Talk:The Templar Revelation

Why do Pseudo-Skeptics feature so heavily in the ranks of Wiki editors? Still it must be wonderful to know everything.--~~Brett Kenny~~

from VfD:

May be notable (21400 Google hits), but is not in any kind of shape to be even kept at the moment. Could be resurrected later, if someone more knowledgeable than me wants to write about it. Incorrectly named, too. Smoddy | Talk 23:30, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC) Keep, now the stub article is up to scratch. Shouldn't it be moved to Templar Revelation, though? Smoddy | Talk 17:49, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• The book by this name is a fairly well-known piece of pseudohistorical crackpottery, akin to Holy Blood, Holy Grail, only not as famous (though it is the source for one of the central theses of The Da Vinci Code: that the apostle John was for some reason omitted from Leonardo's painting). I agree that the current original article was worthless, so delete unless fixed; I've made a start. —Charles P. ^(Mirv) 23:37, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Regarding the title: it is a proper name and, according to the naming conventions, should retain the article. "Except in titles of works (The Old Man and the Sea, "The Lady or the Tiger?", A Clockwork Orange) or in official names (The Hague), avoid the definite ("the") and indefinite ("a"/"an") articles at the beginning of a page name." —Charles P. ^(Mirv) 00:44, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Cleanup Starblind 23:50, Jan 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. As currently stands there's a gem of an interesting article here, and it has a connection to a topical, er, topic (the DaVinci Code) but it needs major expansion. I'd like to find out more. 23skidoo 01:23, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, article needs definite cleanup and expansion though. Megan1967 02:59, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, seems to be a notable crank topic. Wyss 04:43, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, mark as a Stub or Lit-stub (which it is), and encourage continued development. The topic is definately worthwhile and should preferably seen as a "work in progress". There should immediately be put in some statement in the direction of "Many historians (or religious academics, or whoever is the correct) conisder this to be a pseudohistory. (with relevant links). Sfdan 11:20, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Seems notable. --JuntungWu 12:29, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. This theory (if it can be called that) is crankier than a Model T without an electric starter, but is seems to be notable. *sigh* Edeans 05:58, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

end moved discussion

Articles for Deletion debate

This article survived an Articles for Deletion debate. The discussion can be found here. -Doc (?) 22:58, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Criticism

The "cricitism" section states that the authors "were either unaware of or totally ignored the evidence that the "Priory" was a Twentieth Century hoax". In fact, they do actually mention this briefly, and then dismiss it, on the basis that the "hoax" is itself a smokescreen created by the Priory. Their conclusion is (very) probably wrong, but the implication of intellectual dishonesty may be somewhat unfair.

While I don't really agree with The Templar Revelation, branding it as "pseudohistory" seems unnecessarily POV when even Immanuel Velikovsky's works don't receive the same treatment on this site. Kramden (talk) 03:04, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Cut and Paste Mary/Jesus

In the section [and alternative theories] it mention about Mary. I remember in the movie in 2003 that they wen't on about cutting mary out and pasting her next to jesus and it fits better with her head on his. Also, that this 'mary' in the picture looks female. Is this mentioned in the Templar Revelation book?

Dead Link

Dead Link in reference mickgill (talk) 20:32, 1 February 2018 (UTC)