Talk:The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail/Archive 1

Ken Mondschein

I removed Ken Mondschein's review and debunking of the book from the external links and references section because the NY Press link was a dead end.

Only because of a superfluous trailing slash. I put it back. —No-One Jones 16:12, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Bloodline theory

The Resurrection of Jesus article says

Other writers claim that Jesus was taken from Roman custody when the crowds asked instead for Barabbas. These theories have given rise to such works of pseudohistory as Holy Blood, Holy Grail, which espouses the idea that the Merovingian kings were descendants of Jesus.

It's been too long since I read Holy Blood, Holy Grail for me to be sure, but I do not recall the bloodline theory being dependent on Jesus not being crucified or surviving the crucifixion, merely on Mary Magdalene carying his offspring. If that is indeed the case, could someone please update the reference in that article?

Ray Dassen 21:51, 2004 Oct 16 (UTC)

To the nit-picker

The essence of the book is the debunking of Christ. The authors may be wrong on everything else but the simple truth still stands: Jesus Christ was nothing more than a political figure. While the Christians attack the book and foam at the mouth to prove it is a hoax, no-one has debunked the most important part. This is the reason the book attracts so much attention, not because it's about secret societies or some mystery in france. As far as I can tell both sides of the debate are equally at fault for using post-hoc, red herring arguments. (Another good read is: The Sacred Mushroom and the Cross (Allegro, John M.) one of the dead-see scroll researchers interesting interpretation of the bible)

-James C

Essential problem with the thesis of book

Appears to be the following: Several centuries' worth of absence of "hatch, match and despatch" records and many short lives - if Jesus did leave heirs there would be no way to trace them. The point in favour of the book (& related volumes) - if it encourages investigation of the obscurer corners of history. Anyone wishing to make use of the first point can, with acknowledgement. Jackiespeel 18:07, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Anyone care to apply Occam's Razor to the plausibility of this book? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 212.85.15.68 (talk • contribs) .

Neutrality Dispute?

A disputed neutrality notice was added without explanation or justification. I am therefore removing it. Loremaster 2 July 2005 10:51 (UTC)

I will replace this with the correct notice as soon as I find which notice that is. —Phil | Talk 09:17, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

Arguments against the thesis

Can I add the arguments John Locke used in the first of the Two Treatises of Government about not knowing Adam's heir to my previous comments: there is equally no way of determining Jesus' heir.

Did any of the dark age local royal families claim descent from Jesus - rather than local chief gods? Jackiespeel 18:21, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Holy Blood, Holy Grail sheds light...a different perspective 02/15/2006

In regards to my resent research on the subject of Christianity, it led me to a book called "Holy Blood, Holy Grail": by Michael Baigent, Richard Leigh, and Henry Lincoln. This has a truly been a fascinating look at the history behind Christianity. What is fascinating is that no one is truly certain of that history, and yet, assumptions are made on both sides and a generation of people have been affected by this religion (including myself.)

Honestly, it has affected me so much so, that I feel as though I’m breaking up with a long-term boyfriend by questioning it all. A friend said to me,

“It is better to have been raised in a religion, like Christianity, to protect you from yourself. However, it is not good to die in the same religion.”

I’m not sure if I agree with him. I think it is not good to be raised in a religion because some never leave or even question the belief system, and the ones that do question it or leave are forever haunted by it. Granted, a few may leave and be completely free of it, and I say bravo to them; I hope to be free of it as well someday.

In short, what I went through it is nothing less than brainwash, true or not. And now I am attempting to undue all previous conceptions. Fortunately, each day it gets a little easier to swallow. There is so much information provided and hidden in this world which argues who exactly Jesus was. Some claim the information hasn’t been revealed for society’s sake because there would be mass pandemonium. I think this could be unfortunately true. Honestly, we should be able to make up our own minds and not be led down a path.

But there are two parts to any controlling relationship, the controller and the one being controlled. The one being controlled is just as guilty because they allowed themselves to be controlled. This is also true in abusive situations. If you really wanted to fight for your life or find confidence in yourself, you would. But, for some, they chose to be the victim. Or as far as religion is concerned, they chose to believe in something to have answers to the “why” questions. Here I must ask, why do we have to have answers at all?

Although, I have come to these conclusions on my own, I fortunately have others who share in my findings and agree with me. One being my love. I must quote him here because he has mastered living life without needing to have all the answers. He said to me, “Heather, I never said it would be easier on this side.” He’s absolutely right. Even so, it is more free, surprisingly, than when I was “saved” and lived in a religion where you just “know” and “believe.”

If you haven’t read it, read "Holy Blood, Holy Grail": by Michael Baigent, Richard Leigh, and Henry Lincoln. It is very meticulously researched and amazingly put together, but there are many presumptions, which the writers confess to making as well. I must say, though, the presumptions aren't any more far-fetched than the presumptions made by the Bible.

I read every book now as pure fiction because I will never see the proof. The more I read and the more I research, the more it will lead me to searching for proof by a cross-reference here and there, which I simply don’t have time for. So, what is my answer? I am going to live. Simply put, and attempt to do so in such a way where I stop asking “why?” I am going to just take life as a gift.

I will end this with a quote that states my conclusion well, and that is this:

It doesn’t matter if I was “saved” or not. My eggs were in a basket that may not exist.

Fiction?

Under the dewey decimal system (at my local library) this book is 232.9 in the non-fiction section. Unless I am mistaken, this book would be considered a work of non-fiction, whether or not the information is true. Talamor 23:03, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Pax Romanus' post

This does not pertain directly to HBHG. However, I feel it is a fact worth mentioning in this particular discussion room- for all who are interested. The speculations and hypotheses which compose this novel do oppose accepted ideas of Christianity as a whole. However, they confront more directly and are associated more closely with European Catholicism. I will assert, here, that Old Testament-New Testament Christianity is not Catholicism. In fact, Christainity is truly not a religion at all. It is a relationship with God which is founded upon three simple things- Forgiveness from God (which Jesus paid for with His life) love from God (which He offers willingly, on account that He made us for His Own glory) and a relationship with God (which He offers to us to strengthen us every day). As you have assuredly already withdrawn- the Templar Knights, Rennes-le-Chateau, Gisors, the Prieure documents, and les Dossiers secrets, all have nothing whatsoever to relate to this relationship with God. They are modern man's conjections, founded upon ancient conjections and faded papyrus documents written by groups that we would consider today to be cults. I admire the authors of HBHG for their reseraching fervor and for their rich secular knowledge. I recently saw a TV interview with one of the authors where he said, "I neither believe nor disbelieve anything." So, at the root of it all, these men are not so different- they are as unsure as everyone else. I do hope that, with further research they will find that no historical text is as solid and thorough as God's Word itself. I'm a Christian, not foaming at the mouth to attack this novel, but I stand to say: There is a profound, life changing Truth that exists in this world. And it is no secret- it is open to everyone. It is the hope and forgiveness that God offers to us all. Pax Romanus.

Hoax?

A hoax is an attempt to trick an audience into believing that something false is real. To trick people, the creators have to believe that their claims are false. I don't believe this is the case here. I can see good arguments for this being pseudohistory, but not for it being a hoax. Does anyone mind if I remove the hoax reference? KalevTait 00:43, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

After looking into it a bit more I've discoverd that it's claim of hoax is based on it being created by Pierre Plantard. Instead of removing the word hoax, I'll edit to make it clearer who was the originator of the hoax. KalevTait 00:59, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Crucifixion Survival?

Apparently this book has been accused of saying that Jesus physically survived the Crucifixion. It's been many many years since I read it last, and I don't have a copy. Does anyone know if this is an accurate assesment of HBHG? - —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.180.215.175 (talk • contribs) 09:38, 29 November 2006 (UTC).

The authors conclude from their research in the book that the crucifixion was staged by Jesus and his apostles, after which Jesus and Mary Magdalene fled and started the Merovingian line (the Holy Blood/Grail). -RaCha'ar 16:15, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Criticism section?

A section or even paragraph describing how the authors have responded to such criticism would be appropriate. --24.118.206.25 00:17, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I've deleted most the previous content of this section. Rather than concentrating on Pierre Plantard, it should focus on the bad methodology of the authors and/or evidence that they were provided with, yet ignored, information which contradicted their thesis. --Loremaster 17:49, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Can someone explain why Tony Robinson's excellent documentary on The Da Vinci Code is referred to as 'biased' and 'poorly researched'? Thiudareiks 02:13, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

You might try asking 82.19.171.99, who edited it in today. Please keep in mind that this is a really controversial topic which is subject to a lot of POV warring, especially since there seem to be a lot of people who consider themselves scholars in the field. Loremaster has been doing an excellent job of keeping most POV editing under control, but if you see something like this you are welcome to edit it yourself to more accurately reflect an NPOV truth. I would encourage you to do so. -RaCha'ar 02:20, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I've edited it to make it a bit more neutral - stressing that the conclusions of the Robinson documentary were the opinions of the presenter and researchers. The following part about how the criticism of the churches was motivated by the book exposing its 'centuries of oppression' was also hardly neutral as well, so I've edited that with something more reasonable. Thiudareiks 05:50, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree with most of your changes, and added a few more of my own. Do other editors concur? If not, feel free to continue tweaking. :) --Elonka 16:06, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Looks good to me. I was going to add something about Baigent's recent backpedalling, but I wanted to re-watch 'The Real Da Vinci Code' first. I think the current 'Criticism' section states things clearly and neutrally. Thiudareiks 00:30, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Pseudohistory?

I only read a few words and was compelled to write this. Pseudohistory????? The research that went into this book, which I have read twice so far, is amazing. How could that much information be labelled as pseudo? Because you say so? — 64.57.101.198

A certain free online encyclopedia says: "Pseudohistory typically blends together real history with myths and legends, without any attempt at criticism or fact checking."—which sounds like a perfect description of this book, except that it neglects to mention "reams of wild speculation", which is another key characteristic of Baigent et al's method. Pseudohistory is a nice way of describing it. —No-One Jones 10:08, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)

"Realms of speculation" would be a more accurate description, as the authors clearly state throughout the book that they are speculating on what hypothetically might have happened. If the reader takes all this as established historical fact, that is not the authors' fault. --Sentience 01:46, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

Pseudohistory??? It is every reader's own responsibility to cross check references. Surely we do not expect every entry in Wikipedia to be above any doubt. I truly enjoyed reading HBHG over 7 years ago. However I saw it as an attempt to explain certain historical events, to challenge the generally accepted doctrine of the "Holy" Roman Catholic Church and a new approach to what was essentially to become European History. The book is essentially pseudohistory. But history has a way of rewriting itself. So it may become History one day.

Though the book is speculation, it is based more on research and documented accounts than it is on myths and legends. And suggesting that there was no "attempt at criticism or fact checking" is ridiculous, considering not only the substantial bibliography and citation section at the back but the several times in the text in which the authors themselves question or debunk a source. Therefore it's about as much pseudohistory as an other mass marketed history book, just as say Harold Bloom's "Shakespeare and the Invention of the Human" could be called Pseudohistory, but won't as it's not as controversial.--Spectre General 7 May 2006

Just FYI I have listed the article "pseudohistory" for deletion today. At best it should be a dictionary article, and i'm not even convinced about that - it is basically nothing more than a perjorative term for something you don't agree with and don't like. All history is "pseudohistory" in some way. Whilst wishing to be clear I make no comment on the quality of this book, which I haven't read, the introdocution line describing it as "a conspirational work of pseudohistory" is absolutely unacceptable for an Encyclopaedia committed to preserving a neutral point of view. Criticisms of the book, of which I'm sure there are many, should be sourced, dispassionately rendered, and put in the criticism section. I have boldly edited the introduction accordingly. ElectricRay 23:03, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

The Pseudohistory article was nominated for deletion on 7 May 2006. The result of the discussion was keep, nomination withdrawn--Loremaster 00:06, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Ironically, the definition of "pseudohistory" offered by No One Jones sounds like a spot-on description of conventional Christianity (as well as religion in general)! Jonas Liljeström 12:22, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't call that ironic.

About Paul Smith the Debunker

On Feb 6, 2005, Paul Smith edited the Holy Blood, Holy Grail article to write the following:

"The "conclusions" of Baigent Lincoln and Leigh can hardly be described as "controversial" by the academics - only their nutty supporters can claim such a thing! And did it really take "years" of research to write that book?

Wikipedia WILL become the focus of attention on the website with its nutty descriptions of pseudo-historical twaddle and some people here will get their come-uppance!

What a disgraceful promotion of a nutty book that was never history in the first place - only a product of the imagination.

"Loremaster" - the person who controls this webpage is a true fruitcake who should stand on the same side as the Henry Lincolns of this world. He is a maniac."

1. No contributor to the Holy Blood, Holy Grail article has ever suggested that academics find Baigent, Lincoln & Leigh's conclusions to be controversials. However, if a book is banned in many countries because of the conclusions it contains, it's obvious that they have created a controversy.

2. Regardless of whether one judges these authors' research methodology as being unacademic (which I do), it doesn't change the fact that it took them many years to finish their work.

3. I don't think anyone cares whether Wikipedia is unfairly attacked by an overzealous fringe debunker on his website.

4. Wikipedia is not being used by anyone to promote HBHG. The article has always been and continues to be quite clear about the pseudo-historicity of the book and it's claims. The reason why HBHG has and deserves an article is because it has and continues to have a significant influence on popular culture.

5. Although I watch this article carefully to make sure it doesn't degenerate from a neutral entry in an encyclopedia to an hysterical tabloid editorial, I do not control it. Everyone, including Paul Smith, is free to edit and expand it to make it better.

6. Although I've always been fascinated by the HBHG and the Priory of Sion for reasons best explained by Alex Burns, I've always and continue to be extremely skeptical. Although my contributions may not have conveyed this to Paul Smith's satisfaction, I don't see how this makes me a fruitcake or a maniac. Seriously. Are all these insults necessary?

Loremaster 22:25, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

On Feb 7, 2005, Paul Smith edited the Holy Blood, Holy Grail article to write the following:

"The article on this webpage is a sheer act of vandalism - it gives a technical definition on a book of POOR fantasy and which is less colourful than anything written by, say, Sven Hassel. The Authors of this "book" were informed well before they finished writing it by French researcher Jean-Luc Chaumeil that the story was all a load of dogshit."

One has to be blind not to see that the article clearly explains that HBHG is a book of pseudohistory. An article in any respectable encyclopedia must be a neutral technical definition devoid of vitriol. However, if Paul Smith wants to create a Criticism section in the article itself, he is more than welcomed. Loremaster 20:55, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Citation by Channel 4 documentary

The web-pages accompanying the Channel 4 documentary The Real Da Vinci Code cites this article here. —Phil | Talk 09:17, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps we should include a mention of these pages in the External links section of the article. --Loremaster 18:04, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Done. --Loremaster 18:59, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Paul Smith is a well known debunker of all aspects of the controversy regarding HBHG and every aspect of the Rennes-le-Chateau mystery. He has a personal motivation as a staunch Christian and has as his mission a need to debunk the central notion that Jesus might have married Mary Magdalene. The details of the alternative history of HBHG and the like are debatable certainly, but when one reviews this core contention and applies an oft repeated scientific principal of Occum's Razor, the liklihood that Jesus was man who led a radical Jewish sect and was married and had children with Mary, was captured with the help of a few collaborative conserative Jewish leaders and crucified as a trouble maker by the Romans makes more sense than the mythological virgin birth, resurrection and ascent to heaven as many historians heavily saturated with unscientific theology. They forged and created documents and cohersed to power in Rome and then engaged in a new and vicious conquest of Europe and the world as the New Roman Empire. That one woman with a child or two escaped to a Jewish communtiy in Southern France is quite plausable and if tradtion has any weight, seems abundantly factual when visiting certain areas of Southern France.

I have never seen anything written by Paul Smith that is not vindictively penned as is this comment. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.160.130.157 (talk) 20:29, August 22, 2007 (UTC)

Title

My copy of this book (Corgi 1982, reprinted 1983) is entitled "The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail". Has any edition appeared with the title "Holy Blood, Holy Grail" which is used in the main article ? NH.

According to amazon.com the book's name is "Holy Blood, Holy grail" and the last print said to be a Reissue edition (January 15, 1983) bears that name [1] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by SirIbus (talk • contribs) .

Research on various Amazons and other booksellers/catalogues indicates that "HB, HG" is what the title was changed to in the USA for the '83 release there. The original UK edition (London: 1982) came out as "The... and the..." See also [ here]. I think that justifies the page move I just did. Bolivian Unicyclist 22:17, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

References

This article needs to make proper use of end notes (references). Fuzzform 00:16, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

I strongly agree. --Loremaster 18:06, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Dubious Neutrality

This article is deeply biased and one sided, and should be edited not only to present references to the other side of the debate, but to remove buzzwords like "conspiratorial" and "pseudohistory". I would like to re-add that disputed neutrality notice mentioned above, but I have no idea how to do that. Spectre General 7 May 2006

Added the notice. I (and obviously a few others) feel that the article is heavily biased on the side of the book's critics, both in citation and tone. Spectre General 7 May 2006

Though I agree that the article is slightly one-sided, I really don't think its that extreme. Calling the work "conspiratorial" makes sense as the work claims that the Priory of Sion is a secret society; in other words a conspiracy. Also, pseudohistory really just means non-mainstream history, which Holy Blood, Holy Grail certainly is. KalevTait 20:16, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree wholly that the book is essentially a conspiracy theory, but referring to it as a "conspiratorial book" especially considering its multiple authors gives the book itself the feel of some kind of plot or prank.

That, and the fact that in the first sentence alone the words "conspiratorial", "pseudohistory" and "hoax" starts the reader off as dismissing the book before anything has been said about it. It's really the cumulative effect of putting all these elements together.

I think it would be more appropriate to essentially say that the book is the theory of the authors about this conspiracy, and not itself conspiratorial. It's splitting hairs a bit, but the difference in meaning is there.

As well, the book isn't really based on the Sion hoax, even if it was taken in by it. It's based on a body of independent research by the authors, who drew many of their own connections and conclusions.

It's mainly just elements like these I feel should be rearranged, and not so much deleted, to make the entry feel like it's presenting the facts about the book instead of arguing against it. Some balance in terms of the criticism and critical weblinks would be nice too, just to get a more rounded presentation. Spectre General 16:55, 7 May 2006

I say be bold and do it! If you're just rearanging the same information in a way that you think is more NPOV, then I don't see how that can be a problem, even if someone thinks it is already NPOV. KalevTait 21:16, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

NPOV?

I saw that the phrase "conspiratorial work of pseudohistory" had been edited in place of "controversial non-fiction book" and reverted it for POV. Now I see by previous discussion that I may have been incorrect to do so - I saw that it has survived many edits, but upon review, most of those edits have been very recent and this phrase was in fact intact and apparently agreed upon before. I apologize for removing it and have left its revert intact, but I want to ask what consensus now exists among the editors of this article with regards to this phrase? It seems to me, coming into this article for the first time ever upon seeing this edit on recent changes patrol, that "conspiratorial work of pseudohistory" verges on flamebait, but I understand the arguments presented above for keeping it. I suppose I just want to know if I was totally out of line to revert it; if nothing else, it'll be a lesson for me to read up more before removing POV edits.  :) Thanks. -RaCha'ar 22:50, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I replaced "conspiratorial work of pseudohistory" with "controversial non-fiction book" because conspiratorial work wrongly implies that the authors are conspirators rather than conspiracy theorists. Since the article goes to explain that the claims of the authors are pseudohistorical, I think calling their book a "conspiratorial work of pseudohistory" is unnecessary. Unless someone can convince me otherwise, I will continue to revert this article to the previous version I edited. --Loremaster 23:18, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Understood, and that's what I figured... however, you may want to take the anon user who keeps putting it back to Wikipedia:3RR now.  :/ -RaCha'ar 23:26, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm really concerned that this page is not NPOV enough. Anyone reading it for the first time would conclude that The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail is a completely legitimate work -- the criticisms section has been virtually neutered to the point where I'm not even sure if it's in English.

"The true facts about Pierre Plantard and the Priory of Sion were passed on to the authors of Holy Blood, Holy Grail by the French journalist and author Jean-Luc Chaumeil, who has an extensive archive on this subject matter."

How is that an opening sentence? What does it even mean? What true facts? Why is his a"rchive being extensive" relevent or not? In reality, the main documents The Holy Blood was based on were forgeries. This really needs to be highlighted more. 193.129.65.37 05:02, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I find your reading of this article odd since it contains several sentences that are quite critical of the subject in question. As for the actual criticism section, as I explained in the first comment at the top of this page, it was "neutered" because the previous content focused too much on attacking some specific acts of Pierre Plantard rather than being a critique of the book itself. However, as the tag in that section makes quite clear, everyone should feel free to expand it. --Loremaster 19:25, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism?

72.49.167.8 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) AKA 128.40.48.53 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) AKA 24.1.70.42 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) AKA 195.92.168.170 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) AKA 195.92.168.173 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) (whom I reasonably suspect to be Paul Smith, has repeatedly edited the content of the Priory of Sion and The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail to suit his clearly biased point of view while refusing numerous invitations to discuss a compromise on the talk page of these articles. I am therefore requesting a page semiprotection. --Loremaster 03:07, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

In light of the fact that this user is engaging in unWikipedian behavior but hasn't *recently* crossed the line into vandalism yet, I won't push this issue into arbitration. However, I invite him to discuss this dispute here in a civil manner to avoid this needless edit war. --Loremaster 15:14, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Update: 72.49.167.8 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) has been temporarily blocked by an administrator. --Loremaster 19:20, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I've brought this issue to the attention of Wikipedia administrators on the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. --Loremaster 15:20, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Dead Sea Scrolls Deception

In Influence and similarities section, we need to explain the influence and/or similarities between The Dead Sea Scrolls Deception and the The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail. --Loremaster 23:58, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

What, dare I ask, is the Dead Sea Scrolls Deception?--Tomtom9041 17:41, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

The recent PoV pusher

It looks like the anonymous PoV pusher has now registered a username with which to push the same PoV. Perhaps we need to ask the admins if that user is coming in through the same range of IP addresses as the earlier Anon?

Atlant 13:01, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I may not be using this properly - I am not especailly computer-aware - so if I am writing in the wrong place I apologise unreservedly. There is a problem with volumes like Holy Blood Holy Grail and its many imitators. HBHG is not a valid work of history. The authors were not source-critical in any sense, and happily repeated 18th century romances as medieval evidence just so longt as it suited their purpose. They might as well have watched Braveheart and cited that as a valid view of medieval Scotland. Much HBHG is nothing more than a POV with no supporting evidence. For the record, 'pseudohistory' is not simply historical analysis beyond the mainstream, it is the use of wishful-thinking to justify a desire, in this case the desire to make a lot of money - which it has done.

CHRB

While I would tend to agree with the sentiment that you express regarding this work and the various other articles that you have been editing, both registered and prior to registration, there are accepted policies with regard to article development. Collaboration on the talk page is recommended in order to avoid unseemly edit wars. The Three Revert Rule being part of the mitigation for that.

My personal view is that the issues around the various articles are reasonably captured in the current articulation, in a balanced fashion, your edits would not comply with the guidance around Point of View and should be written in as academic a manner as possible, given your claim to have recently completed a Doctoral Thesis then I'm sure you appreciate the style that should take, frankly the edits you have been trying to push in the last day or so do not appear to be adequately formed in that fashion.

As Atlant has pointed out, there are no exceptions to the 3RR and as such you may find yourself subject to a short edit block in the near future.

With regard to Lomas please see my questions on the talk page of that article.ALR 18:43, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

CHRB, let me see if I can explain why some of your edits to this article don't conform to WP:NPOV. One of the concepts involved with that policy is that we should not think for the reader, but let the readers think for themselves. Another is that we should not use loaded words to predispose someone to think along a certain line. Using words and phrases such as "fantasy," "psuedo-" and "though they provide no evidence" all act as judgements upon the work. In a community project like Wikipedia there are going to be many contentious subjects. If we tried to judge each topic, as opposed to simply reporting on it, we would have endless edit wars from people with differing views. The WP:NPOV policy is intended to prevent that. Instead of judgmental, slanted or loaded descriptions, we try to use words that describe the topic as neutrally as possible. That doesn't mean we can't report truth (fact: Response from mainstream historians and academics was nearly universally negative) but that we shouldn't try to place our OWN judgements into the article. Along with the "nearly universally negative" statement and the fact that in the lead paragraph we point out it was based on a known hoax, we're already pointing out facts that put the book in the proper light. What we have to avoid, however, is putting our own value-judgements into the article. Every article in Wikipedia must be written in wording that is as neutral as possible. That is why I'm going to have to change some of the edits you've made. Believe me, it is nothing personal and I happen to share your views about the validity of the book. I'm simply trying to tone down the loaded words and return the article(s) to NPOV. SWAdair 03:30, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Whoops. I caught myself just in time. That would have made four reverts in 24 hours. Okay, I'll let someone else do it. I do hope, however, that you understand and accept the explanation of why those edits need to be reverted. Thank you. SWAdair 03:34, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Agreed with the above - we're not here to debate the merits of the arguments and to pass judgement. If you feel the article does not present facts, then let's work together to provide alternative (or in this case the mainsteam) positions. Identify the areas you'd like to change, and let's work out some language or find verifiable sources. Thank you very much for discussing your changes so that we could better understand your position. Kuru ^talk 03:46, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Odd Additon

I've trimmed the following text from the article: anyone have any other references or any reason why this would add to the specific topic (the book)?

One of the more outlandish yet interesting internet conspiracy theories that has spawned as a result of renewed interest in the Magdalene-Christ debate, seemingly ties in both The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail and The Da Vinci Code while actually going a step further to put forth that the entire “Bloodline of Christ” theory is a well-orchestrated and intentional hoax directed at the world, whilst having a single sinister goal to bring Bloodline believers into acceptance that one of these living “Bloodline descendants” will rise up to become a future “Messianic figure” (not Christ, but the literal Antichrist), and that this Bloodline heresy is the very deception Secret Societies are using to promote this future Merovingian King onto the world stage.

This just seems like a WP:OR more than content specific to the book. Would prefer commentary before this is re-introduced. Kuru ^talk 18:18, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree that it seems like Original Research. The only reference is a personal website at angelfire.com. Unless some other credible sources can be produced, it should stay out of the article. --Elonka 21:50, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Travels of Jesus and heirs

I know this is more of a historical/speculative question - but, assuming that Jesus had a family and it was felt by his wife/siblings/offspring that it was not safe for them to reside in the given locality or indeed the Roman Empire - why not move outside the Empire?

And - what is the point of protecting the bloodline: unless there is a good reason to do so, the safest action is to let the children disappear into the general population. 212.85.0.1 17:17, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Why not a separate article?

Hi..I would like The Messainic Legacy, which is a sequel and a book in its own right to be entered as a different article rather than being huddled together along with Holy Blood and the Holy Grail. Please let me know how that can be done.Thanks.Sriram sh 05:38, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Moved from article - originally posted by 82.17.134.15

I know this will be deleted and perhaps so it should be, but in my opinion, the critics are referring to only 3 main strong hold points in the novel (missing out the main point, the place of crucifixtion). And, who on earth listens to a TV show over a book!?!

If historians are determined to prove this novel false then I would expect to see their reaction to each piece of the novel proven false - not just "Jesus never married, just because!" It is a huge book and in order to argue each case would probably knock Wikipedia off the Net! Prove your points and then I will start to consider it BBQ book material!

By the way, this is intended to go into the section above but everytime I click edit it chooses this section.

"Hypothesis"?

The article claims that the central theme running through 'The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail' is - in the words of the authors - a "Hypothesis". Let's get real: this is a play on words made by unscrupulous authors - Henry Lincoln keeps repeating time after time that he is waiting for "the tiniest bit of evidence to disprove the hypothesis, what we have found, tends to confirm". What does this sound like? It's not the Historical Method, that's for sure. To build a historical hypothesis, you must first begin with the facts. 'The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail' does the exact opposite - it first builds the theory and THEN tries to shoehorn it into the historical facts. This is vintage pseudo-history. It is not objective historical research. Wfgh66 17:48, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Question re: Criticism section

I'm a drive-by reader and I wanted to stop here to congratulate the various editors who've worked on this article for the good job you're doing on it. I find it reasonably well-balanced and quite well written. I did have a question about the Criticism section, though, and it goes specifically to the statement that "one of the book's hypotheses — that Jesus and Mary Magdalene were married — was not original to Holy Blood". I'm wondering in what way this is criticism. Very little m of what people write is, after all, truly original, especially in purported works of non-fiction. People build ideas from other people with ideas; that's how an endeavour proceeds. Now, if the authors of Holy Blood actually claimed that that idea was original and it was not, well, then, that would certainly be a valid criticism. Did they in fact claim originality for that idea? — Dave (Talk | contribs) 03:24, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Read the bookWfgh66 13:48, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

You're joking, right? Surely that can't be your answer. The article should be self-sufficient in that it should be internally coherent and logically consistent. I shouldn't have to go read the book to make sense of the article. — Dave (Talk | contribs) 16:45, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Right - then the article should include the fact that the Jesus Bloodline theory contained in the book was considered from taking the bogus Merovingian Genealogies in the Dossiers Secrets seriously (composed on Pierre Plantard's stencil-kit during the 1960s), as well as taking Plantard's claim to be descended from Dagobert II seriously (Plantard was in fact descended from a 16th century peasant who picked walnuts), with Baigent, Lincoln and Leigh's "deduction" of the Merovingian Myth that Merovee the "father" of the Merovingians being part-fish (he probably never existed, according to some historians), and that Jesus Christ was known as "the fish" (Greek Ι Χ ΘΥ Σ being an acronym for "Jesus Christ, God's Son, Saviour") - adding all these author's considerations together, this produced the Jesus Bloodline theory found in "The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail". This is the breakdown behind the central theory contained in the book. BTW, Plantard's inspiration for considering himself to be the direct descendant of Dagobert II lay in an article found in a French History magazine published in 1960 - Les Cahiers de l'Histoire Nr 1, that mistakenly described Dagobert II as the last effective Merovingian monarch.Wfgh66 08:23, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

All of which does not answer the question I asked. You're merely clarifying and amplifying the fact that the concept of a married Jesus is not original to Holy Blood. I did not ask if the concept was original, I asked if the authors claimed that it was? Your next entry in the section here below tries to debunk the concept. Again that does nothing to answer the question I asked. The concept probably is bunk; that wouldn't surprise me in the least. The entire book may well be pseudo-historical sensationalist nonsense. Whether or not the concept is bunk does not respond to the question of the claimed originality of the concept. The criticism says that, and I repeat "one of the book's hypotheses — that Jesus and Mary Magdalene were married — was not original to Holy Blood". That criticises the lack of originality of the concept and not the concept itself. The only way you can criticise the lack of originality is if there is a claim of originality to begin with. The entire book could be non-original pap and criticing the book for being non-original pap would be fair enough. But that's not the criticism that the quoted statement attempts to level. It criticises the originality of "one of the hypotheses". Again, if there's no attempt, covert or overt, to claim originality for that hypothesis, then the authors can not be criticised for the lack of originality of the concept. See what I mean? If there is an attempt to claim originality for the concept, then the statement I quoted from the "Criticism" section needs to be altered to make it clear that such a claim has been made. As it stands now, though, it's not clear to the reader on what basis the originality of the concept is being criticised. You seem to have read the book. I have not. Hence, it should be easy for you to tell me whether or not the authors claim originality for the concept of a married Jesus. If the answer is yes, the statement needs to be edited to say that. If the answer is no, the statement needs to be removed. Got it? — Dave (Talk | contribs) 16:37, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

The authors knew about the 1970 book by W. E. Phipps "Was Jesus Married? The Distortion of Sexuality in the Christian Tradition". Phipps argued that the silence of the New Testament about the marital status of Jesus indicates that Jesus was in fact married because virtually every Jewish man in Jesus' day did marry, especially those who were considered to be Rabbis.Wfgh66 18:29, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I've re-written that paragraph to address the question I've asked here. In that re-write, I stated that the book's authors never claimed originality for the concept of a married Jesus. I'd appreciate it if someone who has read the book could verify that fact and, if in error, could alter the text appropriately. — Dave (Talk | contribs) 01:43, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

What's up, don't you trust me? Do you want me to send you a photocopy from the book whose working title was "Jesus Had Kids"? And BTW, there is a substantial difference between the hypothesis that Jesus Christ COULD have been married (in the book by Phipps) and the outright possibility that Jesus Christ was married, began a bloodline that not only survived the destruction of the Jerusalem Temple in AD70, but also migrated to the South of France, actually started the Merovingian dynasty, then became the "secret" there of the Cathars and the Templars, and that living descendants of Jesus Christ are amongst us todayWfgh66 17:56, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

It has nothing whatever to do with trusting or not trusting you. It's simply that you never bothered to answer my question. I asked repeatedly if the authors of Holy Blood had claimed originality for the concept of a married Jesus. I rephrased it several times and asked it again and again. You never once answered it directly, at least not in a way that was understood by me. The last time I asked it, your response was that they knew about some other book. Whether or not they knew about some other book does not respond to the question of whether they claimed originality for the concept of a married Jesus. I know about Hamlet but that doesn't mean that I've claimed to have invented the story of an angst-ridden Danish prince. In any case, I see the changes you made to that paragraph and, thanks, it's much cleaner and nicer now. Cheers! — Dave (Talk | contribs) 18:56, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Originality of Jesus being married

The claim that Jesus Christ was married is nothing new - the Mormons believe that Jesus Christ was married - this belief originating most probably from the Mormons' early habit of having multiple wives (there is no evidence that Joseph Smith claimed it, but evidence that later leaders of the Mormon Church claimed such a thing exists). On 28 March 1971 an article "Was Jesus Married?" appeard in the UK newspaper 'The Observer' by Charles Davis, one of Britain's leading Roman Catholic theologians before leaving the priesthood and the Church in 1966 - because he wanted to get married and the Roman Catholic Church forbids priests to marry. So the idea that Jesus Christ was married does not spring from historical research but rather from elements relating to cohabitation between male and female.Wfgh66 08:40, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Charles Davis and the Gospel of Philip removed from article

I removed the reference to Charles Davis from the Wikipedia article because he fell into the same mistake as the authors of The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail in relation to the Gospel of Philip. True, the Gospel of Philip describes how Jesus Christ often kissed Mary Magdalene - but it is also true that the same Gospel describes Mary Magdalene as the personification of Fallen Wisdom that was barren in nature - in the opening sentence to the paragraph concerned that described the kissing.Wfgh66 18:40, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Robert Richardson

Did Evola mention Stein in his book on the Grail, or was this another one of Richardson's fabrications, foisting Stein over Evola in the same way that he foisted Evola over Plantard. Citing unreliable authorities like Richardson is not a good thing. Wfgh66 (talk) 05:37, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Modern goals of the Priory of Sion

In both the Priory of Sion and The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail articles, I wrote that the modern goals of the Priory of Sion are:

• 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:

[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.

Needless to say, our understanding of those objectives can only be speculative. But they would seem to include 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 international affairs - an entity whose status would ultimately be comparable to that of 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) 12:09, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

About content

What about the hypothesis that Jesus never died on the cross but it was all a hoax, and the hypothesis that Barabbas was his son and heir? I think theese are the most shocking, whether true or false, among the hypotheses in the book.

Whether or not the hypothesis that Jesus may not have died on the cross (and that Barabbas may have been Jesus' son and heir) is "shocking", the authors never argued that the Jesus bloodline theory (which is central to thesis of the book) rests or falls on whether or not this hypotheses is true. Furthermore, the authors were simply repeating Hugh J. Schonfield's hypothesis, which he first articulated in his "shocking" 1965 book The Passover Plot. --Loremaster (talk) 02:31, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Use of the term "factoid" to describe the book's conclusions

According to that word's Wikipedia article, a "factoid" is "spurious (unverified, incorrect, or invented) 'fact' intended to create or prolong public exposure or to manipulate public opinion". That article also gives the OED's definition of the term as "something which becomes accepted as fact, although it may not be true".

It thus seems that characterizing the conclusions of the book as "factoids", without a supporting reference and without attributing the characterization to a reliable source is a clear violation of WP:NPOV, WP:V and WP:OR. I'm going to revert the change again. Please discuss here before making any further changes. Cheers! Grover cleveland (talk) 16:10, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I will restore the word and provide a source. --Loremaster (talk) 17:59, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

From the source in question:

In reality, The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail was pure pseudohistory. Laura Miller, writing for Salon in 2004, described its technique: "A preposterous idea will first be floated as a guess, then later presented as a tentative hypothesis, then still later treated as a fact … The miasma of bogus authenticity becomes impenetrable; you might as well use a rifle to fight off a thick fog."

It needs to be attributed per WP:NPOV. And also, since the source doesn't actually use the word "factoid", it would be preferable to use the original wording, otherwise we have WP:OR concerns. Grover cleveland (talk) 22:12, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

OK. You have a point. I've found a way to compromise. --Loremaster (talk) 00:56, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

New edits to the Content section

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 this section as soon as possible.

So, in order to avoid an edit war, please discuss here minor or major edits to the Content section especially if they obscure rather than clarify the subject... --Loremaster (talk) 22:46, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I think it should be added to the article that HBHG is a damp squib not offering anything at all to the knowledge of the Priory of Sion, and that various re-edited versions of the book failed to rectify any of the obvious historical errors made in the book (eg, the claim that Bertrand de Blanchefort belonged to the same Blancheforts at RLC; that Plantard had a past in the Resistance; that Sauniere was "treated with kid gloves" by the church; etc, etc, etc). The book is still on sale in its original and now defunct 1982 format, people are still being introduced to this subject matter through HBHG without realising how much of its content is completely bogus. Wfgh66 (talk) 22:23, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Various books in various different languages have highlighted the faults of HBHG, so it would not be OR. Wfgh66 (talk) 22:33, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I am aware of all that. However, that doesn't change the fact that the Wikipedia article on the Priory of Sion must document what the first version of HBHG claimed about the PoS so that readers know what people being introduced to this subject matter through this book are being introduced to. You do understand this? --Loremaster (talk) 23:55, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

The debate about the Modern goals of the Priory of Sion occured on the Priory of Sion talk page. --Loremaster (talk) 18:18, 20 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 (I simply moved it into the paragraph above and added the words "initially" and "only") but we may want to rewrite the paragraph in the Criticism section that deals with this subject matter. --Loremaster (talk) 14:34, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it's a reference to a private conversation. Did Plantard ever read The Messianic Legacy? Boy, this should please you, because you have always wanted to believe in a Plantard reference to the Line of David. Wfgh66 (talk) 16:48, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Although I assume he did, how can I know whether or not Plantard read The Messianic Legacy? I never wanted to believe anything (since I have gone from being a soft skeptic when I read HGHG in 1998 to a strong skeptic after reading your debunking website and other exposés). I was was simply convinced that Plantard had acknowledged that the Merovingians were derived from the Davidic line. I simply didn't remember where I read that until now. Regardless, the point is that Plantard (temporarily) embraced a claim despite the contradiction. --Loremaster (talk) 16:58, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

According to Baigent, Lincoln and Leigh. We possess nothing directly from Plantard, who would have been unable to square the Tribe of Benjamin with the Line of David (if what the authors alleged he said in the interview was true). Wfgh66 (talk) 18:12, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not arguing the contrary. However, since we dealing with a liar and pseudohistorians, we go with what we got... --Loremaster (talk) 18:32, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

For the sake of clarity, I am not suggesting that the paragraph in the Criticism section should be deleted. It should simply be more nuanced. --Loremaster (talk) 02:58, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Let's then add then the (likely) possibility that the claim is a likely accretion since nothing of the sort comes directly from Plantard. Wfgh66 (talk) 03:23, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Fine with me. --Loremaster (talk) 17:14, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

The paragraph was deleted by User:Wednesday Next who argued: "the difference between Plantard's claim and HBHG's theory already noted above; since Plantard came first this could hardly be a "criticism" of the book". --Loremaster (talk) 17:53, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Scare quotes

There should not be any quotes around the word fact in the text. I also don't believe it should be linked to factoid. The usage here is to imply that the authors were not sincere in their approach. Since they disclaimed their knowledge of the truth of what they took as fact for the purpose of their hypotheses, and this is duly noted in the article, the use of these two devices can only be intended to emphasize a particular POV over another. Such devices do not belong in an encyclopedia article and are specifically discouraged by Wikipedia guidelines. Wednesday Next (talk) 18:00, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, despite disclaiming their knowledge of the truth of what they took as fact for the purpose of their hypotheses, they often made statements that were not sincere. Many critics have pointed this out. I have rephrased the sentence for the sake of accuracy and to resolve this dispute once and for all. --Loremaster (talk) 18:19, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

In such a case it seems we should cite the authors and also cite the critics. After all, critics may be wrong. Wednesday Next (talk) 20:00, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

You wish. Wfgh66 (talk) 20:01, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

The sentence in question has always cited a source. As for your claim that critics of HBHG may be wrong, you must be joking?!? --Loremaster (talk) 20:03, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Anyone may be wrong when making assumptions about anothers motivations. I am not intending to imply that the critic are wrong about the facts, only that they would have no way of judging sincerity. Wednesday Next (talk) 20:06, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Critics seldom "make assumptions". Wfgh66 (talk) 20:09, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Great, then cite the individual critic and what they have said to support allegations of insincere motivation. Wednesday Next (talk) 20:13, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Citing sources and quoting from those cited sources are two different things and the latter isn't necessary. That being said, here is one quote from the cited source in the article:

In 1982, Michael Baigent, Richard Leigh and Henry Lincoln published The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail, which introduced English-speaking readers to the connection between the Magdalene, the Merovingians and the Priory of Sion. They themselves partly based their work on a book called Le Tresor Maudit de Rennes-le-Chateau (1967) by Gérard de Sède, a self-confessed hoaxer and forger of historic documents. Holy Blood, Holy Grail, as it was called in America, became an instant bestseller. In reality, The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail was pure pseudohistory. Laura Miller, writing for Salon in 2004, described its technique: "A preposterous idea will first be floated as a guess, then later presented as a tentative hypothesis, then still later treated as a fact … The miasma of bogus authenticity becomes impenetrable; you might as well use a rifle to fight off a thick fog."

--Loremaster (talk) 20:22, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Great. I believe that it is better to present the authors at face value followed by analysis, rather than to blur them together in a way that does justice to neither. Wednesday Next (talk) 20:24, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I disagree in this particular case only. --Loremaster (talk) 20:26, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Well, the above quote is good, but it is the cited source quoting another. Later, in the concluding sentence of the article, Thompson says, "They employ the rhetoric of authentic history, but not its method, to present myths as fact." I've modified the wording to follow this myth as fact analysis and removed the link to factoid... nowhere does the source use the word "factoid". Wednesday Next (talk) 16:09, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

*sigh* A myth or misinformation presented as fact is the definition of a factoid! We do not a source to actually use the word "factoid" to use it or internally link a word to the Factoid article. Also, have you ever heard of a "paraphrase"? --Loremaster (talk) 16:36, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, for one thing, the term is ambiguous, as noted in the article: "As a result of confusion over the meaning of factoid, some English-language style and usage guides recommend against its use." I really don't see what is gained by making this link. Wednesday Next (talk) 16:39, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't see why you are making a dispute about something so trivial... --Loremaster (talk) 16:42, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh forget it. I simply dislike piped links intended to define one term with another. But I dislike it less in its current form than I did when we started, so I'll drop it... Wednesday Next (talk) 17:08, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Addition to "Influence and Similarities"

The Jesus Presidents [2] ISBN 0595668291 (2004) discusses in detail the proofs in regard to Jesus and Mary Magdelene having children and gives descents to today from their purported lines including to US Presidents and to perhaps you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.195.73.11 (talk) 19:55, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll add it very soon. --Loremaster (talk) 15:42, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Done. --Loremaster (talk) 00:39, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Wednesday Next removed the addition of the book The Jesus Presidents from the article stating: "remove promotional insertions for self-published iUniverse book." --Loremaster (talk) 19:24, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Non-Fiction?

In what sense is HBHG a work of 'non-fiction'? The author present a collection of surmises, but offer no proofs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.157.117.57 (talk) 17:04, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Although I understand what you are trying to get at, there is a difference between a work of hypothesis and a work of fiction. The difference may be thin but it still exists. --Loremaster (talk) 19:24, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

The heirs of Jesus

His children would have been infants when he died: his disciples would have been more of a threat to the status quo.

Given that the gospels were written several decades after the events described 'information about family' might well have been considered non-relevant (how many children did Harry Truman or Anthony Eden have?).

There is a 'marginally better argment' for a British connection - Joseph of Arimathea, King Arthur and the quest for the Holy Grail etc than the French connection.

I think the most positive that can be said is the book has promoted research into some obscure areas. Jackiespeel (talk) 15:38, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Jack, this talk page is only for discussing improvements to the The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail article so it shouldn't be used to simply express our opinions about the merits of a Jesus bloodline hypothesis. --Loremaster (talk) 18:04, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Bias

The impartiality of this article is questionable and many statements are uncorroborated by citation.

It is more than apparent the author of the article did not like the book, nor it's findings.

“Response from professional historians (Who?) and scholars (Who?) from related fields (Which?) was universally negative (Was it?)”

A sweeping unjustified statement.

“This led them to the pseudohistorical (How is it? Who says?) Dossiers Secrets”

“though alleging to portray hundreds of years of medieval history, were actually all written by Pierre Plantard and Philippe de Chérisey under the pseudonym of "Philippe Toscan du Plantier".”

Citation?

“Unaware that the documents had been forged…” Were they?

“Lincoln presented the following myths as facts” Did they? Are they?

“The authors re-interpreted the Dossiers Secrets in the light of their own interest”

Those naughty boys! Good job this Wikipedia article is here to lecture them, rather than stick to impartial fact!

I could go on.

It would be incorrect to suggest the findings of this book were actuality rather than (often well supported and considered) supposition, but to present it here in such an obvious damning tone makes the authors motives alarmingly transparent.

62.255.163.50 (talk) 13:35, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Bias is a double-edged sword

Facts and statements need references, that's true. However, a quick glance at the genealogical tables within the book (which I understand are of quite basic importance to the story that's been told) show the blatant attempts to fill in / make up those periods in history of which virtually nothing is known outside of possible legend. Your answer on this would be 'says who?' and quite rightly so.

My answer on this 'd be something like 'basic knowledge on early medieval history' or 'browsing exisiting paleographical evidence of which there's alarmingly little to begin with'. Or one could try "Europäische Stammtafeln" (current editor Detlev Schwennicke). And one could read into the history of the Merovingian dynasty and their own legends about their descendance. Or try some wiki pages about Septimanian history. And so on.

Although it's dangerous to extrapolate on made up genealogical data, as an amateur historian known with the Historical method this leads me to snigger at the plausibility and credibility of the book as such.

In accusing someone of being biased, you show bias as well by adding 'well-supported and considered supposition'. Stick to impartial facts and the story contained within the book isn't much of a factual story or even an account based on well-considered plausability. A good read perhaps, but not something to be taken seriously. Harachte (talk) 10:57, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

User:, for starters, I suggest you read Laura Miller's New York Times article THE LAST WORD; The Da Vinci Con and Salon article Jesus: The coverup. --Loremaster (talk) 14:14, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Steps towards Featured Article status

In light of the international interest in The Da Vinci Code and The Holy Blood & Holy Grail, I think we should radically improve the The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail article in order for it to be featured on the Main Page of Wikipedia.

Before we push the article to Peer review - a step that should always be taken before the Featured Articles Candidates step - , we need to improve the Content and Criticism section and extensively provided references for every paragraph in this article following Wikipedia:Citing sources guidelines. --Loremaster 18:07, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

About the External links

We should follow the Wikipedia:External links guidelines. --Loremaster 20:08, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

I've removed links to fringe websites and left links to notable reviews. --Loremaster 01:56, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

About See also

According to a Wikipedia rule of thumb: 1) if something is in See also, try to incorporate it into main body 2) if something is in main body, it should not be in see also and therefore 3) good articles have no See also sections. --Loremaster 16:18, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your suggestion. Done. 16:58, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

PDF version of Holy Blood Holy Grail available online

The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail

--Loremaster (talk) 18:32, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Removed two phrases

I removed the line that they had no historical proof when this is clearly POV, one can argue that they have provided plenty of proof, it is how the individual chooses to interpet it that matters.

I also removed a paragraph stating that the book was recevied negatively by all historians and critics without any citation or references, if these can be provided then obviously the statement can be put back in 90.209.124.230 (talk) 02:42, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

I support your removal of the POV line. However, I've restored the paragraph with many citations and references. --Loremaster (talk) 18:38, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

DNA Testing

The DNA testing edit was not original research but information taken from a Digging for the Truth documentary (season 2 episode 10: "Bloodlines"). However, since the DNA testing was that of a Merovingian Princess rather than that of her husband, the fact remains insignificant. Lung salad (talk) 23:28, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Tone

Wikipedia is supposed to keep a neutral tone, and this article has clearly been written and edited by attack dogs. I'll be working to rewrite it to maintain more balance over the coming weeks. Dream of Goats (talk) 21:20, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Blimey! Dogs can't write! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2804:14D:5C2F:B694:6D3E:C12B:E6AB:3EF (talk) 15:05, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

This article is a hoax.

There is something to Holy Blood, Holy grail and it is apparent that whoever wrote this article has had no contact and has not even read the books, seen the movies, or anything. Here is the real story and not this fake Wikipedia article. It is astonishing now many articles are faked on this supposed encyclopedia by right wing skeptics. Almost everything the skeptics write are lies and this is no exception. This link will lead you to over 600 pages of real documentary evidence of what is happening here.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Gb-3n9YSYDU0I_yDusg4QQcw9SGSIBujgjFzEG-dDn4/edit?usp=sharing

The biggest thing all these fake skeptics are doing is wrecking society with all their lies. Plain and simple. If you are brave copy and paste the link to see the truth unfold. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.35.68.4 (talk) 17:01, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for telling us. Nobody here knew that. We will immediately delete all the lies and replace them by truth. (How lucky that somebody who can those two apart came here!)

Back in the real world, some random document on the internet is not a reliable source. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:00, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Cathars.

In fact the whole idea of the Holy Blood Holy Grail and the bloodline of Christ is not new and in fact has been held to be fact by many, many people since quite ancient times. The Cathars held that Jesus and Mary Magdalene were married and had children and this is one of the main reasons that the Cathar Crusades was launched. This article as a whole is poorly written, lacks good research and plays into a popular view that because Plantard apparently lied, or was paid to lie, makes the whole story false. Nothing could be further from the truth. There are a great many mysteries surrounding this all and even though it appears to be all wrapped up in fact it has just been swept under the rug. The problem is that the people behind all of this have made it look like a hoax to cover up the reality. Even during the Roman Empire times the idea of Mary Magdalene and Jesus being married was not uncommon. No mention is made of the fantastic sums of money spent by Sauniere in his renovations of Rennes-le-Chateau. He had been suspended for selling masses and yet was able to spend what in todays money would be millions of dollars renovating and upgrading the whole complex. He built a Villa for himself and gardens and towers even a large cage for monkeys. The whole article glosses over what is really going on. The strange geometry of the placement of the castles and churches in the area is not mentioned and the fact that this place has been occupied as a mystical place since before Roman Times. It is sad that first of all that Plantard was ever involved as all he was looking for was a quick buck, secondly that this has all been handled by the popular media. Just because Plantard may have lied does not mean there is no great secret here. In fact what is at Rennes-le-Chateau is just the tip of the iceberg, which was strongly suggested by Holy Blood, Holy Grail.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.35.68.4 (talk • contribs) 14:42, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Historian Marina Warner commented on The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail when it was first published

Marina is not primarily a historian, rather a novelist who has some honorary degrees. She is not a qualified reference.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.35.68.4 (talk • contribs) 15:11, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Historian Ken Mondschein ridiculed the idea of a Jesus bloodline,

This historian has a poor understanding of history. This was such an important topic that the Emperor Domitian in about 85 ordered Jesus' brother Judas' grandchildren to Rome to answer questions about their claims on the Throne of the Empire.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.35.68.4 (talk • contribs) 15:41, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Quoting Robert McCrum, literary editor of The Observer newspaper, about The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail

This is entirely irrelevant and should be deleted. No one cares what he thinks and it has no bearing on this topic.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.35.68.4 (talk • contribs) 16:11, 6 May 2019 (UTC)