Talk:The Da Vinci Code/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4

Might be old news/DNA testing

The other day I saw an episode on the History Channel which featured DNA testing of a Merovingian queen. The results completely debunked the notion that Jesus Christ and Mary Magdalene had a child which became part of the Merovingian blood line. The DNA from the queen showed zero probability of any Middle-Eastern ancestry. I did a search of the articles here and did not see a place to post this, so I figured I'd put it in talk. If another Da Vinci expert wants to review this and add it to the main article, great! If not, no harm no foul. ;)

See Digging For The Truth: The Da Vinci Code: Bloodlines --Christa 14:59, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for that. In spite of the terrific and compelling story written by Dan Brown here, I find it troubling that ignorant people with so little knowledge of history could actually take it seriously. Anything that transpired in the ancient Middle East is in no wise connected or influenced by Europe before the Crusades. Holy crap! That alone should be common knowledge! ManofRenown87 05:20, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Bloodlines DO die if I'm not mistaken... Is it stated in the book that there is a SURE blood related..relative in today's time? I mean besides the supporting character? Explain what you mean about the queen? What if 'Sarah' died of some disease or something. I mean, you can't just rule out that there was none. Right? -Kid.

Jesus Children Fulfill Prophecy

See esp following Biblical quotes & prophesies:

  • And He shall see his seed. Isaiah 53: 10
  • And He shall sprinkle His seed across many nations. Isaiah 52:15
  • Thus sayeth the Lord,the Holy One of Israel, and His Maker,

Ask me of things to come concerning My sons.... Isaiah 45: 11

The ONLY book discussing this actual Jesus descent/lineage is (versus fiction as Da Vinci Code and versus raving OFF Point) The Jesus Presidents ISBN 0595333001

Note: Jesus having children before dying on the cross does NOT change ANYTHING in your religion.

criticism of writing quality

I dunno if this is worth mentioning in an encyclopedia article. You guys know better than I.

Geoff Pullum, a linguist at Language Log, criticised Dan Brown for especially poor writing. He says he wouldn't criticise a new author, except that Dan Brown is so incredibly popular.

Via the links at the bottom of the post, it seems like the other linguists are criticising, but I don't know if others have.

See this language log post 70.66.9.162 07:06, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Split off

This page is over twice the recommended maximum article size of 30KB. Suggestions for subtopics to split it into would be useful. Stifle (talk) 22:23, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I say we split this into "Da Vinci Code Theory" and "Da Vinci Code (novel)"
Great. I've replaced the "split" tag you added with "Splitlong". —Viriditas | Talk 22:31, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Nods - I agree placing articles regarding the movie on a new page makes as much sense as anything else if a split is required. 67.101.128.103 03:43, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
I disagree, in terms of actually text, this article isn't long. Its mainly the references that's taking up room --Steven 03:44, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Me too, I disagree - the whole article is in the same place not cutted and placed in all over the Wikipedia ! --81.168.147.229 19:18, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
I agree with splitting off (for example, the characters have got their own articles now) Will (E@) T 17:22, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
I have seen many articles that are much longer, text-wise. South Park, L Ron Hubbard, the next generation consoles, and others are some examples. I don't see any reason to split it up. Sarysa 18:02, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

No splitting necessary. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 12.215.97.185 (talk • contribs) 04:08, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with a split for reasons already stated by Steven and Sarysa. Trogdor077 17:43, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Trilogy?

The first paragraph says that the Da Vinci Code is part two of a trilogy. Is this true? Has Dan Brown said there will only be three Langdon books? I seriously doubt it. Surely Dan Brown will continue to write Langdon books. I suspect someone will say that it is going to be a trilogy simply because there are three books (once The Solomon Key comes out). I disagree with this - I think in order to be a trilogy, it has to be already decided that there will be no more. The first three James Bond movies weren't a trilogy just because there were only three of them - everyone knew there would be more. So unless someone can find a quote from Dan Brown that there will only be three, I say it's not a trilogy and we remove that language. Andrewdoane 14:02, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I guess we'll find out ManofRenown87 05:22, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

The Hitchiker's guide to the galaxy is described as a trilogy in 5 parts.

It's not a Trilogy. And if I'm right, Hitchiker's is a Trilogy of 4 parts... either way, trilogy's are THREE, and Hitchiker's is just a joke. ~ The Haunted Angel 21:27, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

i was under the impression it would be a twelve book series though canot remember where i heard that WeaponBB7

Solution to this Stupidity

Mod Charlie came up with the ideal solution to all this crap: remove all the webquest info from this article and the newly created film article and link it to a totally separate page dedicated purely to the webquests, which he has kindly created already. Please can someone edit this page accordingly. Thank you Charlie for being the first MOD to have a clue. 67.101.134.76 10:17, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

The Original Da Vinci Code WebQuests

There are two original web-based quests available online which were initially part of a promotional campaign for the release of Dan Brown's book 'The Da Vinci Code', however the webquests have since become a popular challenge in their own right for websurfers around the world. The original Da Vinci Code WebQuest involves deciphering a series of cryptic clues using both the book and the internet to solve them. The second Da Vinci Code WebQuest, titled 'Uncover The Code', follows a similar style.

Detailed solutions and discussion on the original two webquests is available from the following website(s):

For information regarding the new Google sponsored webquests, refer to this Wikipedia article.

The Google Da Vinci Code WebQuests

On April 17th 2006, Google launched its first movie industry cross-promotion based around the release of The Da Vinci Code: The Movie. Working with Sony Pictures, they launched the Da Vinci Code Google Quest, an online series of puzzles with no simple solutions to challenges players. According to a post on the Official Google Blog by Google software engineer/four-time world puzzle champion Wei-Hwa Huang, the puzzle game’s many twists and turns are “designed to honor both a fanatical puzzler’s sheer love of a mental challenge and the labyrinthine spirit of The Da Vinci Code itself.” According to Google, the new webquests again require skill, intellect, and perseverance. Google promises that should anyone answer all 24 puzzles correctly, they will have a chance of winning 'untold riches'. The Google webquests run over a span of 24 days ending May 11th 2006. Note: You are required to create an account with Google first, and then register to view or undertake the webquests. Although the Google WebQuest is still fairly new, information and discussion is available from the following website(s):

For information regarding the older original Da Vinci Code webquests, refer to this Wikipedia article.

Spinoff sooner than the original?

As well as re-invigorating interest in the church, The Da Vinci Code has also :spawned numerous "knockoffs" (as they are referred to by Publishers Weekly) [2], :or novels that have a striking resemblance to The Da Vinci Code, including :Raymond Khoury's The Last Templar, The Templar Legacy by Steve Berry, and :Foucault's Pendulum by Umberto Eco.

The others are OK, but Foucault's Pendulum is said to have been published in 1988 in its respective article. How can then be a spinoff? AttishOculus 05:31, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

That was my error which occurred while I was merging multiple paragraphs. In any case, I've removed it momentarily as it doesn't seem that important. I've read both books, and while one could argue that Foucault's Pendulum influenced Brown, there are certainly other books one could mention as well (The Club Dumas comes to mind). Perhaps we should develop a separate section if one is needed. —Viriditas | Talk 06:40, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

How secret is the secret?

There is an inconsistency in the presentation of "the secret": when told of the "fact" that Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene, characters in the novel Langdon and Neveu react with shock and surprise, yet on page 244 Teabing says without a challenge "it's a matter of historical record" and offers other support for it being common knowledge among scholars for centuries, and in contemporary times, educated people in general.

How can this be a point of view? Is there a point of view which holds the characters' surprise is consistent with "a matter of historical record"?

Generally speaking, what matters of historical record can simultaneously be called secrets? patsw 17:16, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Because it is not a fact that it is a inconsistency. It is someones opinion that it is a inconsistency. Opinions like that don't belong in a article which is trying to explain the book. dposse 19:50, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

It is a fact it is an inconsistency -- objectively an inconsistency. It is not merely an opinion -- i.e. that it could appear to me to be an inconsistency but to someone else to be consistent. patsw 01:58, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
But it is a opinion, and you just stated the reason why it is a opinion. Just because you think it is a inconsistency doesn't mean the entire world does. I read the entire book, and i didn't find any inconsistences in it at all. Unless you can find someone in the media who has said that was a inconsistency, the paragraph shouldn't be in this article. And even if you did find someone in the media who said that, the paragraph belongs in the "criticism" section, not in the "Secret of the Holy Grail" section.dposse 18:39, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Now, you've repeated the same objection. I am not accounting for the opinion of "the entire world". This is not how the Wikipedia works. The presentation of the secret is inconsistent or even a stronger word can be used, "contradicted". Inconsistencies and contradictions exist objectively -- apart from what you can "find" or what you choose to call opinion. Of course it is relevant: it is the hinge of the story, the big payoff: on one hand "it's a matter of historical record" (i.e. not a secret) and on the other hand, "Sophie was mesmerized" (i.e. a secret). For a source for this duality of a "secret/not a secret" there's no better source than Dan Brown's own website FAQ. Discussion of this is in the right section of the article. Dposse, please allow some other editors offer an opinion or a chance to improve the wording before you delete it again. patsw 02:50, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
No, "sophie was memorized" because she is what Teabind called a "virgin". She was shocked and completely overwhelmed by all the infomation that she was hearing. Mesmerized is just another word for overwhelmed. You have to remember that the story takes place in a matter of hours from a start to finish. It is not a Inconsistency, it is just how it was written. It was trying to explain to you how overwhelmed Sophie was at hearing all this.

However, all of this is opinion and not fact. It is your opinion that it is a Inconsistency, and it cannot be varified. You are attacking the book and the author over a few descriptive words which try to describe sophies feelings, and it doesn't belong in this article. dposse 19:26, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

There is nothing on his FAQ that says anything about a Inconsistency. dposse 16:05, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

I think this section should either be deleted or rewritten. It is obviously biased (putting the words the secret and fact in quotes is one example), doesn't make sense, is irrelevant, and to me, what this writer describes wasn't the secret of the book. Whoever wrote this seems to have a cross to bear (sorry for the bad pun) but should find a better way of explaining him or herself. I was disappointed with the whole Wiki article, but this passage in particular is subpar.12:34, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Anon, let's examine your arguments: (1) It is not "obviously biased" -- words get put in quotes to introduce that the remainder of the sentence is going to focus on the semantics of what has been put into quotes -- as I have just done. Bias is not intended and not implied. If you can suggest rewording to eliminate your perception of bias, please make the suggestion.
(2) How is it consistent in your view that the secret is both known and unknown at the same time? "What this writer [I assume you refer to me and not Teabing or Brown] describes wasn't the secret of the book." There are many secrets in the book, but this appears to be the one worth killing for. "How secret is the secret" is certainly relevant to the story of The Da Vinci Code. If inconsistency can be expressed more clearly or concisely or in more detail with more supporting quotes than I have done, that might be an improvement to the article. patsw 12:56, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
The original form of this section was added by me many months ago. I originally called it a "narrative paradox" not a "contradiction", and for the sake of peace perhaps paradox should return. However, in essence I agree with Pat. It is a confusion in the very basis for the plot. The Church is apparently obsessed by the need to keep this secret, but this secret isn't a secret at all, because it is known to historians and apparently has also been known to numerous writers and artists throughout history! Anyone can apparently find out about this "secret" by popping into one of Langdon's lectures at Harvard, or reading the works of these historians. Nevertheless seeming educated people - including Langdon's publisher! - act as though they are utterly amazed by such a hitherto-unknown idea. Paul B 09:41, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Have you even read the book? It states very clearly several times why that is so. "History is always written by the winners". Also, most of the evidence was very cleverly hidden (like Da Vincis paintings) that most people didn't see it, or refused to see it. Whenever someone came out with the truth and wrote a book or something about it, they were called a blasphemer, like on page 247 of the hardcover edition. Since the Catholic Church makes all the rules in the religion, whatever they said and did was followed by everyone and no one questioned it, except some groups that were considered to be a heretic by the church. People were blind to the truth because they had faith, and their faith was absolute. dposse 18:44, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but this is baloney. The "Catholic church" does not make "all the rules in the religion". Have you never heard of Protestantism, of the Greek and Russian Orthodox churches, of the Coptic Church, of the St. Thomas Christians in India (who had no contact with Rome at all until the era of European imperialism)? Anyway, we are talking about the claims made in the novel about modern writers in secular states in which there is freedom of speech and the press. The paradox or contradiction remains. Why is everyone amazed and scandalised by what is presented as normative opinion amongst scholars? You haven't even addressed that point. Paul B 21:54, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
So, when the Pope says that abortion is bad, no one believes him? those pro-life people have no ties to the catholic church? Anyway, you have completely taken Sophies feelings out of context and say that it is a paradox. She was just overwhelmed by all the infomation that was coming at her. How about you quote from the book the things that you think is a paradox, and i will try to show you where you are wrong. dposse 19:31, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

My two cents: I don't see the point of this section. Whether it's inconsistent or not, there are bigger inconsistencies in the book than this one, this one is inserted quite randomly into the article, and it's really not a terribly interesting point. I vote delete altogether. HVH 17:25, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I Agree. Personally, I think it IS pretty strange that on one hand no one knows about this "secret" but on the other hand it is considered well-documented and a part of "common scholarly knowledge", still, that doesn't justify giving it it's own paragraph in this article. The section should be deleted completely, it is a random comment and only especially important in the opinion of the original author. If there is a specific mention of this fact in any critical review of this book, then it should be mentioned and a source given. Else, no. --TheOtherStephan 03:31, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
How about i propose a compromise? Let's delete the "How secret is the secret" section, and instead add a sentence into the "criticism" section? Let's not put a huge paragraph about it, just a sentence that explains how some believe that the book is not a good piece of literature because it contains inconsistencies. Is that ok with you? dposse 20:30, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
The claim is that, as written, duality of "secret/not a secret" is not "neutral". I dispute that. I believe that, as written, it expresses a neutral point of view of a relevant fact about the novel. However, I'm open to suggestions on making the text more neutral. That's usually why a {{NPOV-section}} tag is added. If narrative paradox (Paul's phrase) expresses the idea better than inconsistency (my word), I have no objection to that change. patsw 02:36, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
you won't even consider my compromise? wouldn't a couple sentences in the Criticism section be better than its own little section? Look, i'm trying to work with you, all of you, to try to make this article really great. Can you please consider my compromise? dposse 17:37, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Just interjecting here, a comment from a third party: I am bewildered as to what you are discussing. Could you perhaps include suggested wording here, to clarify what it is that you're talking about? --Elonka 17:57, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

In the article there's a discussion of the secret that Jesus was married to Mary Magdalen. Regarding its disclosure in the novel, call it an inconsistency, narrative paradox, or contradiction: that everyone has shock and surprise when they hear it (i.e. Neveu standing in for the audience), but it's been known to scholars for centuries according to the characters that Brown uses to speak the truth. So is it a secret or isn't it? patsw 00:17, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Please, answer my question. dposse 02:10, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
What question? You made an obscure and irelevant comment about abortion at one point. Was that it? When I added this passage the article was structured differently and it fitted onto the overall discussion of anomalies. The paradox/contradiction is that this information about the real nature of the "Grail" (Jesus and Mary M) is apparently well known and uncontested by scholars. Anyone can walk into a library to discover this well-known "truth". And yet it is also apparently a "secret" - and what's more it's the secret that some Catholics are so intent on keeping secret that they will resort to murder. The main characters who are portrayed as reacting with amazement are Langdon's editor and Sophie. The response of the editor is particularly surprising, since he is presumably knowledgable about the subject, or how did he get his job? He's even apparently well aware of the work of famous historian Leigh Teabing but is oblivious to the fact that this great thinker has written about this subject. Well, there are only two possible explanations for that: 1. either this subject is completely uncontroversial, in which case why are characters so amazed and shocked? 2. A famous historian writes about a radical theory that upsets our whole view of religious history and no-one notices. Paul B 15:02, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
My compromise. Can you please consider it? dposse 19:34, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

This section also caught my eye, and I have to say that it seemed the least professional part of the article--akin to a child arguing "If two plus two is four, how can one plus three also equal four?"

The fact that scholars know something does not mean that the general public does. A "well-documented" thing may never make it to anyone outside of scholarly circles. Articles are published all the time which have no direct influence on anyone outside of an extremely small, focused group of people. I do not have the book on hand, but as far as I am aware, nearly all the main characters of the book did know that the secret was Jesus' bloodline. Sophie did not, because she--like the general public reading the book--had never been told. She was not a part of the scholarly circle in which this was "common knowledge." This is not an inconsistancy. user: Shara

Frankly, your first paragraph is silly. The child in example is logically in error, and the mistake can be demonstrated. You don't seem to even get the point. If the secret is so explosive, then it would certainly be widely covered in the media. If it is not explosive, there is no reason for anyone to continue to make an effort keep secret a secret that isn't secret and that no-one other than specialist scholars cares about. Paul B 17:31, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Will you please consider my compromise? I'm trying to work with you, Paul Barlow. dposse 02:31, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

This is by far the most pointless discussion I've ever read on wikipedia. Please take dposse's suggestion or delete the section completely. --213.47.116.40 01:05, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Teabing would hardly be the first scholar to mistakenly assume that what was common knowledge among his friends and colleagues was common knowledge in general, nor would the Magdalene theory be the only example of "fact" known to scholars and unknown, disregarded, or blatantly misunderstood by lay people. I don't see any inconsistency between its presentation as common knowledge by some and a surprised reaction by others. I also don't see any inconsistency between this "common knowledge" and the plot to conceal the secret, because my understanding (perhaps wrong) was that the plot is not to conceal the theory but to conceal the evidence that would prove the theory. A theory alone, after all, no matter how scholarly, is no threat to the Church if the Church's followers either don't know about it or dismiss it as crackpot, blasphemous, or a conspiracy theory. So I don't think there is any inconsistency here -- but even if there were, I really don't think it needs its own section and bold header. Please either mention it briefly in a section dealing with other criticisms or delete it entirely; the way it is now looks really unprofessional.--Bedawyn 00:38, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I personally find this entire section trivial. It should be integrated into a broader subject. I don't think it's of any relevance how surprised Neveu is by the news. But I would also like to say that it sounds like there's a slight inconsistency if taken literally. Teabing seems to talk of an obscure fact as if he expects Neveu to know it. But obviously she doesn't, hence the surprise (She is a "virgin"). Since Teabing and his "non-virgins" know the secret, then it is obviously not a secret (Secrets are not common knowledge). To continue calling it a secret is what is causing the "inconsistency." Once again, I will emphasize the trivial nature of this argument. taishaku 20:53, 29 May 2006 (PST)

I thought it was a very relavent discussion, but needless. This discussion presents two things, an example of the earlier mention "crticism about bad writing" and a very apparent contradiction about the novel's pivotal "payoff" as Pat put it. Brown should have done a better job editing this. It's a minor error on Brown's part, and kinda funny to me, especially since (being a person with considerable knowledge of history) it emphasizes the fact that the Da Vinci Code is in fact a fictional book that stretches and adds little and subtle false details to history itself. A good and thrilling book, but a fictional book nonetheless. Why bother arguing about whether its a contradiciton or not when you all are actually arguing based on your own bias. The presented problem, is a contradiction on Brown's part, perhaps unintended, but clearly contradictory. Anyone whose head is not stuck up their own rear-end can see that. You should be scolding Brown for bad writing not each other. Geez. ManofRenown87 05:38, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Image: Vitruvian.jpg

The Vitruvian man picture is messing up some of the text on the page. i tried to fix it, but it didn't work. can anyone mess around with it so it won't mess with the text? thanks. dposse 19:40, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Webquest solution?

Hello everyone. I'm the Charlie that 67.101.134.76 mentioned (I'm not an admin yet though). I came across this the WebQuest content being posted identically on a number of articles so on his talk page at User talk:67.101.134.76, I suggested moving the content to The Da Vinci Code WebQuests and linking to that page from the DaVinci Code franchise, thusly hopefully diffusing a war as to what webquest content goes with which article, and also slimming down the size of this and other articles (as I do notice it has a long article tag). Does this sound like a reasonable solution to everyone? I'll make the change on the article and we can discuss more cool? Regards --Charlie(@CIRL | talk) 11:12, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

With such a page, we could move it to something like The Da Vinci Code Puzzles and also pull the book jacket puzzle out to that page as well. Thoughts? --Charlie(@CIRL | talk) 11:24, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Better yet The Da Vinci Code Marketing as these things (WebQuests, Book Jacket contest) don't really have anything to do with the puzzles presented in the book for the protagonist, but are puzzles for the Mass Market Consumers to enjoy. It would be slightly less ambiguous I think. --Charlie(@CIRL | talk) 11:28, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

regarding ongoing ridiculous amendments and vandalism

--Omigod already another member is proposing to delete the new webquests article. Can you people please get your sh*t together? The issue had been discussed and finally resolved here, and then someone decided to separate the articles as this one was too long. Fair enough, that's fine, and after further discussion, the google webquest info was moved over to the new film article as it is relevant to that, and the old webquests info stayed here as it is relevant to the book. Again everybody is happy. Suddenly some other member sticks their nose in and presumably didn't bother to read the discussion here and deletes the relevant links from this article and adds links that belong on the newly created film article - gawd only knows why - and then another vandal war starts as a direct result. Then a third article is created purely for the webquests, which is probably a good idea since it's caused so much problem (although there is a lot of traffic for it or I'd suggest deleting anything at all to do with the webquests), but now some other member has proposed to delete that new webquests article! What the hell is wrong with people here? The original webquests links were here for over 2 years without any issue whatsoever, now it seems everybody and their brother wants things done their way regardless of whether it makes any sense or not. This is ridiculous, and yet it should be so easy to resolve if there weren't so many Indians and no Chiefs who bothered to get the facts straight. Lets try some common sense here. There really are only three options here:

  • remove all mention of the webquests from all articles and bury our heads in the sand.
  • keep the two articles separate (one for the book, one for the movie) as has recently been done, and have the info for the older webquests included in the article for the book, and the info for the Google webquests included in the article for the movie since that is what they are related to, and cross reference if that makes people feel better. This option makes the most sense if we intend to keep the articles on the book and the movie separate.
  • put all info on the webquests (both the original webquests from 2003 and the new 2006 Google webquests) onto their own special page, as has just been done, and place a link to that page from the book and movie articles.

It's really not that hard guys. Choose one option and stick to it. Do you think you can manage that? Please respond with your choice below, and reasoning if applicable. Thankyou for you cooperation and common sense. Oh, and instead of blaming everything on some anon user, perhaps realize that these agreements that keep getting reneged on by members are what is causing so much resentment and consequent vandalism. 69.3.199.103 20:34, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Yet another new webquest has just been released by Eurostar.. it's starting to make sense to have a separate article for Da Vinci webquests, and then the two articles - one for the book and one for the movie(s). 64.105.73.85 17:34, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

As regards an unrelated incidence of "vandalism", I noticed that a certain user added a link to "The Da Vinci Load", a pornographic film whose name is an obvious pun on "The Da Vinci Code", under the 'parodies' category; it was deleted by a moderator soon afterward. The moderator then sent a personal message to the initial poster accusing him/her of vandalism. What makes this a case of vandalism? It's clearly not high-brow content, but I would argue that it's interpretable as parody; and if not parody, then of relatedness. Since there's a substantial category for parody already present on the page, and the new link clearly marked it as a pornography, I don't understand why it's addition should be regarded as vandalism.

Penumbra 2k 02:17, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Lawsuits

At least one lawsuit was decided in DB's favor. If both have, then this certainly should be indicated. As it stands, DB sounds quite suspect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kdammers (talk • contribs)

I believe DB won the second plagerism lawsuit against Lewis Perdue, author of The Da Vinci Legacy and Daughter of God. [1] Pnkrockr 19:29, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Page 322

"It is also said that there is a code within italicized words in the book. One suspicious fact is that the page number on page 322 is just ***."

This is untrue. There is no page number on page 322 because it is the beginning of a chapter. SAlpsu 13:40, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Wow. 0wn3d to the extreme. --M1ss1ontomars2k4 | T | C | @ 19:53, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
There is not a code in italicized letters in the book, but there is a code in the italicized letters of the April 2006 trial ruling about the book. See The Smithy Code. There is also a code in bolded letters in the flaps of the bookjacket on the original American version of the book. There are also other hidden messages, one of which does indeed use the letters on various chapter-beginning pages. --Elonka 20:03, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

OH! Goody! I hope they have some kind of online mailing service so I can sign up to get my free Da Vinci Code Decoder Ring and Cracker Jack box! ManofRenown87 05:44, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

OH! Goody! I hope you choke on the cracker jack's. -Kid. (ps. dumb responces just lead to more dumb responces. Keep it nice here and so will everyone else.)

Its Affecting Christians in the wrong way

Its making Jesus married a prostitute. Its making Him look that he sin. Dan Brown has False Documents that its not what the bible says. "Many historians now believe (as I do) that in gauging the historcial accuracy of a given concept" I don't believe in that crap. Dan Brown is Changing history in a document way that thre is no proof. he does that whats the next target I bet he start buddism making buddha married a prostitute or Muslims making Muhammad married one too and its not the they how would you feel. He trying to do this for one million dollars in two days.

Nowhere in the Bible did it say that Mary Magdalene was a prostitute. So shut up.
Shut up. dposse 22:24, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
get over it.
Who cares? It's FICTION. Just like the Bible itself,mostly. Graham 02:25, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, but there is no proof that gods, or the devil even exist either. It's just a book, and if you look at it logicaly in some ways he's right.

74.113.2.101 19:41, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I'll have to agree with you that Dan Brown is delivering his own facts (true or not) in a way that will make them look like true. For example, in the first pages of the book it says under the headline "facts" that all descriptions of arts, architectonic arts, documents and secret rituals agrees with reality. And off course there's nowhere in the bible where Mary Magdalene is mentioned more than hasty (by the way there's no point being rude):o). Even so, Mary Magdalene was one of Jesus most faithful companions. But she wasn't a disciple, since she was a woman. This fact does also proove that Jesus wasn't "the first feminist" as Dan Brown lets Teabing so temptingly describe him as. The New Testamente is almost mainly written with documents by the disciples, Jesus own eye witnesses so I wouldn't call the bible "fiction" while it's based upon what people have seen with their own eyes. But Da Vinci Code itself is nothing more than a roman trying to make the world a little bit less male-dominated and it's very good reading as a bonus.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lady stardust (talk • contribs) .

You talk about changing history, but how do we know what history really was? Look at it this way: is there any proof that the Bible is true? Why can you make this claim and then dismiss all other suggestions? If you would like to consider yourself intelligent you should at least be open minded to reasonable claims. And by that, are Dan Brown's claims unreasonable? Is there any proof that Jesus did not marry? No. This is not an attack on your beliefs but rather an attack on your idea that there is one way and one way only.
☭ Zippanova 05:34, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
If you don't like the book, than don't read it. Not everyone in the world is Christian. If something as small and inconsequential as a fiction novel can affect your faith, than it must have been based off of crap to begin with. :) --JOK3R 18:51, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

This area is for the discussion of the article. Let's watch the personal insults, please. Rsm99833 18:55, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Seriously... I mean, I thought most of you guys were like the smart disciplined types. I say this because I know I may be scolded for some of my immature antics in the near future, that is why I say you guys are smart and disciplined as opposed to we are smart and disciplined. I may be smart, but I'm def not disciplined. But really, I agree with RSM99833 play nice. ManofRenown87 05:47, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Just to clear the air. The Bible has more factual evidence than most history books that you pay to learn about in school (look it up)--by the way it is ignorant to argue a negative. Just because the Bible doesn't mention Jesus' marriage, this doesn't automatically make him married to Mary out-right!

This is absurd and untrue. THe old Test. has great accuracy on geographical locations, but is anachronistic to archeological evidense as well as synchronic texts from other culture in the same area. The new Testament is incorrect in both Geography as well as its representations of OT interpretations during the time of Jesus' point in history. There are also, different and increasingly muythic stories told in the gospels, with a myriad of written gospels that did not make the cut when the early church compiled the book together. You cannot, with any accuracy or heurmenetical integrity, read the bible as a literal diachronic text. -Lee

The Bible has more factual errors than anything. Don't let your Faith blind you.
Good point...i guess.., but ultimately it doesn't effect the Christian view of Jesus. He was still crucified, and still raised from the dead, DB didn't refute that. This is ultimately why Chrisitans are Christians...belief in that God raised Jesus from the dead. Calbert 23:47, 19 May 2006 (OU)

No offense intended, but I think that Christians are taking this piece of FICTION WAAAAY to seriously. Folks, it's a book. Get over it. It is not the 21st century's version of Mein Kampf, it is a good story, that is popular. No one is talking about Jesus and Mary in a SERIOUS tone, except in some Spanish neighborhoods..... :)

I agree with the above, and (though being a being Christian myself) I believe that the book can be appreciated on it's own merits, aside from the theological issues. However, I think the way Dan Brown presents all his views as irrefutable fact to be very misleading. Dan Brown's views are a gross misrepresentation of the christian faith, even if they do make a good book, and the root of the problem is that many people not familiar with what christians actually believe will read this book and think this is what we believe. 67.171.242.75 22:09, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
Well, not what Christians believe, but rather, that what the book states is correct. Which is why attempting to ban it is the worst thing to do in this situation. People will instinctively believe its banned content to be true, reasoning that that which can be easily refuted would be refuted, not banned. Criticising it so strongly, especially minor points, like bad French and soap in Louvre also helps this kind of reasoning ("must be an uneasy conscience" and all that). My belief if that any reasonable person will want to consult neutral, objective sources after reading the book, to verify its claims. And this is where Wikipedia comes in. Or at least it should...;-) --Illythr 22:48, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd like to add a tad to the discussion; I came to Wikipedia to find out what/how much of DB's "facts" are, in fact, facts. It's well known among historical circles (to risk being guilty of the 'anonymous authority' defense for brevity's sake) that a good story is very compelling, but need not bear a strong resemblance to the truth. The level of dispute focussing on minor points in this article is, frankly, ridiculous and frustrating.

The purpose of Wikipedia is to deliver information (or, at least, data) to the participants; this information should definitely include what the various disputes are, and what the sides of them are; in fact, I believe that the vast majority of what's important about an issue is how people come down on it. But the opinions are to be presented here, not debated here; there are plenty of places in which to have the debate.

(Forgive me for potentially (probably) preaching to the choir--but man, I hate seeing the wasted energy on these silly little disputes that can ultimately be solved by just adding more information, but get exacerbated by some hothead editing or deleting something s/he doesn't agree with. Sheesh) Penumbra 2k 19:16, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

This book sells not because it's a literary masterpiece. It's actually not too impressive of a book. It sells because it bashes on Christianity with a radical idea (supposedly, DB himself claims people can interpret it any way they want, which is just Pilate washing his hands clean) that seems to have no supporting evidence. Nothing attracts attention like controversy. Personally, I think the entire thing is hogwash and people should interpret it as hogwash potboiled to sell. I mean, are we at the point where one man can change accepted knowledge/history with a single book just because alot of people are willing to believe it? I think Christians (and I am one) should keep faith and debate over the book's "truth" carefully; anyone who believes DB is obviously too irrational to be convinced otherwise. taishaku 20:56, 29 May 2006 (PST)

Look, I want to show here that Christians (in spite of our sometimes radical behavior and bad reputation in the scientific and scholastic circles) can in fact be rational and competant scholars, who can objectively approach any intellectual situation. Okay. First, the dude who started this discussion should have used some better grammar if he wanted to be taken seriously. Next, there are alot of things stated in the Bible that have been proven to be true; but most of the Bible remains shrouded in mystery, like most recorded history. Furthermore, science (in spite of its heavy application) does not have all the answers, non-Christian experts that I have spoken with in the scientific community can't always explain or prove everything about their theories any more that Christians can prove most of the Bible, scientifically. Also, the Da Vinci Code is a very good book. While, there are some dodgy excerpts and minor discrepancies here and there, I feel Dan Brown wrote a compelling and interesting book (and yes, nothing sells like conspiracy. genius!). But in spite of its literary achievement and ability to stir up considerable commotion, its still fiction. Dan Brown allowed it to be labeled fiction. That's enough for me. Moreover, I completely agree with the guy that said Christians are making way too big a deal about The Da Vinci Code, because frankly, we are. Personally its kind of shameful to know that the Christian community would raise such an uproar over a work of fiction. I'm not entirely sure of this myself, but the thought has crossed my mind that the (mostly Christian) allegation that readers actually believe in and took the book's contents literally is just an urban legend. I've thought, probably few if any people who read the Da Vinci Code believe its actually true. This is because of the book's own historical inconsistencies (being a person familiar with ancient and sctiptural history) and the universal fact that it's still labeled as a fiction book. The uproar in the Christian community is shameful to me because, being a Christian, if my colleagues would cause such a commotion over so small a thing as a fiction book, they defame themselves to pass up other such things that threaten our faith which have gone on for far longer, such as prejudice and discriminatory hate crimes by alleged "christians" against homosexuals. The Christian reaction to this is minuscule in comparison to our reaction to the Da Vinci Code. I don't believe homosexuality is right. But I don't hate homosexuals for it. People who openly and hatefully carry out such attacks should not be considered Christians, in spite of the mantle they hypocritically claim to carry. And they believe in what they do, while Dan Brown's readers are simply reading a book. But do Christians cause a national uproar over this? No. So-called "christians" attacking homosexuals has gone on for decades and defaced the worldview and testimony of Christians everywhere. Why have we failed to act against such an injustice, while at the same time stopping in our tracks to condemn a fictional book? This is shameful. I believe strongly in the message of Christ's love. But to me this upraor against the Da Vinci Code is a waste of time and breath. I believe so strongly in Christ's love that I'll spread his message to those who haven't heard it, and I believe strongly that it is their choice to accept it or not. We cannot force our faith on people, this is not the way of Christ. It all boils down to this folks: You choose to believe in your "science," while I choose to believe in my "God." Either way it's the choices we make that ultimately prove what we believe in, and who we are. And who is right? Well... I guess we'll find out. ManofRenown87 06:52, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

--

ManofRenown87, I don't particularly disagree with you--far from it. But I'd like to point out that your note here doesn't demonstrate the ability to be objective; it's essentially a broad and deep statement of your personal, considered opinion. Insofar as it is within my ability to say, your opinion is considered and derived somewhat rationally, though your implication that 'science' claims to have all the answers (and in fact the idea that there exists a coherent entity called 'science' to which an expressed opinion can be assigned) lumps scientists together in precisely the way you hope to defend Christians from being lumped together in.

To defend 'science' momentarily, I am both a Christian and a scientist, and have seen no reason to believe (in fact, I believe I could quite simply prove that no reason could exist) that these viewpoints are in any way incompatible. Having said that, I do take a somewhat more liberal view of Christianity then is typically accepted in the modern world, although I feel it's corroborated strongly by what is written about Christ's words and actions in the gospels. Also, it is in the nature of 'science' that it does not explain everything; taken as a whole, 'science' is some fusion of a body of knowledge which is experimentally and/or rationally verified, a methodology with which to perform said verification, and a system of hypothetical models which predict, and to some limited extent explain, something observable (or deducible from something observable). It would, in my opinion, be patently unscientific to claim that a scientifically obtained body of knowledge was complete (I understand that a few quantum physicists have attempted to prove that the quantum superpositioning model is complete and final, but I believe this attempt has been soundly rejected by the scientific community in general).

To your point, however: scientists themselves are human beings, and in almost every case do not perform 'pure science'. Opinions, fears, desires, et cetera get in the way of true 'scientific' behaviour. However I think this differs from a religion in that there is no organised structure that clearly reinforces this behaviour; although to be honest, the peer review network definitely has the potential to go there, and in some fairly specialised groups has done so (I direct your attention to the Neo-Darwinians of the mid-90s, and potentially also the set of eminent theoretical physicists; and I believe Einstein observed similar behaviours in some of his contemporaries, though don't quote me on that).

Anyway, I think it's well past my bedtime. In conclusion, try not to be 'othered' into making a faulty conclusion by this foolish 'science vs. God' dichotomy--no such dichotomy exists.

Penumbra 2k 07:32, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Question of Faith?

At the end of the day this book is just a rather interesting (and entertaining) work of fiction. That it is having such a severe detrimental effect on people's faith is the failing of the Church. I don't believe for one minute that Dan Brown is responsible for anyone's crisis of faith anymore than Marilyn Manson was to blame for the Columbine tragedy. The fact is that one's faith had to be questionable to start with to take the GIGANTIC leap it takes to believe the "claims" made in the Da Vinci Code. He hasn't put this book out there as a dissertation on the life of Christ or the history of the Church. His story is based on real peoples' work though, and I don't see anyone being critical of his sources. Besides, even if we accepted the book as unerringly factual, it doesn't change who Jesus is or what he did.

Amen! Thank you. dposse 00:37, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
"...it doesn't change who Jesus is or what he did." True. If a person's faith is that "bothered" by The Da Vinci Code, was it strong enough in the first place? This uproar is almost as ridiculus as the one of the movie, Passion Of The Christ. This is simply great advertising for the movie and book speak_up 16:16 21, May 2006

138.220.178.88 16:57, 25 May 2006 (UTC)Crack a Code, Crack a Divine Identity, Sore the Teeth

“Some Christian scholars state that "the misrepresentation of Christian beliefs in The Da Vinci Code is so aggressive and continual that we can only conclude that it is a result of willful ignorance or purposeful malice."[ Massimo Introvigne, a prolific scholar whose most reviewed work is the Encyclopedia della Religioni in Italia, says that secularists and liberals attach a social stigma on their "prime target," Opus Dei, since they "cannot tolerate the 'return to religion'" of the secularized society.”- Quote from Wikipedia link of Da Vinci Code topic. So is the unitarian purpose of this writing. After all, didn’t Tom Hanks say in the movie that it is the matter of what you want to believe?- May 25th 06-Lady V2000.

While tiding controversies on Jesus riddle the media through the Da Vinci Code movie, here are few questions that hopefully readers enlighten my ignorance in faith.

1/ “The Hidden Gospels” (the Da Vinci Code book p. 231) –Question a/.:Is the Bible reliable?, or is it “ a product assemblage starting from the pagan Roman Emperor Constantine the Great”? Were the gospels products of imagination of “the chosen” disciples”? a/ In my simple mind, they were illumination of divine inspirations. Would you make the difference between imagination and illumination and put into words?. Without faith, people see gospels as historical records, a product of man. With faith, one does not see books by its physical appearance, but by the invisible yet impeccable root values that constitute its existence from the nothingness. Some say faith is a state of mind of backward old women that leads only to erroneous, fanatic confusion. History proves creativity – genie spurs from faith and virtues; Intellectual realm a mere soil fertilizing imagination, correct me if I am wrong.

b/ The authors of the gospels, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were not the “chosen ones”: the disciples were eye witnesses of Jesus manifestation on earth. What is the English word for a record from hear see experiences, as oppose to a fiction, fruit of imagination?

c/ One last grain of sand in Dan Brown’ shoes: Many places in his book, Dan Brown shows facts contradict to his tremendous research. Constantine did not collect those gospels of the New Testament: They were gathered not until 170 AD. Another example, p. 245-46 mentions (…in finding proof of contradicting gospels vs. the chosen ones ), “ the Gospel of Philip, as well as other early Christian records (written in Arameic), the Nag Hammadi and the Dead Sea Scrolls is a good place to start”. These old languages are not writen in Arameic as Dan Brown believes, but in an old Egyptian language sect, which is then called "Coptic” (Christian) (see http://www.friesian.com/popes.htm#coptic). Furthermore, isn’t it true that the Dead Sea Scrolls are Jewish documents? Consequently, those documents do not mention about Jesus.

2/ Christ Divinity and the Council of Nicea (the Da Vinci Code book p.233). Is Jesus a real deal or just born from a close vote by the Council of Nicea? According to any Christian bible, Jesus divinity starts right after his death, in fact, John 16:9 states that “He will convict the world in regard to sin and righteousness and condemnation”. The basic sin is refusal to believe in Jesus, that His death seemingly in disgrace led to life after, henceforth, Satan who plot Jesus death, is condemned. Colloquially, for a simple woman as I am, Jesus Divinity started since His performance of miracles, especially His Transfiguration. The Nicene Creed and the Council only publicly acknowledged Jesus Being. Saying that the Council created Jesus Divinity is analogically colonials claiming a weak country as creator of that nation.

3/ Last but not least, Jesus and Mary Magdalene, And the companion of the Savior is Mary Magdalene. ( The Da Vinci Code p. 246) Juicy. We all know that companion have two meanings, depends on the context use. This is an example of the use of fact and skillfully interprete it with malicious intent. Question is, to what end do modern men bring down God, just to get even the Church? If the Catholic Church were a machiavelic dictator using secret societies or arrays of informants to cast fear among the populations, assassinate opponents, destroy weak nations to gather wealth, then it would not be God made. But look back the history, the Catholic Church has done and continues to do a good job contributing to social order and well being, along the process builds Western civilization. I question the sanity of thought in painting evil face to a holy institution.

Common sense speaking, about Jesus and Magdalene, a Ph.D amusingly commented, “ If Magdalene were Jesus’girl friend, would she be the last He talked to before He died? Then why all the Christian records acknowledged His last words were dedicated to Mary and John, leave them in charge to each other, and not a word or a look to Magdalene?” A recommendation for readers and viewers as an antidose. It would not hurt to watch movie and read the book, to understand face to face the argument. Just be cautious, subsconciously the malice slip into our mind, play again and again questions and unsatisfactory answers. Don’t be like Eve, awe in front of the Apple of Knowledge. Antidose varies, deep meditation, holy readings, or plain and practical methods such as watching another action pack movie to erase our nature of assimilating easily negative influence.

May Jesus give you a spirit of wisdom and revelation resulting in knowledge of him. May the eyes of (your) hearts be enlightened, that you may know what is the hope that belongs to his call. (Ephesian 10:17)138.220.178.88 16:57, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Huh? Illythr 21:54, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

...wow. Eloquent for a non-native English speaker (I assume). I just want to point out, though, that truth should follow evidence, not precede it. I consider myself a Christian, although many wouldn't. But this book is not 'negative influence'. In fact, in my reading of it, it does not vilify the Catholic church at all; everyone is vindicated of inappropriate behaviour with the exception of Teabing. The church is certainly acting to conceal these documents, but he does not at all go so far as to say that the modern church is wilfully misleading people, or murdering people, at all. I thought he treated the Catholic church with a fair hand for someone whose book comes out against some of its basic teachings.

I find it frustrating that it's so hard to find out how much of what he writes is factual, or at least reinforced by evidence of some kind. Personally, if there's truth behind his story, I'm inclined to accept it--both because it's truthful, and because it's beautiful in its implications toward mankind, and intuitively sensical to me (in particular, the balance between the masculine and feminine elements). It certainly didn't shake my faith in any perceptible way, whatsoever; it didn't even contradict my beliefs in any noteworthy way.

One way in which he did contradict my beliefs is in denying the divinity of Christ; in fact, he provided no evidence whatsoever for doing so (he hung it off of the "fact" that the bible was edited by Constantine--which, even if true, does not talk to the question of Christ's divinity whatsoever).

What sabotages the Christian religion more than any bestseller is its own widespread practises of advocating against using reason, observation, and suspension of conclusion (i.e. the bible's own unjunction against judgement), and of investing your relationship with God in the hands of some appointee, in contradiction to the teachings of Christ as I know them.

As a Christian, I act through a belief that there is, indeed, a God, and that that is Jesus Christ, and that He wants certain things of me, and that I should try to do these things. But these things are not predicates, they are consequents--of what I see around me, mostly--and they constantly change, as I get older, learn more about what goes on around me. I don't see any good reason to believe that the bible has escaped heavy modification, and so I don't found my faith in it, and so I don't feel threatened when someone questions what is writ therein. I do, however, believe that there is some truth to be found in it, and, lacking any better alternative, I'll decide in the final analysis which parts are true and which are false--with the help of loved and respected ones, and by observing my surroundings, and through various informational sources, and so forth.

I don't at present believe there is any other responsible way to do things. Penumbra 2k 20:01, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I mentioned this in another talk section. Throwing a man into the sea swimming with sharks and stating that whether he survives or not is up to him and the sharks is just washing one's hands clean. Chucking a volatile idea (one that has no real substance) into a community of believers beleagured by external pressure is just as irresponsible. DB may not be directly responsible for an attack on faith, but his hands are not totally clean. Another analogy: if you sell a man a gun, knowing what it'll be used for, and that man kills another man, are you partially responsible? taishaku 20:57, 29 May 2006 (PST)

I believe the issue that has really been raised by the Davinci code is distorted because of the context and supporting evidence. "Was Jesus who the bible (as we know it) says he was?" is the real question that everyone is debating. Faith will make a person point to inaccuracies in the book to refute such an arguement, but everyone knows that there are also inaccuracies in the bible itself(along with contradictions) along with an uncountable number of changes to the bible after the deaths of every writer of it's 66 books. Maybe DB got it wrong...But to not scrutinze your own faith when it is based on a book with the same flaws seems to me to be very closed-minded.

Literary criticism

Just to take a small break from the religious debates: Shouldn't this article have some discussion of the literary criticism of the book? The only criticism I can find is of the book's factual basis, which is largely irrelevant to a fictional novel. On the other hand, lots of people have criticised the book on its literary merits (Salman Rushdie being one), and that criticism should probably be worked in here. Thoughts? (Personally, I found it to be a horribly written book, but that's my personal opinion). JZ 19:06, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

The lierary "merits" of the book are discussed in Criticisms of the Da Vinci Code. Paul B 13:03, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

No, they are not. That article consist purely of criticism of the book's factual basis, be it religional or otherwise.

They used to be there. Obviouisly someone has deleted them. Paul B 14:46, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Praise to our Beautiful Blonde "witches"!

Our real Goddess from the skies.

and to think i was confirmed!?

Book is nicely written but is not extraordinary. Characters are a little one-dimensional, the plot is predictable when compared to Angels and Demons in that every character seems involved in the conspiracy. taishaku 21:15, 29 May 2006 (PST)

Fiction?

Why is Margaret Starbird's book listed under the fiction section of references? I was under the impression that this was a non-fiction book, so clearly this is either error or vandalism. Secos5 01:20, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Moved. —Viriditas | Talk 02:36, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Oh, in my opinion, hun, this is a fictional book. SilverBulletx3 19:59, 23 May 2006 (UTC)SilverBulletx3

As a librarian i asure you Since the Story of Langdon is fictional thus it is fictional book that happens to be littered with non-fiction Facts WeaponBB7

Addition of website

Could the website www.davincicodeforum.com be added to the wiki.

The website offers a webforum for users to offer evidance and discuss topical debates on Da Vinci Code

Why was the following added to my request for a website to be added "Don't believe the Da Vinci code! It is crap! It is just some phony nonsense made up up a man jealous of Christianity!!"

That is not my view. The forum is extremely historical and offers opinions of over 1000 members

  • Anon, I hope that the culprit has been disciplined, and maybe even banned from Wikipedia. Vandalism. Tsk. That's the problem with Wiki's open editing system. Not much we can do about it though.Digifiend 10:55, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I sometimes wish that WikiPEDIA wasn't so popular nowadays...

I want to read an article about the book and upcoming movie, not see a page protected due to this political debate. If I wanted to hear the same crap that I hear on U.S. television everyday, I would watch it! However, hearing the same points repeated by wiki editors, etc., just makes me sick. I expected it on pages like GWB and Iraq, but not for A FREAKIN BOOK!

Keep your personal views to yourself! (see above, e.g. "It is just some phony nonsense made up up a man jealous of Christianity!!" —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.114.145.238 (talk • contribs) 20:08, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Amen! ;). Personal views are only valuable when they contribute to building an NPOV, factual article. ~MDD4696 03:13, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
The key word, I think, is article. This page is not an article. It is a discussion about. Therefore, you can't do much if you feel offended by personal views on this page. NPOV only applies to the actual article. --M1ss1ontomars2k4 | T | C | @ 19:51, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Way too many external links

I know this is a sore spot, but there are waaaay too many external links. We don't need links to every single article written abou The Da Vinci Code, or fansites and "misc" sites. So... I'm gonna delete the ones that don't satisfy Wikipedia's linking policy sooner or later. ~MDD4696 05:42, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Maybe if we delete all the links there won't be any edit wars... Ha! Whatever, delete 'em. But only if they're not in some way useful to the reader. --M1ss1ontomars2k4 | T | C | @ 19:47, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

External links

There are way too many "Skepticism and critical analysis" links. Can we please cut that down to half and get some positive reviews? Or maybe reformat the entire links section so it doesn't seem to be leaning to one side? dposse 17:14, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

=I come in and trim those down constantly, and they just come back and put them in again. We just have to keep weeding.

Although there is very much in the way of skepticism and critical debunking, there is little in the way of links to literary or satirical responses to the novel. One of these is the following:

I would add this under "Miscellaneous" if I had access. Could one of you with access add it? --Gustave Traupmann

Ok --M1ss1ontomars2k4 | T | C | @ 19:45, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I've cleaned the section up once more, but I'm sure it's only a matter of days before a new onslaught of Amazon affiliate pages, crackpot theories, and google ad pages. Sigh.

Summary links

I saw that the link to the wikisummaries.org book summary of The Da Vinci Code was removed. The basis for the removal is that external links are flat out not allowed in the body of the DVC article. I do not see that this is at all a concensus. I feel the link brings value to the article as it is a free source of chapter summaries for DVC. The like follows the general external link policy. Further, the web site is a wiki based on the mediawiki software, so wikipedians will feel right at home. I'm reverting the article back to the state where the link is included. Could other people chime in on this matter? Geneffects 06:03, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

WebQuests

Can some Mod please add a cross reference to this article for the Da Vinci Code WebQuests - many of the visitors to this article come for the purpose of finding information on the webquests, and there is no reference to them on this article anymore at all that I can see. Seems strange not to have a link to it considering the webqusts have been running since 2003, yet there's a link to some article about a new playstation game.. Thanks 67.101.129.204 18:59, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Sure, no problem. Also, could you please stop calling users "Mods" or "MODS"? There is no such class of users on Wikipedia. There are unregistered users (aka anons) like you, registered users (like me), admins (like people who can protect pages), bureaucrats (who...er...be bureaucratic? ...), and there's probably others too; I just can't remember what they are. I'm sure you'll find it somewhere. --M1ss1ontomars2k4 | T | C | @ 21:10, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
A few more groups: Bureaucrats -> Assign users to MediaWiki groups (i.e. sysop (aka admin), bureaucrat, bot, etc...), Developer (depricated) -> Allowed to Lock/Unlock the Database, Bot -> make edits that are by default excluded from change lists, CheckUser(?) -> Allowed to use the CheckUser tool... It goes on from here --Charlie( @CIRL | talk | email ) 20:44, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
I can't remember where I found the page listing all the kinds of users. But I used to look at it a lot. --M1ss1ontomars2k4 (T | C | @) 19:54, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Error in article

"The film was released on May 19, 2006, and will star"

should read,

"The film was released on May 19, 2006, and stars..."

Verbs should not change tense, but the error was obviously due to updating the article.

Well, you could have fixed it yourself, but apparently it's been fixed already. Also: Please sign your name using four tildes ~~~~ when making your posts. I would also suggest that you get an account for yourself.--M1ss1ontomars2k4 | T | C | @ 00:14, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
Sorry. The page is not protected. --M1ss1ontomars2k4 | T | C | @ 00:15, 21 May 2006 (UTC)


Chalice inconsistency in Last Supper painting

Can someone please note the fact that despite Brown saying that no chalice is pictured in the Last Supper painting, there is in fact a silver cup, exactly the size of most Seder chalices, to Jesus's left (the viewer's right)?

It's very faded and hard to see in the scanned version, but you can see it in any larger reproduction in artbooks, etc. It's also mentioned in the wikipedia article on the painting itself.

No. dposse 23:00, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Well, there's no chalice, but there are some wineglasses in the painting.... 203.215.120.28 00:03, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Send us links to a picture to show us. I want proof. Let me see. -Kid. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by A Minor Thr3at (talk • contribs) 13:17, 23 February 2007 (UTC).

Wikipedia.org suppression of Grail family info

Just as in the Brown novel the Church suppresses the descendants of Jesus by murder and also by manipulations to deny any information about them from the general population, wikipedia.org has also done the very same thing.

Da Vinci Code by Dan Brown postulated in this work of fiction that Jesus had descendants. The church (& Wikipedia) has heavily attempted and continues to heavily suppress all information about this subject. With scores of commentators who all attack this snippet or that of that general idea that Jesus had descendants down to today. And these attackers esp use the misguided attack that the whole idea is heresy. When in fact Jesus having had a family and children before his death on the cross in no way upsets ANY theories of religion by anyone.

A simple DNA test would establish if there are genes from the Galilea region in the current descendants of the Merovingian line. The fact that nobody bothers to carry out such tests might suggest something to you; the story is a lot of nonsense. See the TV programme "The Real Da Vinci Code" for example, which interviewed people who knew Plantard, De Sede and so on and whom to a man stated that the whole thing is a fiction. Arnaud de Sede, son of the author Gerard de Sede who helped fabricate the Priory of Sion fantasy documents, stated in the programme that his father and Plantard had invented the whole story. "Frankly, it was piffle" he said. It would also be helpful for you to consider the long history of anti-Catholic and anti-Christian propaganda stories - I am no Christian, but respect the truth, and there is a long, long history of fabricated stories, myths and propaganda surrounding the papacy, the vatican, the disciples, the life of christ, etc, etc, much of it created originally for malicious reasons either by various heresies or by dissenters. These people may have had a point, as does Brown now, in that the vatican was and is a corrupt institution, but not because of some bizarre conspiracy around a non-existent Jesus bloodline, juts because it has a long history as a political and pro-establishment organisation. Look for the facts, not some bonkers make believe. MarkThomas 20:36, 27 May 2006 (UTC)


There is presently only one book discussing any of this in a reasonable way AND also presenting the descent from Jesus to today down to some US Presidents and to many readers who have their family trees back a few hundred years to connect to the lines presented. SO this boo supports the Da Vinci Code as factually accurate as Dan Brown has repeatedly asserted.

None of these presented descents could have ANY real historical dispute for the most part as e.g. the lines of ALL presidents back 200 years or so are agreed upon and next their connection to Euro royal lines that are ALSO agreed upon historically is also indisputable. The only possible disputed very short time is then that descent from Jesus to the royal lines esp in France (and also in Brittain and across Europe) that occurred.

In Isaiah jesus having children is prophecied and this along with many other substantial "facts' is discussed - which makes the church PRESENT and ongoing coverup of these facts and wikipedia.org suppression all the more bizarre.

Of course the book presenting all this is : The Jesus Presidnets Holy Grail Holy Presidents Holy Nation by LE Cooper; and wikipedia.org has suppressed repeatedly any mention of this book at wikipedia's numerous related articles as this article and Grail Family and other related articles.


Huh? dposse 21:12, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Someone has been to crazy town. Well, dear crazies, I'm the one and only descendant of Jesus. Hurm. Yeah, me. So, give me all your money and have some Kool Aid and apple sauce on your way out, please. Also, if you are using any drugs prescribed by a psichiatrist, please, stop taking them so I can control your min... I mean, free you from your pain and stuff.

138.220.178.88 18:02, 26 May 2006 (UTC)For the commentator re the Grail Families, recommend to watch CD the Da Vinci Hoax, www.ignatius.com (Ignatius Press). One of the scholars, historian Sandra Meisel, will prove you the hoax behind Sangreal, Sangrail and Madalene tomb, a hoax that the French law had uncovered it. % satisfied guaranteed. Lady V (see also the most recent post.)138.220.178.88 18:02, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Summary of Spoilers

The main thing this section needs is a proper title, not this jargon. Having said that, I haven't quite hit on the right title, but it should be something like Main Clues, or Plot Points. Someone with initiative please step forward. I think then the section might then have a purpose and could be better edited. Spenny 15:01, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Removal of external link section

I've removed the entire external link section, as this is rapidly becoming a linkfarm. If someone wants to add references to particular links in the article, by all means do so, but this section is not helpful as it presently exists. Furthermore, some of these links can be moved to the split pages, which is what I'm going to attempt to do momentarily. —Viriditas | Talk 01:01, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I see no possible good reason to remove rather than maintain the list. I'm going to put it back.
They're useful, no reason to toss the baby with the b athwater. It's no more troublew to keep the links trimmed than it is to delete all the vandalism and other malarkey; if maintinence was a deal breaker, we'd have to delete the entire article. So let's not be silly about this. User talk:Infinitysnake
The relevant links have already been moved to daughter articles. Links which have not been merged have comments below. Please do not continue to duplicate links that already appear in related articles. If the link is important, it should be cited in the references section. —Viriditas | Talk 09:00, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Actually, I built that section, and I will contine to re-add it because I think it is necessary and useful. Please do not remove it again unless you can demonstrate that it is not useful. Autocvratic "I said so" is not good enough.


Miscellaneous


At least keep the Sparknotes link in there. It gives great analysis of the book. dposse 01:41, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
I would prefer to see content incorporated into the article with a corresponding reference link. Can you do that? —Viriditas | Talk 09:00, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Disambiguation

I've added links to the other three DVC articles on Wikipedia in the 'See Also' section (film, game and webquests). These crossreferences are also at the top of the article.. do they really need to be there as well? demonsurfer 02:56, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Ok, the 'see also' links to the other DVC articles were removed by Elonka I think, along with the links at the top of the page.. and replaced with a link to a DVC 'disambiguation' article.. is it just me, or is that actually going to confuse 95% of Wikipedia users looking for info on the movie, the webquests or the video game..? Many people just dont realize what a disambiguation article is, thereby defeating the whole purpose of it. I suggest changing it back to links to the individual Wiki DVC articles separately - novel (this article), movie, webquest and video game. In order to avoid a bunch of reverts I'm asking for opinions first, so please comment. demonsurfer 05:03, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
I just reverted to your version. In this case, a dab page isn't what is needed. We require a navigational template. —Viriditas | Talk 20:35, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Cheers Viriditas. Can you point me to a good example of a nav template? Might pay to get this resolved soon as there are a number of DVC articles now: The Da Vinci Code (this article), The Da Vinci Code (film), Criticisms of The Da Vinci Code, The Da Vinci Code WebQuests, and The Da Vinci Code (video game). demonsurfer 04:21, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Sure, go here. —Viriditas | Talk 07:20, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, I understand your reasoning, but I disagree with the change, and believe that pointing to a disambiguation page is the appropriate way to handle things. This issue has been discussed extensively on a wide variety of other articles around Wikipedia, and the use of disambiguation pages is routine. As the header stands now, it doesn't refer to the "Criticisms" article, or point to the disambiguation page at all. Wikipedia guidelines state that when there is a pair of articles, listing the other one at the top of a page is fine, but When there are several articlces, include a link to a disambiguation page. I recommend restoring my original wording, or using something like: "This article is about <subject>. For other uses, such as the film and game based on the novel, please see The Da Vinci Code (disambiguation). For more information, please be sure to read the guidelines at Wikipedia:Disambiguation. --Elonka 15:57, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, but in this instance, using a navigational or series template that links related articles may be preferable to disambiguating articles on different topics with similar titles. In this case, a dab page is not required. See Template:Matrix for an example of a series footer that links related articles, or the more generic Template:Otherarticles. A sidebar like the kind found on Wikipedia:Article series might be more appropriate. —Viriditas | Talk 22:47, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
I quite like the vertical series box idea.. comments? demonsurfer 23:19, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Template:Da Vinci Code. —Viriditas | Talk 11:11, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

revival of the external links.

I think an external links section is ok here, as long as we keep it brief. So, i'm going to add two external links to this page. The first will be Dan Browns DaVinci Code website, and the Sparknotes section on the DaVinci Code book. The Dan Brown site because it's the official website, and SparkNotes because it gives great analysis of the book. What do you think? dposse 01:00, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Official site is already linked in refs and sparknotes is either not notable, or if notable, should be placed on the criticism page. —Viriditas | Talk 02:09, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
Critcism? Why? SparkNotes has no critcism for the Davinci Code. It just gives analysis and explanations of the book. dposse 02:56, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
Analysis is a form of criticism. In any case, I don't see any need for the link on this page. If you think you can include it in the body of the article and link to it as a reference, please do so. —Viriditas | Talk 08:12, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
Uh, i think you misunderstand. I didn't mean criticism. The analysis that the site gives isn't criticising the book, it's explaining the book. That's what SparkNotes does. dposse 21:22, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Disagree, it's just a magnet for spamers. Wikipedia is not a link repository, any site which is used as a reference can be listed in the references section. /wangi 21:37, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Source please

It is thought to be the sixth biggest selling book of all time.

From where do you have this information? There is no chart of best selling books - and wikipedia doesnt need sentences like "it is though".

--85.70.245.86 22:45, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

There is a sentence "In reference to Baigent (one of the authors of Holy Blood, Holy Grail), Brown named the villain of his story "Teabing" (an anagram of "Baigent")" for which the article claims a citation is needed. How can a citation be needed for a simple rearrangement of letters? If the letters of 'baigent' are numbered in a 1-based fasion 'teabing' is an anagram of 'beignet' as 7521364).. Or would this refer to a webpage of someone who 'discovered' the fact that the anagram exists (which may be revealed on Dan Brown's website)

It's an endlessly repeated fact, and hardly lacks sources., [2], [3] Paul B 00:18, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Concerning the Removal of the Links Section

The External Links section on this page has been something of a problem, but has been maintained in decent order for a long time now. It is my feeling that the consensus was in favor of keeping the links section, as it provides resources and pages of interest to readers that are not (and cannot be) provided by the article itself. I find accusations that this list is a 'linkfarm' disingenuous, as the links are regularly weeded out and contain a number of valuable resopurces- which should not be hidden like easter eggs throughout numerous articles.

Yet after spending literally months maintaining the links section, I come in to find we have a dictator on the page who seems to believe it necessary to force the page to conform to his own ideas, ignoring other users and refusing discussion before imposing his will on the section and negating the work that has gone into it.

I'm posting here to try for a consensus, so please post here if you have an opinion on the matter. If the majority seems to be in favor of continuing without the links section, I'll drop the issue. If otherwise, I expect the links section will be left in (relative) peace.

--User:24.6.199.108

The links above have either been used as references or moved to other articles. I'm in favour of continuing without the links section, as none of the links I've seen inserted recently have any direct bearing on the article topic. That's not to say that they're not valuable resources, just not appropiate to this article, for example a link to a french church is not relavent to this article, just because it was mentioned in the book. Regards, MartinRe 21:57, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

We really need the external links in this article. We need the pro-Da Vinci Code links as well as the anti-Da Vinci Code ones. I hope that everybody can see that it is better to include them than to not include them. More information is always better. Think about it...why should we take one man's word for anything? Whether the Da Vinci Code is right or wrong, we need to get away from accepting Dan Brown's claims on blind faith. -Obiwan74, June 20, 2006.

From the relevant section of Wiki's external linking policy:

"On articles with multiple points of view, a link to prominent sites dedicated to each, with a detailed explanation of each link. The number of links dedicated to one point of view should not overwhelm the number dedicated to any other. One should attempt to add comments to these links informing the reader of their point of view. If one point of view dominates informed opinion, that should be represented first."

So it would seem the external links were more than appropriate.

Remains of Magdalene not surpressed

I find the ideas in the Da Vinci code intriguing. I would enjoy a cordial discussion, but I'm afraid too many hotheads are spoiling the opportunity. I am a Christian but I did not find the 'revelations' disturbing or offensive. I did notice that Brown seems to think that the Catholic Church has surpressed the veneration of Mary and the whereabouts of her body. This is not true. The veneration of the Magdalene (not always as a repentent prostitute) is very ancient in the Catholic Church and the churches of the Orthodox Communion, as well as others. The Catholic Church gives her the title, 'Apostle of the Apostles', because she was believed to be the first to see the resurrected Christ and relay the meeting to the apostles.According to the Catholic Church, Mary journeyed to France and was buried at Aix-en-Provence.From there she was taken to Burgundy in 771, and then back to Provence where a huge church was built to commemmerate her in the thirteenth century.The remains were destroyed by anti-clericals during the French Revolution. The head, however, remains to this day. According to the Eastermn tradition, Mary died at Ephesus. The remains were taken to Contantiniple in 886. All this is in the Wikipedia entry 'Mary Magdalene'. So, wherever the remains are, there has certainly been no attempt to surpress its location even though there may be some confusion. It seems to me also, that if the Church wanted to villify the memory of Mary Magdalene, it would not honour her as highly as it does. Also, the Catholic Church does not definitively identify the Magdalene as a prostitute, although this is often done. Nowadays, the Church does not identify her as a sinner in the present Church calendar. Any comments?

Gaz 9-6-06

I like people like you. I don't know much to say 'cause I'm not much of a talker. But to heare from someone who thinks one way and is willing to at least see things another one and keep an open mind is very rare nowadays. -Kid.

Moved from article

I just wanted to point out that this is an extremely one-sided review. Claims that the book is inaccurate are substantiated by a link to an amateur website with no factual evidence (The book opens with the claim by Dan Brown that "all descriptions of artwork, architecture, documents [...] and secret rituals in this novel are accurate"; but this claim is disputed by many academic scholars in the fields the book discusses [1].). I read no further than this point because the material is cleaarly biased. Of course, many aspects of the book are fictional, as Brown acknowledges but this is hardly a valid way of disproving it.


I agree, Sir. We must note that Brown's work is, first and foremost, a work of FICTION. Within the text he quotes no sources that could be readily verified. A hundred qualified historians might be able to refute him, but we would not know. Bear in mind, too- what is the best way to make a book sell? Make it CONTRoVERSIAL, of course!
The footnoted link that supports the article's statement "but this claim is disputed by many academic scholars in the fields the book discusses" lays out the standard scholarly analyses and the relevant evidence that clearly shows the statements and claims Brown has insisted is "factual" are, in fact, not accepted by scholars at all. How anyone can describe a site with 45,000+ words of analysis, evidence, references to primary source material and a full scholarly bibliography as "hardly a valid way of disproving" the supposedly historical claims made by Brown is beyond me. That's how history is analysed: by comparing claims to evidence and the analysis of experts. Methinks someone is just petulant that there isn't a scholar on Earth that agrees with Brown's claims. And no, the amateurs and kooks that Brown used in his "research" (eg the authors of "Holy Blood Holy Grail") are not scholars. Thiudareiks

Best Selling Books of All Time

In the opening paragraph it states "It is thought to be the sixth biggest selling book of all time." Can we have a list of the other top selling books? I have heard that there have been 100 million copies printed of "The Book of Mormon." I don't know if it would qualify for such a list, but it could possibly be fifth.

Quite a lot of sites republish this list Bookseller World best selling books of all time, but a quick glance down the list suggests a US bias apart from the inevitable Bible and Chairman Mao's Little Red Book. I wonder if anyone has a global list? I severely doubt that Dan Brown even figures on the real list, whatever that might be, people like Tolkien for example who have been selling for decades will be much higher. MarkThomas 07:55, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Disney in the Book

I have heard they speak about Disney in the book. Which chapter is this?

Chapter 61. In the Bantam Press hardback edition (2004), the reference to Disney is found in pages 271-272. Langdon claims that Disney uses feminine images, like Snow White, Sleeping Beauty and Cinderella, to convey images of a sacred feminine personality. There is also reference to The Little Mermaid, where the mermaid is seen with an image of George de la Tours famous painting, The Penintent Magdalene.

Gaz 13-7-06

Langdon also has a Mickey Mouse watch. dposse 03:43, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Freezing?

Ok, dumb question, and I haven't finished the book yet, but I'm not the first person to think they should have just frozen the cryptex, right? Freeze the vinegar, break the thing open...? Stevage 18:07, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Nope, you're not the first. See cryptex. Paul B 20:28, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

They didn't have time. You have to realize that the story, from start to finish, happens in 24 hours. dposse 03:44, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Nonsense. They weren't on a deadline. When they arrived at Teabing's house they had no idea that anyone would find them there. They never even discuss the possibility of sticking it in the freezer. When they were in London they had deceived the police into thinking they were not even in Britain. It's the demands of narrative that make the action rapid, not of logic. The fact is that the characters simply never thought of the idea. Paul B 08:59, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
When they went to Teabings house, they were running from the cops and they were trying to find clues, while trying to see if they could trust teabing. They didn't have enough time to wait and see if putting it in a freezer would work. dposse 16:09, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
I never got any impression that they were under any kind of time pressure, except briefly when they thought (strangely enough) that getting to the "knight's tomb" before the holder of the cryptex would be a good idea. And in any case, if that is the reasoning, you'd think they'd at least say "well, we could just freeze it for a couple of hours, but since we're under so much time pressure, we'll drive all over London instead!" Seriously, though, how could not think of it? Especially for a "cryptographer" (who is totally incapable of solving even the simplest code) - the basic rule of crytopgraphy is "do whatever you can to avoid having to break the code".
Also, did anyone mention the mistake where they tried out several codes on the plane, but when later on they went to open it, they reached the conclusion that they had only "one shot" at it, and that any mistake would destroy it permanently? Whinge, whinge...Stevage 14:07, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Why don't you find out how long it takes for vinegar to freeze? dposse 21:03, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
According to vinegar and acetic acid, it's dilute acetic acid, which freezes at 16C. So, depending on the strength, it would freeze somewhere between 0 and 16. And depending on the ambient temperature it would freeze faster or slower. It was probably a minuscule amount of vinegar, so I'd be surprised if it was more than an hour or two in an industrial freezer. bof. Stevage 09:57, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Re:

Hmmm...

I read through the article and it seems to me that whenever something negative comes up about the book, the article says "the critics" say that it's wrong in this area and "the critics" have problems with the book.

Why does this article have trouble with coming out and saying what's fact and what is fiction?

Apparently, whoever wrote this article is trying to muddle everything up in a big ball of confusion; and the facts are in plain daylight for ANYONE to read and not cleverly hidden within the entirety of this letter by magically counting numbers and coming up with a "secret code" and/or drawing mathematical lines and triangles to form mysterious shapes of letters...

Check out the following links...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Priory_of_Sion http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre_Plantard

Thanks!

--JJ

Uh, no. We have to keep a Neutral Point of View, and since this book is so controversial, it is even more important to keep everything in the article NPOV. dposse 18:07, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Yes, preceding any flaws in the book with "critics argue that" is definitely NPOV...Stevage 14:08, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, because that is what critics say. We cannot state what the critics say is fact, because what critics say is only their interpretation of what is factual. dposse 21:01, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Re:2

Oh ok...so, let me get this straight: since it is the critics' view that DaVinci Code is in the wrong, then they themselves could be wrong in assuming that the book isn't factual--because in reality, the book really could be correct in its assumptions that the "critics" say are "factual innaccuracies"?

Ok...

So if I say the movie Kingdom of Heaven is violent and sometimes has brief thematic elements and some historical innaccuracies, then I could be wrong--after all, that is a critical view of the movie, isn't it? And as a "critic", I could be wrong, correct?

--JJ

Yes. -Kid.

New Pope and revised version

I just read the Illustrated Edition for the first time and the book references "The New Pope" on several occasions. The book was published in 2003, two years before John Paul died, so that suggests that Brown wrote the book as taking place in the near future. However according to the Wikipedia article on the film, there was a revised version of the novel published. I hadn't heard of this before, so my question is: did Brown revise later editions of the novel to reflect the change of Popes? Or was it just a presumption on his part that there would be a change in pontiff not long after the book was published - certainly there'd been a virtual death watch on John Paul II since about 2000 so for Brown to suggest a new Pope even by the 2003 publication of the novel is not unreasonable; as it turned out he was out by 2 years. 23skidoo 04:30, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I think you answered your own question. :) —Viriditas | Talk 10:51, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Plot Summary

That is not a plot summary at all, it basically needs a total rewrite after the first little bit... - Abscissa 09:26, 28 August 2006 (UTC) no way


Be Bold. --WikiCats 07:56, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

demonstration error

it is written that the curator had wrote the lines by his corpse by blood, meanwhile he wrote it using a special stylus pen, and its script is viewed using an ultra violet lighting. --هيثم أبو العلا 19:07, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

SOS

Maybe it's just an oddity in my book, but on the top right of the page beginning chapter 33, it says "SOS". Anybody else see this, or no? Cao Wei 02:03, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Additional fact/trivia

Perhaps there should be a mention somewhere that the book was released on the 500th anniversary of the start of painting of the Mona Lisa by Da Vinci (1503 AD).

I love Wikipedia and have no idea how the details work. But why is Tennyson's name included at the beginning of the links for this garbage novel?? Poesy weeps at your inexplicable bad taste.

Ha. What. You're lame. Don't be mean. State what you want without acting like a total jackass. -Kid.

Movie

Since there is a separate article on the movie, do we really need so much info on it here? Kdammers 08:31, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Um...there practically isn't any info here. What are you talking about? O_o --M1ss1ontomars2k4 (T | C | @) 18:31, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Criticism

In everything I read people either praise it or criticize it. They fail to look beyond that. Let's look at it this way - it's a decent book that is mildly entertaining. It uses disproven theories to make an interesting idea for a story - to gain some controversy and bring in readers. Sure the entire idea may be wrong - BUT it got people to read. A lot of people to read. Most people skip books completely but Dan Brown got a lot of people to pick up a book, that's what he should be praised for. Sure it's like reading a grade 10 mystery novel with the vocabulary of 14 year olds, but that doesn't matter. It also doesn't matter that the underlying idea was proven wrong (and will people please stop acting like he invented the idea of Jesus's children). That's all that is to this book.

Could not have said it better myself. Harry Potter is another book that got lots of people to read, and no wizards are complaining about it.
That's because it never claimed to include to hsitorical facts. It is presented as pure fantasy for kids. That's the whole point. Paul B 11:03, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

The Real Reason Jesus Christ was assassinated!

The day Jesus Christ had to endure a family member that wanted his inheritance, and this criminal, in paying Judas Iscariot money to have the Romans arrest and kill sweet King of the tribe of David, (the Hebrew tribe that our Father, Yahweh with His Holy Spirit made a sacred and holy covenant with,) is the day someone wanted to kill their family relations or marry into the most famous and beloved family in the history of Earth, and begin through murder, to rearrange this family for money. Our Father spared Jesus Christ by giving him Resurrection and Eternal life.

And, both are adorable to me. Eternally.

I wonder how to contact the Vatican and what their reaction to the truth would be!!!

if your father 'spared' him wouldn't that mean he didn't let him die? he didn't SPARE him if that's the case. just say he brought him back to life. oh, and when you can tell me how to bring people back to life tell me. i have some friends i miss too. -Kid.

New Last Supper scene

It is often inferred that the female figure in the Last Supper scene is unique to Leonardo Da Vinci's version. This is not correct, for many Last Supper scenes portray a woman to the right of Jesus. I would propose the following amendment in the 'Secrets of the Holy Grail' section.

  • Leonardo was a member of the Priory of Sion and knew the secret of the Grail. The secret is in fact revealed in The Last Supper, in which no actual chalice is present at the table. The figure seated next to Christ is not a man, but a woman, his wife Mary Magdalene. Most reproductions of the work are from a later alteration that obscured her obvious female characteristics. It should be noted that Leonardo Da Vinci's Last Supper is not the only Last Supper scene to include a woman on the right, and the sculpture in Drogheda Cathedral in Ireland is a good example of this unorthodox genre.

I have a jpg image of this sculpture, but I don't know how to upload it. Any suggestions?

Ralph Ellis


This proposed text is nonsense. The issue is discussed in detail in the articles The Last Supper (Leonardo) and Criticisms of The Da Vinci Code. You can upload an image by clicking on Upload file (under the search box) or click Special:Upload and follow the instructions. Paul B 22:12, 26 November 2006 (UTC)


Paul,

These are not the same discussion points at all, they simply mention the possibility that this was a young St John (although these alternate Wiki pages may be better loactions). The image I have is of an authorised sculpture in a Catholic Cathedral that clearly has a woman (not a young man) on the right of Jesus. Tried uploading on Special:Upload, but the page just times out. Image to be uploaded is File:Ralph-Ellis-Last-Supper.jpg, but I don't think it is uploaded yet.

Ralph


Every art historian identifies it as St. John. There is no "unorthodox tradition" of depicting a woman. The text currently in this page is summarising what the novel says, not what is historical fact or theory. Your text adds material that is not in the novel. I've no idea what sculpture you are referring to. Is it reproduced on the web? If not, if you don't upload it we can't see it. Paul B 00:06, 27 November 2006 (UTC)


Paul,

Sorry, but there IS an "unorthodox tradition" of depicting a woman in the Last Supper, if you look around. A very good example is in Arundel Castle, where it is beautifully sculpted in silver. Another is in a church in Banbury. The one I am trying to upload is in Drogheda, Eire. Perhaps this discussion topic might be better on the 'Last Supper' Wiki page, but it also pertains to the 'Da Vince Code' page.

Still not getting an upload. I operate with Mac Safari, but I have tried Mac Explorer too, and both browsers just sit there and the upload eventually times out - no explanation as to why. Obviously I can contact Wiki, as I can upload here.

I have uploaded the image onto the web Drogheda Last Supper . Is that, or is that not a woman? Please bear in mind that this is the altarpiece for a Catholic Cathedral.

Ralph


You can repeat the assertion as often as you like, but that does not make it any truer. It is not an "unorthodox tradition" if the images are in cathedrals is it? That means the images are accepted and endorsed by the church. The figure in this scupture is very likely intended to be St. John, though I don't know, not having any details about this work - which appears to date from the nineteenth century. Most of the apostles here have long hair and beardless faces and are dressed in androgynous tunics, so the usual cues that help us to identify gender are absent. Paul B 12:49, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Paul,

That is the whole point, the images are NOT accepted for what they are by the Church. The prelate of St Peter's in Drogheda said that, 'the image was clearly of a man and any other conclusion is simply rubbish'. However, this St John not only looks 100% female, 'he' also has a bust. Having shown this image to dozens of people, you are the first (apart from the prelate) to say that it could be a man, and the Church's refusal acknowledge that it could be female makes this tradition 'unorthodox'.

Yes the sculpture is 19th century, but so is the cathedral.

Ralph

I'm not sure which "he" you are refering to. The figure to the viewer's right of Jesus has a swelling in his chest. The point is that this is a sculpture, not reality. The sculptor may not have been skilled enough to depict young men without making them look feminine. The swelling may be a clumsy depiction of pectorals. We don't know unless we have information about the sculptor, his intentions etc. Concluding that there is an unorthodox tradition on the basis of what something looks like to you, with no more evidence than that, is the very definition of Original research. Take this image.[4] I wrote in a book once that it was a woman - and that it was based on portrayals of the Virgin Mary. I was at a conference earlier in the year in which another writer insisted that it was Jesus. Paul B 17:07, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
I will upload the file for you if you want me to - but you will have to tell me the copyright status. Paul B 17:27, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Hello Ralph! I've seen this picture from Drogheda, but I don't recognise anything unusual - it is the traditional depiction of John as a young, beautiful male. He looks more often like a boy than like an adult man . It's a rather modern viewpoint to imagine all apostles like adults with beards. I think that's partly a result of all these Jesus-movies, where you usually have a bearded John. I would also say that this John form Drogheda doesn't really have such a "womanly looking bust" - there's only a slight bulge. For more information, please have a look at my website: [5] Fulcher 17:00, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Bias Conflict

The introduction to this article states that the book met with glowing reviews. The reference cited for this statement comes from the author's website. Anyone familiar with the publishing industry understands that the back cover of any paperback is plastered with gushing blurbs, and that the critical value of this perspective is questionable. --Zenexp 01:49, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

was Jesus marid???

Yes he was there may not be a lot of stuff on if he was or not but he was and he hade a very fine wife.63.138.226.162 00:01, 23 January 2007 (UTC)Ray

Dude. wtf mate. ...marid? -Kid.

Literary Significance and Criticism

I recently made an edit to the Literary Significance and Criticism sub-section, which was promptly removed, perhaps understandably due to the sharp tone of my contribution, for which I apologize.

The tone of my contribution comes forth from frustration. Perhaps we should try to address the factual basis of my contribution. I essentially stated that virtually any serious critic of contemporary English literature does not take this book seriously as an art-work. The fact that this opinion is widely held is a fact, and should be reflected in some way in this article.

There have been a few comments in this discussion page addressing this problem with this sub-section, which have all been ignored so far.

In my personal opinion, the Literary Significance and Criticism sub-section of this article is an embarrassment, and reflects poorly on the Wikipedia Project. Perhaps someone more eloquent than myself should try to rebuild it from scratch. Zenexp 02:30, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Currently the section seems to have nothing about its "literary significance", so perhaps it should be retitled. Of course it has no "literary significance" except as a cultural phenomenon. Most of the material on this is in the Criticisms of the Da Vinci Code article. The important point is to source views. Paul B 11:42, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Da Vinci's painting

Shouldn't the fact that Mary Magdalene was not in Da Vinci's painting of the Last Supper? In Da Vinci's draft itself, you can see that the figure that Brown states as Mary was actually John, and that, were she present, where would John be, seeing as how there are only twelve people sans Jesus Christ in the painting? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 58.69.228.166 (talk) 09:56, 19 February 2007 (UTC).

If you read the book, Mary Magdalene is the secret in the Last Supper painting, Mary and John are there if you look at it in two sides, Ok, it's John, if you look at it in historical context, but if you look close, it's Mary, because the figure does look womanly if you look careful, to see the secret you must put aside religious beliefs and have an open mind.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Da_Vinci_Code/Archive_3&oldid=1057405537"