Talk:Pierre Plantard

message: This run-on sentence doesn't make sense:  According to the late Robert Amadou (1924–2006), Pierre Plantard in 1953 was accused of selling degrees of esoteric orders for exorbitant sums.[5] According to a more reliable source, given in a letter written by Léon Guersillon the Mayor of Annemasse in 1956, contained in the folder holding the 1956 Statutes of the Priory of Sion in the subprefecture of Saint-Julien-en-Genevois,[12][15] Plantard was given a six-month sentence in December 1953 for abus de confiance (breach of trust), relating to other crimes.   — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.63.127.136 (talk) 02:47, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Moved to talk

message: "Claude Charlot of the Paris Prefecture of Police stated on a CBS News '60 Minutes' documentary that the Alpha Galates "had only four regular members" - the term Alpha Galates appears suddenly here with no prior explanation or definition.  Please insert a description so readers know what one earth you're talking about!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.108.102.16 (talk) 00:42, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Early Life

message: He became an impostor who claimed to be a Merovingian pretender to the throne of France during the early 1960s, his position being influenced by an article that he had read by Louis Saurel in the French magazine Les Cahiers de l'Histoire Number 1 (1960).  M Plantard claimed to have descended from Dagobert II.
:I really don't think this paragraph is fair to Plantard. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 17:56, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Why is there a NPOV flag up for this article.  If you put it up Sam Spade, what are your concerns?  I hate seeing NPOV flags up without any detailed justification.  It just makes Wiki look bad. --Maustrauser 13:19, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: IMHO the problem is that, despite all the detractors, and those with a professional interest in "exposing the hoax", the Plantard story throws up a number of serious questions.  For example, whether the Merovingians were betrayed by "Secret Masters" within the then-hierarchy of the then Only True Church; whether the supposed connections between obscure paintings exist; and how Saunière was able to finance his activities.  While ever these questions remain, there will be dispute over M.Plantard's role, and the attachment of the "Hoax" tag is inherently POV.  NPOV might call for a three-page treatment: 1) facts; 2) pro-"hoax" arguments; 3) apologia. --Simon Cursitor 07:03, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV

message: I am intrigued that new information should be so quickly eliminated or text reverted when it is obvious that the person who does the reversing obviously had no time to double check. 
At Annemasse we find Plantard's alter ego gradually taking shape. We discover the banality of his life (no offense meant) jusxtaposed with the ambition and megalomania of his aspirations. 
Unless someone has carried out a thorough investigation in the region, I suggest they refrain from such hasty 'reversions'.
:I suspect it was considered rather too circumstantial and digressive. Paul B 02:21, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plantard in Annemasse (by Politis) 

message: I edited out the link to Gisors that is part of Paris, the Gisors in question relating to the article being the town located in Normandy. Wfgh66 15:11, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gisors - Normandy, not Paris 

message: The authors of The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail never mentioned Robert Ambelain, whose theories they rejected. Various updates of The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail have been published since 1982 giving supplemental information relating to the idea of a married Jesus Christ but without ever once mentioning the works of Robert Ambelain. Here's what Massimo Introvigne actually said:
http://www.cesnur.org/2005/mi_02_03d.htm
"Lincoln meshed Ambelain’s story about the marriage of Jesus with that of the Merovingians suggested by Plantard, and «revealed» that the Merovingians protected by the Priory of Sion were important, not because they were the heirs to the throne of France, as much as because they were the descendants of Jesus Christ and Mary Magdalene. The latter suited Lincoln better than Ambelain’s Salome because both of her connection with the parish church in Rennes-le-Château and of the Medieval legends claiming that she escaped persecution and eventually settled and died in Southern France (sans «husband» and children, however, which were never part of these legends)." Wfgh66 (talk) 13:29, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the explanation. My point was: if there is no causal link between HBHG and Ambelain or between Plantard and Ambelain, the latter author doesn't belong here. Just a mere agreement on some things is not engough. By "causal link" I mean that one side adopted an idea from the other, even if only partially, or was influenced, or inspired an idea in the other. Str1977 (talk) 14:12, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The only causal link between Robert Ambelain and The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail is the claim of a married Jesus Christ. "In Contrast to" rather than "based on" would be a better description. For example, when French researcher Pierre Jarnac reviewed Holy Blood he stated he preferred Ambelain to Baigent, Lincoln and Leigh. Wfgh66 (talk) 14:20, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: What a minute: "The only causal link ... is the claim of a married Jesus Christ." That is no causal link. A causal link HBHG took that idead from Ambelain. Simply the two books agreeing on one idea is not enough. "In contrast to" doesn't work either as anything aside from Ambelaine providing HBHG with one element of their book makes Ambelaine totally irrelevant. Str1977 (talk) 15:45, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Robert Ambelain and The Holy Blood and Holy Grail 

message: From Interview with Guy Patton, Co-Author of Web of Gold:The Secret Power of a Sacred Treasure By Tracy R. Twymany: 
DR: Are you convinced that the Pierre Plantard and other members of the Priory of Sion were involved with the Nazi movement and the Vichy government in France? If so, how does this reconcile with the Priory’s seemingly Zionist agenda, supporting the restoration of monarchy based on the Biblical House of David?
GP: Plantard may not have been directly involved with the Nazi movement but he was certainly a supporter of Marshal Pétain and his Vichy government. The Vichy ideology was based on a belief in a national regeneration of France by an elite which would promote a blend of Christian and Chivalric ideals. This may have paralleled the Nazi agenda but was independent and strictly French. As to the Priory of Sion - Jewish question, a differentiation between political (and cultural) Zionism and the more religious Judaic tradition is crucial. The Priory of Sion does not support Zionism, but in its Dossiers Secrets does appear to acknowledge that Jesus Christ was of the biblical line of David. A bloodline of Jesus, in which they include the Merovingian monarchs, must therefore be Jewish. It is evident that the Priory of Sion have had to find a mechanism of reconciling their essentially Christian beliefs with Jesus’s traditional Jewish roots. And this may well lie at the heart of the Priory’s mythology. It should be noted that during the war, Vichy persecution of Jews was almost exclusively confined to the deportation of Askenazi Jews that had fled into France from eastern Europe. The resident Sephardic community was left largely untouched. 
I think I have found an answer to this question in the Antisemitism article:
Brown University historian David Kertzer, working from the Vatican archive, has further argued in his book The Popes Against the Jews that in the 19th and early 20th centuries the Roman Catholic Church adhered to a distinction between "good antisemitism" and "bad antisemitism". The "bad" kind promoted hatred of Jews because of their descent. This was considered un-Christian because the Christian message was intended for all of humanity regardless of ethnicity; anyone could become a Christian. The "good" kind criticized alleged Jewish conspiracies to control newspapers, banks, and other institutions, to care only about accumulation of wealth, etc. Many Catholic bishops wrote articles criticizing Jews on such grounds, and, when accused of promoting hatred of Jews, would remind people that they condemned the "bad" kind of antisemitism.
I am therefore positing that Pierre Plantard considered himself a "good antisemite". --Loremaster (talk) 08:43, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Except that Guy Patton is a goofball who thinks that Plantard and the PoS were "serious entities", like Tracy Twyman: neither of whom cite blatant anti-semitic quotations from Vaincre. Patton's book doesn't even mention Article Seven of the Statutes of the Alpha Galates stipulating that the Order was closed to Jews. I would love to know about the  "Priory’s seemingly Zionist agenda, supporting the restoration of monarchy based on the Biblical House of David", and how this fantasy originated. They certainly do not produce any PoS material to substantiate the validity of the premise! Wfgh66 (talk) 11:27, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Quote: The Priory of Sion does not support Zionism, but in its Dossiers Secrets does appear to acknowledge that Jesus Christ was of the biblical line of David. Where??? I have the Dossiers Secrets, no such reference. Wfgh66 (talk) 12:41, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. I did notice all those problems you mentioned. However, if you delete the mention of Jesus, do the Dossiers Secrets mention the Merovigian in connection to the Davidic line at all? --Loremaster (talk) 15:42, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The Merovingians are connected to the Tribe of Benjamin, not Judah (that was of the line of David) See here, where the city of Jerusalem is situated on the border of Tribe of Benjamin and Tribe of Judah. Wfgh66 (talk) 16:21, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting. I always assumed that Pierre Plantard claimed descent from both the Merovingian and the Davidic line but not the Jesus bloodline. --Loremaster (talk) 00:52, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

text: From the Tribe of Benjamin article:Despite its ethnic connection to Ephraim, the main tribe in the Kingdom of Israel, Benjamin instead associated with the southern tribes and became part of the Kingdom of Judah. Benjamin was very much a minor partner; kings came from the tribe of Judah and it was Judah which gave its name to the kingdom. As part of the kingdom of Judah, Benjamin survived the destruction of Israel by the Assyrians, and instead was subjected to the Babylonian captivity; when the captivity ended, the distinction between Benjamin and the other tribes in the kingdom of Judah were lost in favour of a common identity as Jews. --Loremaster (talk) 07:03, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pierre Plantard: Antisemite or Zionist or both? 

message: Stephen Anderson is a believer in the Priory of Sion. If he makes meaningful observations, his final conclusion is always biased towards the existence.  Wfgh66 (talk) 23:25, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: So? Who isn't biased? --Loremaster (talk) 23:27, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: We can't just call someone "fringe". That runs afoul of the policy on living persons. We can report that someone has called him "fringe", with a citation, of course. If he really is fringe, which I don't dispute, then by WP:FRINGE, his views should not even be mentioned in the article, and certainly not in the lead section. Wednesday Next (talk) 23:27, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The belief in the existence of the Priory of Sion is fringe, and Anderson believes in the existence of the Priory of Sion; to him it is not a "hoax". Wfgh66 (talk) 23:30, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That's original research. In particular synthesis. Your opinion doesn't count (from the standpoint of Wikipedia). You must cite a third party source. Wednesday Next (talk) 23:31, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

text: Wfgh66, if we were citing Anderson to rewrite the article in such a way to present the Priory of Sion as not being a hoax, I would agree with you that he is not a reliable source. However, we are only citing for having provided the most logical motive behind Plantard's actions. So trying to discredit him as "fringe" is pointless. --Loremaster (talk) 23:37, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, if he is fringe and his opinion about Plantard's motive is questionable, which it appears to be, the whole thing should simply be removed. Wednesday Next (talk) 23:39, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed him for other reasons so I consider this dispute over. --Loremaster (talk) 23:42, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That looks like a good resolution to me. Wednesday Next (talk) 23:52, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

text: I have stopped editing the article and am trying to discuss. Isn't that what I'm supposed to do? Wednesday Next (talk) 23:33, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Reading Anderson's articles from "The Rennes Observer" shows that he is a believer in the PoS. Is repeating that considered OR? Wfgh66 (talk) 23:36, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Formulating an opinion rather than repeating one is introducing your own opinion. We aren't supposed to be doing that. Wednesday Next (talk) 23:41, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: From reading Anderson's articles that he is a believer in the PoS is not "formulating an opinion" but reporting and repeating facts. You do not formulate Einstein's Theory of Relativity by reading it written by Einstein Wfgh66 (talk) 23:44, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I was referring only to the use of the word "fringe", which opinion would require citation to a third party. Wednesday Next (talk) 23:54, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

text: Anderson is not notable enough to be commented by anybody in any book. So even here Anderson fails the Wiki Notability test. Wfgh66 (talk) 00:00, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stephen Anderson 

message: There are two problems with the link. The first is that it doesn't even work except for you, Paul. The rest of us get "session expired" because the site requires cookies or something.
The second is that Wikipedia reference policy specifically excludes the use of search links of any kind as "references". They are not. Wednesday Next (talk) 21:47, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No it is not a "dead link" you need to click on the Tab to
activate the Search Engine. And search links exist independently of the editor as does the BNF Catalogue meaning there is no OR involved (like looking in an index in a book for particular information). Wfgh66 (talk) 21:51, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: They are still against policy. Wednesday Next (talk) 21:52, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

text: Google is a Search Engine. That's not against policy. There is no difference between Google and BNF Catalogue online. They are both Public Search Engines. Wfgh66 (talk) 21:59, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: A link to a Google search is not permitted either. Wednesday Next (talk) 22:01, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

text: Then delete the link to Google from here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google
I also note links to dictionaries and thesaurus' on Wikipedia.
Wfgh66 (talk) 22:04, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It is specifically to "searches" that the policy applies. Wednesday Next (talk) 22:11, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

text: So far, there's only you complaining about this. Wfgh66 (talk) 22:13, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a lame excuse. I can't find the policy right now but I know it exists. You should take some effort to ask at an appropriate place yourself... Wednesday Next (talk) 22:17, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

text: Looking up the online BNF Catalogue is no different to consulting it in person in Paris. Neither action involves OR since the catalogue exists independently to the researcher. Wfgh66 (talk) 22:25, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Proving something from the results or lack thereof using a search is both unreliable and may change over time. We simply don't use search links as references, we use other written sources. Wednesday Next (talk) 22:27, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

text: The material BNF Catalogue is a written source, as is the virtual online version. Wfgh66 (talk) 22:29, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a primary source. Secondary sources are preferred. I would hesitate to call it a reliable, third-party, published source. It's a database, not published material. It is useful for facts about a particular book, but a negative search result is something which is not actually contained in it. Wednesday Next (talk) 22:32, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That's nonsense. Primary sources may be cited but only for that what they really say, without any added interpretation. E.g. you can quote the Paris phonebook that Thomas Plantard lives in Paris. You cannot deduce from the fact that he's the only Plantard appearing that he's the only Plantard in Paris (Fictional example). So primary sources are allowed. (The difference anyway is empty.) Str1977 (talk) 07:41, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

text: It's the actual book that is the primary source, not the catalogue or bibliography that lists it. Wfgh66 (talk) 22:33, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: But there is no book. You are citing a negative. Wednesday Next (talk) 22:34, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

text: Correction. I am citing what is listed in the BNF Catalogue. That is not OR.  Wfgh66 (talk) 22:36, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No, you are citing the lack of any listing, which is different. That is not a positive statement of fact made in the source. Wednesday Next (talk) 22:37, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Wednesday is correct. To back that statement up you'd need to find a reliable secondary source which says no other works have been attributed to Thomas Plantard. The search engine is inappropriate.--Cúchullain t/c 22:52, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

text: You are joking of course, students and authors use the catalogue listings found in libraries for their own research purposes. Library catalogues are secondary sources. Ask any librarian. The actual books listed are the primary sources. Wfgh66 (talk) 23:02, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Uh, no. No author would cite a library search catalog as a source, though they of course use them to find sources. You should look at the definition of primary and secondary source.--Cúchullain t/c 05:18, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

text: The books listed in Library Catalogues are the primary sources. Without them, the Catalogue would not exist. And there is no difference between looking at a Library Catalogue to looking in indexes in books or Googling. None of this constitutes "original research". Wfgh66 (talk) 13:28, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No one's saying you can't use them. You just can't cite them as your source. Use the books you've looked up (whether they're primary or secondary sources, you must be aware that not all books are primary sources).--Cúchullain t/c 16:16, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problem with BNC catalog link 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Pierre Plantard. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120425051656/http://www.rennes-le-chateau.tv/back/images_article/03010918115990.jpg to http://www.rennes-le-chateau.tv/back/images_article/03010918115990.jpg
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:50, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified