loremaster (talk) 00:45, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I did not write a thing. I added citations from an article and a book by Laurent 'Octonovo' Buccholtzer (ie, secondary sources already in print). Wfgh66 (talk) 01:00, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Treasure of Jerusalem

Hold on, Plantard did not claim to have discovered the Jerusalem Treasure until AFTER the publication of HBHG. Is there any reference in HBHG to Plantard having found the Jerusalem treasure in that book that you can use as a citation? Wfgh66 (talk) 23:34, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

See the quotes from HBHG in the Talk:Priory of Sion#Modern goals of the Priory of Sion section of this page. --Loremaster (talk) 23:43, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Even so, I remind you that the Tribe of Benjamin had no link with the Line of David (that was the Tribe of Judah), and that Plantard rejected the theories contained in HBHG.Wfgh66 (talk) 23:50, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

*sigh* I don't need to be reminded of things I obviously know. --Loremaster (talk) 00:40, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

But what you know is not being included in the article. And you are exercising deletions. Wfgh66 (talk) 00:58, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I was going to insert a more eloquent and concise summary of all of Plantard's criticisms of HBHG. But I can no longer deal with your attitude problems. Feel free to go back to writing a page that would never have gotten Good Article status without my help... --Loremaster (talk) 01:07, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Bonhomme

Andre Bonhomme certainly regarded himself as the legitimate President of the Priory of Sion in 1973, when he tendered his resignation and which is reproduced in Pierre Jarnac's book "Les Archives de Rennes-le-Chateau" (1987).Wfgh66 (talk) 00:25, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Leadership of the 1956 Priory of Sion

Putting aside that I am doing my last edits which I was planning to do before I decided to move on from this article and leave it in the hands of Paul Smith, I don't understand the nature of the latest dispute. For months, the article included this sentence without citation (which was a slightly edited version of a sentence originally written by Smith or someone else):

In practice, the prime mover [previous version: "key protagonist"] of the association was [Pierre] Plantard, its Secretary General, although its nominal head or President was André Bonhomme.

Since it sounded a bit awkward, I decided to rephrasing it as:

The President, André Bonhomme, was only a figurehead since the Secretary General, Plantard, was the de facto leader.

Why is Paul Smith suddenly raising the issue of original research and asking for a citation when he never did before? --Loremaster (talk) 00:31, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Why is Loremaster making allegations without providing citations to corroborate his statements? Bonhomme wrote about the directions and plans for the PoS in Circuit alongside Plantard. There is no indication in the magazine Circuit that Bonhomme was a "second fiddle" player. Wfgh66 (talk) 00:34, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not making any allegations. I am simply rephrasing a sentence that has been in this article for over 2 years without it ever having been contested by Smith. If it isn't accurate, he can simply correct it. However, the question is why he is making an issue out of it now and never did before... --Loremaster (talk) 00:39, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Maybe it is to do with fine-tuning in order to help raise the article to Good Article status. You are quite welcome to double-check and improvise existing passages yourself. Wfgh66 (talk) 00:42, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

The article already has reached Good Article status so the next step is raising the quality of the article to meet Featured article criteria. Like I said before, beyond a few edits I am knowledgeable enough and care enough to do, I leave the rest in your hands... --Loremaster (talk) 00:47, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

So what's your gripe? Wfgh66 (talk) 00:50, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

*sigh* Since you are now the main contributor to this article and the person who is most familiar with the sources for this subject matter, rather than putting silly "citation needed" tags, just find the right citation or rephrase the sentence so that it is factually accurate. --Loremaster (talk) 00:56, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Bloodline - The Movie

Interested visitors may want to learn that the Bloodline-The Movie website has just been altered as part of the promotion of its forthcoming "documentary", the part of the website entitled "Screening Room" is well worth visiting as it contains 30 clips of various interviews with various "consultants" giving a flavour of what kind of "documentary" this is going to be. Wfgh66 (talk) 00:04, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

http://www.bloodline-themovie.com/ is a beautiful website. It's unfortunate that the people involved in it are intent on perpetuating a myth rather than exposing it for whatever it really is as a true investigative documentarian would. --Loremaster (talk) 14:14, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

It should be regarded as being strictly entertainment, not historical/archaeological research. And as a demonstration of the fact that the myth will continue to re-surface in one form or another by those who are captivated by it. Wfgh66 (talk) 17:17, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I know. This is why fairness and accuracy in reporting on the Priory of Sion in this article is so important for posterity. --Loremaster (talk) 18:00, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Let's wait for the French response to the documentary in the form of their media articles. The French consider the project with hilarity on their newsgroups.Wfgh66 (talk) 19:42, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Update

Here's the latest update on Bloodline-The Movie

Tomb Discovered in France Considered Knights Templar - When Excavated, Findings May Challenge the Tenets of Christianity http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/show/tomb-discovered-in-france-considered,355964.shtml

Wfgh66 (talk) 15:30, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

*sigh* Can someone explain how finding the tomb of Mary Magdalene challenges the tenets of Christianity? As far as I know, Christians don't believe that she bodily ascended to heaven like Jesus... --Loremaster (talk) 20:10, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Mary Magdalene bore Jesus Christ's offspring and emigrated to the South of France. Without HBHG, these folks would be absolutely nowhere. Wfgh66 (talk) 20:58, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I understand. My point is that finding the tomb (and corpse or bones) of Mary Magdalene in the south of France might be a great archaeological discovery but it doesn't prove that she bore the offspring of the historical Jesus. Regardless, let's hope this movie makes more people read the Wikipedia article on the Priory of Sion and get a reality check. --Loremaster (talk) 21:20, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Loremaster, you are absolutely correct. The remains of the Magdalene (or Mary of Bethany - the Blooline people have not worked out that these are not (necessarily) the same) are of no consequence to Christianity. Remember, her relics are venerated in Vezelay for a thousand years with any harm done to Christianity or the Church. The legend of her travelling to Gaul is absolutely independent from claims about a bloodline. This whole thing is probably a twist on claims about Jesus' remains (as put forth by Schellenberg/Andrews et al.) Str1977 ^(talk) 09:49, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Mixed Bag

Bloodline-The Movie will be a mixed bag of various claimants, various "discoveries" and assorted "parchments". The various "authorities" will have their own takes that will be devoid of any uniformity of belief. There will be spokespeople for the PoS that do not believe in the bloodline (Sandri) just like there will be those arguing for the authenticity of the remains of the Magdalene claiming it was part of the structure of the PoS (Hammott).Wfgh66 (talk) 21:35, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Unless this movie is a major success (which I doubt it will be), I don't think we should give it more attention in the article than it already has. --Loremaster (talk) 21:39, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Depending on what the various archaeological papers may produce (which should be interesting, for reasons other to what Burgess expects), there may even have to be a Wikipedia article devoted to the movie.Wfgh66 (talk) 21:43, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree. --Loremaster (talk) 22:27, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Except that the various sites have been contaminated by various "artifacts" being removed for analyses around the world way ahead of any official archaeological scientific examination, thus seriously compromising the real value of any such future activity.

That's sad. --Loremaster (talk) 07:47, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

On second thought, I've decided to create a new section for this movie in the article: Priory of Sion#Bloodline --Loremaster (talk) 10:08, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

The latest update is that there are three tombs, forming a geometric triange in the countryside (influence of the Louvre Pyramid?) - let's guess now who they belong to: Jesus Christ, Mary Magdalene, and..."Sigisbert IV"? Wfgh66 (talk) 10:01, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

In light of Burgess's bias and agenda, it's more likely that he will claim to have found the "Holy Family": Jesus, Mary Magdalene, and son/daughter. ;) That being said, it would be stunning if this pseudo-documentary led to the discovery of the tombs of some important people linked to the Knights Templar. --Loremaster (talk) 13:31, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Humbug, the whole thing is an obvious set-up. Thousands and thousands of treasure hunters have searched the entire area for decades since the mid-1950s and they all missed what "Ben Hammott" found? He's obviously a rich sort, with plenty of time on his hands, able to obtain mummies at auctions. Wfgh66 (talk) 13:41, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

That's exactly what I've been thinking from the beginning but one must keep an open mind despite being a skeptic. By the way, who is Ben Hammott? --Loremaster (talk) 14:32, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

The treasure seekers' activities have been documented in newspaper article after newspaper article. "Ben Hammott" is an anagram of "The Tombman", the individual responsible for this scam. His "testimonies" relating to this begin from 1999. Here is the latest howler (an obvious invention by the film maker Bruce Burgess - there are people around who can quite easily contradict this story): [1] Wfgh66 (talk) 14:44, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

In light of the likelihood this is a hoax, aren't these people going to get in trouble for reporting their "discovery" to the French government and triggering plans for a full scale archaeological examination? That being said, how do we even know that anything has been reported to the authorities in light of the source? --Loremaster (talk) 15:14, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Good Point! That it has been reported to the authorities is according to the DRAC statement given here: [2] Only professional archaeologists are allowed to conduct digs in France and the use of metal detectors is forbidden or at least tightly monitored. Wfgh66 (talk) 16:02, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Saw clips of the movie last night; 3 people are sitting round a kitchen table with the 'artifacts'. man is holding (without gloves) an opened small brown bottle containing paper message and is about to dive into the top with a pair of eyebrow tweezers. The woman is leaning over the table saying something like, 'don't... don't... you'll damage the paper...' and he continues to pull the paper out quickly like a small child might. he unfurls it with his bare fingers and reads it. We see what looks like very well preserved ink. Then they are showing some vases and containers. Again handling them bare handed. When the camera is in the cave we see the shroud - white with a red cross - some dirt on it but no obvious discoloration or staining. I actually thought I was watching an April Fools joke. I simply don't think any of this merits being in this article until some verification is done. Having a separate article sounds fine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.106.235.82 (talk) 18:13, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

No one disputes that this film like most books on the Priory of Sion are a "joke" but it doesn't change the fact that the notable ones inform or, more precisely, misinform the public about what the Priory is and isn't. That's why they deserved to be mentioned in the Wikipedia article on the Priory of Sion. --Loremaster (talk) 16:24, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Another Update

Rivalry between the believers has occurred: Burgess' Bloodline documentary has been severely criticised ahead of its debut by those who believe(d) that the remains of Mary Magdalene lay in the vicinity of Rennes-le-Chateau independently of "Ben Hammott's" "discoveries". Those involved with the Bloodline documentary have been given the ultimatum by rival believers to provide proof that DRAC has a File on the "discovery"; why there appear to be basic French spelling mistakes in the "parchments" allegedly composed by Sauniere; and why there are minor differences in the photos of the contents of the tomb taken during different periods of time ("Hammott" claims that nobody has ever entered the tomb). Andre Douzet claimed that he knew the location of Mary Magdalene's remains in the vicinity of Rennes-le-Chateau (but seems not to have committed himself to print over this), was considered by Burgess to be included in Bloodline but then was overlooked. It's this faction that is doing the attacking. Wfgh66 (talk) 14:09, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I expected something like this to happen. --Loremaster (talk) 15:02, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Movie Review: Bloodline Wfgh66 (talk) 14:59, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I think all references to the "bloodline movie" - including all the promotion for the website on this page, should be removed. The 'debate' about the movie which appears in the article is not in any way encyclopedic in nature. This movie is not one of the biggest things to happen on the topic of the Priory of Sion as it's lengthy section would imply! I will leave it to the editing experts but I recommend removal of the entire "The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail" section. 75.106.235.82 (talk) 07:17, 3 May 2008 (UTC)JNC 00:16 (PST):

I strongly disagree. First, the mention of this film (which is notable due to its coverage by ABC Nightline) in the article is quite brief so I don't see why you would have a problem. Second, in light of the fact that The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail is the first international bestseller to have made the Priory of Sion known to the masses, a "The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail" section in the Priory of Sion article is entirely justified. The notion of removing it is simply absurd. --Loremaster (talk) 19:05, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Debunking

The Andre Douzet Promoters and believers in the Rennes-le-Chateau "mystery" have done their own debunking of Bloodline here: [3] Of course, their own positions can be just as easily debunked. Wfgh66 (talk) 18:55, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Bruce Burgess interviewed on ABC News

Yep, this is another HBHG: [4] Wfgh66 (talk) 23:20, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm... When a topic gets Smartline, uh, I mean Nightline treatment, it becomes notable enough to get its own Wikipedia article. --Loremaster (talk) 16:13, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

The old canard "nobody knows where Sauniere got his money from" was repeated yet again. And Sauniere never lost his devotion to his Catholic Faith. Funny how informed researchers are never invited on these interviews to spar with the "star guests". Wfgh66 (talk) 16:22, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

If I was Paul Smith, I would redesign your Priory of Sion debunking website to make it look more professional and try to have the new website sponsored by the The Skeptics Society or the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry. Then I would send a press release to the media to let them know that I am a "Priory of Sion skeptic" available for interviews. ;) --Loremaster (talk) 22:06, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Priory of Sion Debunking Website

The Priory of Sion debunking website is doing very well. It has served and continues to serve as a source of information on the hoax. There is no need to change anything. Most of the material has now been published in various books and has been featured on many documentaries. The material there is no longer unique nor can it any more be described as original research (although it once was). It matters not if the website has been blacklisted by Wikipedia. The material on the website is found in abundance in countless Wikipedia articles. There is no need to cite the website, merely to use the material found on the website that has been used by various authors in various books, which is precisely what is happening. Wfgh66 (talk) 11:00, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Good to know. --Loremaster (talk) 11:56, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with all that. Str1977 ^(talk) 21:46, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Latest Bloodline Update

Here: http://www.blogtalkradio.com/Bloodline Robert Howells, "Ben Hammott", Renee Fratpietro, Dr. Barkay, Reverend Lionel Fanthorpe Wfgh66 (talk) 22:54, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Los Angeles Times review

"maybe it's not the proposed Jesus-Mary "bloodline" that needs defending but, rather, Christian doctrine itself."[5]] Well, we'd better fix up Christanity thanks to this "documentary". -- SEWilco (talk) 11:34, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

(Laughter) Christianity needs "fixing" alright but I don't think this "documentary" is up to job. I prefer to trust the reconstruction work of the Jesus Seminar. ;) --Loremaster (talk) 18:55, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Bigger burst of laughter. Yes, the Jesus Seminar. Let's take that nonsense seriously. LOL. Wfgh66 (talk) 19:59, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think the Priory of Sion talk page is an appropriate place to discuss this tangent but I will end this "debate" with the following quote from the Jesus Seminar article:

"Members of the Jesus Seminar have responded to their critics in various books and dialogues, which typically defend both their methodology and their conclusions. Among these responses are The Jesus Seminar and Its Critics by Robert J. Miller, a member of the Seminar; The Apocalyptic Jesus: A Debate, a dialogue with Allison, Borg, Crossan, and Stephen Patterson; The Jesus Controversy: Perspectives in Conflict, a dialogue between Crossan, Johnson, and Werner H. Kelber. The Meaning of Jesus: Two Visions, by Borg and N. T. Wright demonstrated how two scholars with divergent theological positions can work together to creatively share and discuss their thoughts."

--Loremaster (talk) 20:01, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Bullseye! Their thoughts. Their opinions. Wfgh66 (talk) 20:07, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

*sigh* Neither I nor any of the Fellows of the Jesus Seminar have ever said that their conclusions are facts. However, laughingly dismissing their sophisticated thoughts and academic opinions as "nonsense" is obscurantism. Loremaster (talk) 20:37, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Opinions change from generation to generation. The Gospel of Thomas has suddenly become a "2nd century text". Such a position was dismissed out-of-hand by the previous generation of Biblical scholars as being too far-fetched and extreme. Wfgh66 (talk) 20:55, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

True but that fact doesn't affect the credibility of their current thesis which many conservative Christians would benefit from reading. Loremaster (talk) 02:17, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Could we focus on this article here. The Jesus Seminar indeed has some methodological flaws. I don't see any relevance to this article however. Str1977 ^(talk) 09:00, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

uh, the debate was over so there was no need for you to referee. --Loremaster (talk) 15:29, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't trying to referee but to stop. How could I know this was over. If you look at the time stamps, you'll see that the last posting was recent. Str1977 ^(talk) 22:20, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Priroy of Sion treasure

Questions

1. Did Chaumeil or anyone else involved in the Priory of Sion hoax ring ever reveal (explicitly rather than implicitly) what the treasure that belongs to Dagobert II and Sion was supposed to be in theory?
2. When Plantard claimed that the Priory of Sion had the lost treasure of the Temple in Jerusalem, were we supposed to believe that this was the treasure that belongs to Dagobert II and Sion or simply a second treasure?
3. [Since] Plantard didn't want to connect the Merovingian bloodline to Jesus, Mary Magdalene, David and Zadok; why did he claim that the Priory of Sion had the lost treasure of the Temple in Jerusalem?

--Loremaster (talk) 20:13, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Answers

1. I read somewhere that the treasure that belongs to Dagobert II and Sion are the relics of Merovingian prince Sigebert IV. However, I have lost that source. Does someone have a source for this claim?
2. After re-reading HBHG, it seems that Plantard wanted to imply that Priory of Sion had more than one treasure so the lost treasure of the Temple in Jerusalem and the treasure that belongs to Dagobert II and Sion are two separate things.
3. The answer is that Plantard wanted to use the lost treasure of the Temple in Jerusalem, which was built on Benjaminite territory in ancient Israel, as further "proof" that the Merovingians were descended from the Tribe of Benjamin.

--Loremaster (talk) 17:30, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

1. I have rephrased the sentence dealing with treasure that belongs to Dagobert II and Sion in light of some "new" information. I've also added a source. --Loremaster (talk) 18:52, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Plantard on the Merovingians and the Davidic line

From p. 296 of The Messianic Legacy paperback:

At our meeting in April, 1982, M. Plantard adopted an ambivalent attitude towards our book. On the whole, he endorsed it and offered to correct, for the French edition, certain vague or unclear references. at the same time, he would neither confirm nor deny our thesis that the Merovingian bloodline was descended from Jesus. There was no evidence either way, he said non-committally. It was 'all too far in the past', all 'too long ago'. There was no reliable genealogies. Besides Jesus had brothers. Nevertheless, he acknowledged the Merovingians to have been of Judaic descent, deriving from the royal line of David.

I made a few minor edits accordingly.--Loremaster (talk) 14:34, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

You are putting too much weight onto something that does not come directly from Plantard and; this something does not square the Tribe of Benjamin with the Line of David. Please do not delete this comment. Wfgh66 (talk) 02:47, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

uh, relax. I did not and will not delete the comment. I simply moved it into the paragraph above and added the words "initially" and "only". Didn't you notice? As for your argument, anything can be squared in the mind of a pseudohistorian: LL&B simply argued that Mary Magdalene was of the Tribe of Benjamin and when she married Jesus, son of David, it represented the union of Judaic and Benjaminite dynasties... --Loremaster (talk) 02:56, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

What Plantard claimed (pseudo-historian) still does not square with what BL&L (pseudo-historians) claimed. Two different things. Wfgh66 (talk) 03:11, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

If you say so but it ultimately doesnt matter since we are dealing with what people said regarless of how non-sensical it might be. --Loremaster (talk) 17:11, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Need a little clarity

Copyedit note: the following two sentences in The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail section need a little rewriting for clarity. I have bolded the troubling phrases.

1 - the original version emanated from a Masonic body of the Rite of Strict Observance, which had nothing to do with a "Judaeo-Masonic conspiracy";

What "had nothing to do with a 'Judeo-Masonic conspiracy'"? The original version? The Rite of Strict Observance? Did it really have nothing to do with a conspiracy, or is that simply the point the authors were trying to make in the book?

2 - some occultists speculated that the emergence of the Priory of Sion and Plantard closely follows The Prophecies by M. Michel Nostradamus (which Plantard was intentionally trying to fulfill);

Were the occultists speculating that Plantard was intentionally tying to fulfill the prophecies, or is the article writer voicing this as a fact in opposition to their speculation?

I would have rewritten these myself if I knew the answers! SlackerMom (talk) 18:06, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

1. The hypothetical original version. The author of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion wanted us to believe that it was the master plan of a Judeo-Masonic conspiracy. The authors of The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail claim that The Protocols of the Elders of Zion was based on a hypothetical text that had nothing to do with this Judeo-Masonic conspiracy but with a conspiracy to control Freemasonry.
2. The occultists speculated that Plantard was fulfilling Nostradamus prophecies. What they didn't know is that Plantard was intentionally trying to fulfill these prophecies. I edited the article for clarification but feel free to further improve that sentence.

--Loremaster (talk) 18:20, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I've replaced "Judeo-Masonic conspiracy" with "Zionist conspiracy" for the sake of clarity since the authors of The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail suggest that there technically is a Judeo-Masonic conspiracy since, according to them, the Merovingians are Jewish, that some members of the Priory of Sion are Jewish, and the Priory of Sion was an Hermetic Freemasonry. However, as they explain, these conspirators are only interested in establishing a United States of Europe not the reestablishing of a homeland for the Jewish People in Palestine. --Loremaster (talk) 19:19, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm radically improving that paragraph for the sake of clarity. Feel free to copyedit once I'm done. --Loremaster (talk) 07:08, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Here is the final text:

The authors also incorporated the antisemitic and anti-Masonic tract known as The Protocols of the Elders of Zion into their story, concluding that it actually referred to the activities of the Priory of Sion. They presented it as the most persuasive piece of evidence for the existence and activities of the Priory of Sion by arguing that:

• the original text on which the published version of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion was based had nothing to do with a Zionist conspiracy. It issued from a Masonic body practicing the Rite of Strict Observance which incorporated the word "Zion" in its name;
• the original text was not intended to be released publicly, but was a program for gaining control of Freemasonry as part of a strategy to reorganize church and state according to esoteric Christian principles;
• Sergei Nilus changed the original text in about 1903, after a failed attempt to gain influence in the court of Tsar Nicholas II of Russia, in order to discredit the esoteric clique around Papus; and
• some esoteric Christian elements in the original text were ignored by Nilus and hence remained unchanged in the tract he published.

In reaction to this memetic synthesis of investigative journalism with religious conspiracism, many secular conspiracy theorists added the Priory of Sion to their list of secret societies collaborating or competing to manipulate political happenings from behind the scenes in their bid for world domination;some occultists speculated that the emergence of the Priory of Sion and Plantard closely follows The Prophecies by M. Michel Nostradamus (unaware that Plantard was intentionally trying to fulfill them); while fringe Christian eschatologists countered that it was a fulfillment of prophecies found in the Book of Revelation and further proof of an anti-Christian conspiracy of epic proportions.

Any questions? --Loremaster (talk) 08:42, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Nice work - that's way better. SlackerMom (talk) 12:36, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Uncited paragraph deleted

User:Wednesday Next deleted the following paragraph from the History section because no one has been able cite a source for months now:

However, the bulk of the activities of the Priory of Sion bore no resemblance to the objectives as outlined in its statutes: The journal, Circuit, was indicated as a news bulletin of an "organization for the defence of the rights and the freedom of affordable housing" rather than for the promotion of chivalry-inspired charitable work. The first issue of the journal is dated 27 May 1956, and, in total, twelve issues appeared. Some of the articles took a political position in the local council elections. Others criticized and even attacked real-estate developers of Annemasse. Considering the political instability of the French Fourth Republic, the objectives of the journal were regarded with suspicion by the local authorities.

If someone can cite a source for the entire paragraph (or parts of it) it can be immediately restored. --Loremaster (talk) 04:03, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm restoring the text and citing a source. --Loremaster (talk) 18:33, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Citations

My take on how citations should look like is this:

In footnotes, we should give:

• Author (first name first, surname second), Book title (in italics), Publisher and place, year, pages (p. 123 or p. 123f. or p. 123-456.)
  • Publication dates might be given in parantheses, e.g. (Publisher and place, year)
  • I don't care much for ISBN in footnotes.

If it's not a book but an article, we should write:

• Author (first name first, surname second), "Article title", in: Editor, Book title ...
• Author (first name first, surname second), "Article title", Magazine title (in italics), issue (year), pages.

All these in the first mentionings. In the subsequent mentionings, we can leave it at

• Surname, Short title, page.

In the literature section, we should

• Author (surname first, first name second), Book title (in italics), Publisher and place, year, pages (p. 123 or p. 123f. or p. 123-456.) ISBN

I personally disapprove of using these forms/templates as they tend to mess up things, creating large gaps and other things.

Hope this helps. Str1977 ^(talk) 21:09, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks but you and User:Wfgh66 will have to work on this without me. --Loremaster (talk) 01:09, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay. I will go through the references from time to time, ensuring that they are uniform and sensible. Str1977 ^(talk) 09:30, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Good. --Loremaster (talk) 16:23, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I added 3 citation needed tags (not to be annoying but) so that the article lives up to the Good Article standards when it comes to citing sources for claims being made. --Loremaster (talk) 01:22, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

The 3 citation needed tags are one in the History section and two in The Plantard Plot section. --Loremaster (talk) 01:02, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Sentences that have citation needed tags will be deleted sooner or later. --Loremaster (talk) 02:41, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

There is only one citation needed tag left in the article, specifically the History section. --Loremaster (talk) 22:16, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

There are now 4 new citation needed tags in the article due to comments on the Priory of Sion Peer Review page. --Loremaster (talk) 20:04, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

There are now 3. --Loremaster (talk) 09:18, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

There are now 2. --Loremaster (talk) 06:18, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

There are no more citation needed tags. --Loremaster (talk) 14:23, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Entire article is drivel

Loremaster again in attempting to own and impose his drivel on the subject, has created an article so far removed from any reality that it is meaningless entirely. His overfocus on Pierre Plantard, then has relegated the historical PS to nothing. And his endless supposed citing of experts are all persons who, as Loremaster, had NO understanding, zero understanding of anything to do with PS and what it is and what it is about, etc.

This writer is an eyewitness, to the PS and its rites, and its actions, and is GM of the PS and so can speak with certainty about it ALL; and has done so before to have the lunatics prevail , and wipe out the clear explanations given many times then before. /s/ Big Willy, Gint Hoomongus IX 76.195.73.11 (talk) 03:25, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Although I am tempted not to take this rant seriously nor respond to it, I will say this: If you truly are the Grand Master of the Priory of Sion, you have to be mindful of not violating the Wikipedia:Conflict of interest behavioral guideline. --Loremaster (talk) 15:06, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Priory of Sion emblem

In the French Wikipedia article on the Priory of Sion, it's claimed that the Priory of Sion emblem is a fleur-de-lis is interlaced with a "circuit" known as the Crux (or Southern Cross). Do we have an English source that supports this claim? --Loremaster (talk) 19:53, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

The Messianic Legacy

I created a new section that should be expanded by summarizing the content of the book The Messianic Legacy dealing with the Priory of Sion. --Loremaster (talk) 20:58, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I've finished expanding this section. --Loremaster (talk) 17:58, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Question about the contributors to this article

i wonder if this article was written by a religious person can anyone shed light on this —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.24.184.81 (talk) 23:25, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Putting aside the fact that this talk page is only for discussing improvements to the Priory of Sion article; as the primary contributor to this article, I assume you were asking a question about me. For the sake of transparency, I've always been open about the fact that I am a secular humanist. So I'm not a “religious person” per say but I'm not anti-religion. --Loremaster (talk) 20:53, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Please see WP:OUTING, your question is not appropriate. Fæ (talk) 06:48, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Is it possible that the Priory of Sion are protecting the blood line of moses as he was the true jesus christ , as proposed in the moses code .. As a result this is the moses code was a clue, to being worked out .. Thu Jesus Christ was born havng no none records of birh or of his death . In short their are no records of Jesus Christ as only being mythical, as with moses there is full documented evidence throught his life . —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.219.232.109 (talk) 16:43, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Computation exercise:

1. let's (conservatively) date Mose to 1200 BC,
2. now imagine he had 2 children (conservatively) at the age of 33 (conservatively) – 1 generation,
3. each 100 years does then constitute 3 generations, making 2³ = 8 grand children per 100 years,
4. 1200 BC to 2000 AD makes 3200 years, giving 32*3 generations = 96 d:o,
5. 2⁹⁶ is what? It is ... (imagine a dramatical pause here) ... = 79228162514264337593543950336, which is a general indication of his number of "blood lines"!

Now, speaking about blood lines after say 500 years is just nonsense. Speaking about blood lines in the light of modern DNA biology and the spread of genes is also nonsense, it is irrational and just ragingly lunatic. For the rest: God can make any stone to a Child of Israel [ref: John the Baptist]. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 08:07, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

A conception

Pierre Plantard had a large ^{[citation needed]} hovering over himself, that made the journalists (probably proto-Wikipedians themselves) automatically disbelief his claims. I think that that was the main reason that they debunked him that easily and thoroughly. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 07:54, 17 May 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)

I've replaced the phrase "After becoming a small cause célèbre" with "After attracting varying degrees of public attention", and the phrase "one of the great hoaxes of the 20th century" with "France's greatest twentieth-century literary hoax" using Katsoulis' book as a source for the latter. --Loremaster (talk) 21:37, 20 September 2020 (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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roman deThierry (talk • contribs) 03:41, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Nothing. The Merovingian dynasty may have millions of descendents. Even if you were somehow proven to be the lineal descendant following proper rules precence in inheritence, there have been so many changes of regime, it would mean nothing. Paul B (talk) 20:54, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Ferfinand de Gonzague death date

14. Ferdinand de Gonzague (1527–1575)

referenced Ferdinand died on 1557

Ferrante I Gonzaga (also Ferdinando I Gonzaga; 28 January 1507- 15 November 1557) was an Italian condottiero, a member of the House of Gonzaga and the founder of the branch of the Gonzaga of Guastalla.

Possible error in all Prior "sources"

(Henn Sarv (talk) 16:20, 6 December 2015 (UTC))