Talk:Priory of Sion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Priory of Sion article.
Article policies
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4
Good article Priory of Sion has been listed as one of the Philosophy and religion good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.


WikiProject Secret Societies This article is within the scope of WikiProject Secret Societies,
a WikiProject which aims to improve all articles related to Secret Societies.
Good article GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the assessment scale.
High This article is on a subject of high-importance within Secret Societies articles.

This article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

Contents

[edit] Archives

For an October 2004 deletion debate over this page see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Priory of sion

Archive
Archives


[edit] Steps towards Featured Article status

In light of the international interest in The Da Vinci Code and The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail, I think we should radically improve the Priory of Sion 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 extensively provided references for every paragraph in this article following Wikipedia:Citing sources guidelines. --Loremaster 16:46, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

A bit of pruning might come in handy. Also CBS piece hits the nail on the head. Politis 16:44, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Would this even get Good Article status? Has it tried? JASpencer 22:03, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't think so because it lacks source citations. --Loremaster 21:22, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
I suggest that it first be nominated for GA status once the citations are firmed up. If it passes, and it may well get put on hold for various problems to get corrected, then it could go to peer review to improve the writing and then nominated for Feature article. Wednesday Next (talk) 21:47, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree. --Loremaster (talk) 23:20, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
I've nominated the Priory of Sion article for GA status. --Loremaster (talk) 14:05, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Bfigura is reviewing below the Priory of Sion article for GA status. --Loremaster (talk) 21:23, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
The 14:22, 29 April 2008 version has been listed as a good article under the good article criteria. Thank you Wfgh66 for your enormous help! Now we can proceed with nominating Priory of Sion for Featured Article status. --Loremaster (talk) 20:24, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Priory of Sion is now a featured article candidate. Please express your support on the nonimation page now. --Loremaster (talk) 21:40, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

The FA nomination failed because we skipped the Peer Review step... --Loremaster (talk) 21:25, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] About External links sections

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

I'm in the process of standardizing this section. I haven't deleted anything yet but I think we should all avoid leaving or adding links to fringe websites, especially when they are of poor quality, and focus more on adding links to good analyses and critiques from notable sources especially if they are mainstream journalists or academics. --Loremaster 02:24, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] About See also sections

According to the advice of some Wikipedia administrators: 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)

[edit] Priory of Sion emblem

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

[edit] Citations

My take on how citations should look like is this:

In footnotes, we should give:

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

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

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

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

  • Surname, Short title, page.

In the literature section, we should

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

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

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

Thanks but you and User:Wfgh66 will have to work on this without me. --Loremaster (talk) 01:09, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Okay. I will go through the references from time to time, ensuring that they are uniform and sensible. Str1977 (talk) 09:30, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Good. --Loremaster (talk) 16:23, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

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

The 3 citation needed tags are one in the History section and two in The Plantard Plot section. --Loremaster (talk) 01:02, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Sentences that have citation needed tags will be deleted sooner or later. --Loremaster (talk) 02:41, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
There is only one citation needed tag left in the article, specifically the History section. --Loremaster (talk) 22:16, 28 May 2008 (UTC)