Talk:The Da Vinci Code/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Code in the court ruling

The hidden characters found in italics in the court ruling are : "SMITHYCODEJAEIEXTOSTGPSACGREAMQWFKADPMQZV"

Spamming

At the end of the article"Others Respond", there was boderline spamming so I deleted the offending text and integreated it with "Christian Response" If you have any issues, give me a shout on my user talk page. (vendettanine{didn't sign on}) 68.126.207.160 03:39, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Protocols of the Elders of Zion

"The Da Vinci Code is similar to The Protocols of the Elders of Zion in that it presents libelous fiction as fact."

Whatever the veracity of the book, this is a disgraceful statement. I doubt Brown intended the book to incite hatred against Christians.

I suspect that the book is either an inspired piece of deliberate anti-Catholic propaganda, or else it is unaware anti-Catholic venom from the protestant tradition. We're re-fighting the Reformation here.

---

Regardless, Brown should have had the foresight to realize that this is exactly what it has done.

---

Really. Maybe I haven't been paying attention, but I haven't noticed any anti-Christian pogroms that have been inspired by the book.

The Da Vinci Code is not presented as a representation of actual events, wheras The Protocols of the Elders of Zion was purported to be a genuine secret document. Using The Protocols of the Elders of Zion as an example is loaded with other connotations. It is a straw man argument that reeks of demagogy and is far from NPOV.

And how is the suggestion that Jesus was married and had kids "libelous"? A lot of people don't take Christian mythology seriously. Or is the libel the suggestion that the Roman Catholic Church has historically turned to violence to further its program? In which case, you don't have to read much history to be aware of just how bloody the Church's hands are. (And protesting "they don't do that now" takes a rather short view of history. . . .) --Michael K. Smith 20:24, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

"Libel" isn't the issue here; facts are. Yes, the Catholic Church has a long history of cynical power politics and corruption, but let's use the facts not some hocus pocus for the credulous if we're going to critique religions. Brown strikes me as no more rational than the 17th century writers who claimed that the Pope slept with dogs or had carnal relations with succubi. Classic ultra-evangelical US bullshit basically, and not even honestly purporting to be such. If only the book were really based on facts as Brown laughably claims it to be. His pretence of credulousness in the face of a barrage of media criticism of such claims is even more absurd. Clearly the book is a species of irrational psueodo-religious manipulation and has a strong superstitious and religious bent. It's dangerous because it's lies are very widely believed by the truly credulous, which I suspect was Brown's deliberate intention.

The truly credulous?? Do you mean the enormous number of folk who believe, against all logic, physics and the fundamantal laws of nature, that a megalomanical apocalypic madman preacher who was crucified over two thousand years is actually the son of the one true god (whatever that is)?? Brown is a true charlatan and profoundly cynical religious huckster. No doubt about it. That's why he fits right into the Christian tradition and may indeed be considered to be one of its finest and most deceitful modern exponents. But you Catholics are fundies are so f***ing idiotic anyway that you will continue lambasting and demonizing the fellow until he becomes as wealthy,famous, popular and (possible even) credible as any scientifiec authority on these matters. I'm glad!! You deserve it!! I've started my own countercampaign, in fact, to the one that the Church and the fundies are running against the hoakster Brown: Atheists for the promotion of more Brownian nonsense!! Why should traditional Christianity/Judaim/Islam/etc.. have a monopoly on fraud and unreason??----Lacatosias 12:16, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi Lacatosias. At the risk of intervening in mid-rant, I'm not sure that you and I (sorry, forgot to sign the piece above that you were responding to) actually have any differences! I am not a catholic, am actually strongly atheist and anti-religious. My point (much repeated elsewhere anyway) was that Brown was taking a hoax and manipulating it for his own religions (US protestant) ends. However, I do take the position that facts and historicity matter when looking at the past of "great" religions like the christian and roman catholic faiths, and so my position is that whilst on one level Brown is absurd and the book is foolishness, on another level it does matter that such a Big Lie about an important subject (the history of the Vatican) should be addressed on Wikipedia. In actual fact I think the problem here lies with US protestant fundamentalism and not catholic fundamentalism! MarkThomas 21:11, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Not to worry. Fraud and unreason are well shared. As for anti-Christian pogroms that have been inspired by books, one need look no further than other examples like Washington Irving's 1828 novel, The Life and Voyages of Christopher Columbus where many gullible generations of Americans were left believing (and still believing) that the reason Columbus had difficulty obtaining support for his plan was that Europeans believed that the earth was flat. Even the purported fraud and unreason of Christianity/etc is itself often nothing more than fraud and unreason. Its opponents widely believe, against all logic, physics and the fundamental laws of nature, in things like child sacrifice to appease gods (embryonic stem cell research) and evolution (ever heard of 2nd Law of Thermodynamics?). The root of fraud and unreason are always with the pagans. After all, Christians are all former pagans.----EP9206 22:00, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

First half: Any actual pogroms because of that? Thousands killed?

Second half: Now that's an excellent example of fraudulent defamation! Care to deliberate, what gods exactly do they worship (not here, of course)?

In general: This whole section is offtopic and potetially inflammatory, it should be archived now, IMHO. Illythr 18:40, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Christian Anarchism?

Heya,

have noticed this article claims Christian Anarchism to have been an influence on the Da Vinci Code, however, it doesn't mention anything about the nature of this influence. Offhand the only example I can think of is a negative view of the church as absorbed into the Roman Empire by Constantine, a view which is by no means unique to Christian anarchists. Is there something I'm missing, or should it go? --Black Butterfly 02:14, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

recent anon edits

Can someone with knowledge about the book take a look at recent 12.203.22.146 (talk · contribs) edits - he's been spewing horrible POVvishness on science articles with some self-promotion thrown in, doesn't understand POV, but theology baffles me so I'll leave it to the experts. Dunc|☺ 19:23, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes, 12.203.22.146 (talk · contribs) edits are more than a little problematic. Given Brown's clearly sketchy grasp of even the basics of Catholic theology it's very unlikely that he has read John Paul IIs rather obscure pronouncements on the theology of the body. The notion the Brown 'paganises' these ideas seems very unlikely, especially as JPII was himself responding to the kind of accusations about RC denigration of sexuality that the novel repeats. Paul B 21:44 21 Aug 2005 (UTC)

One does not have to have read an idea in order to come up with it and manipulate it. There are numerous examples of men independently coming up with the same or very similar ideas, e.g., the calculus. Brown's three basic tenets are part and parcel of Catholic outlook - holy sex, sacred marriage and women in the image of the divine. These ideas are, or once were, deeply embedded in the fabric of American culture. All Brown did was identify them, dust them off and strip away the Christian origins. All JP II did was dust them off and present them again to the Church in updated 20th century language. JP II created a modern synthesis but that doesn't mean he invented anything new - there isn't anything new in Catholicism and hasn't been since 33 AD. He just updated the language for the 20th century. Thus, to say that Brown paganized JP II's TOB is perfectly correct, if only because TOB is not strictly JP II's - it is the patrimony of two millennia of Catholic teaching. What he did to TOB is what J.R.R. Tolkien points out about the writer of Beowulf - both repaganized an originally Christian story/outlook.

The problem with you guys is you aren't well-read enough.

Well that's a lot of hooey. You are distorting the evidence in order to push your POV on the primacy of Catholic thinking. The 'sacredness of sexuality' was not invented by Catholicism.

I didn't say it was, did I? Temple prostitution existed prior to and contemporaneously with both Jewish and Catholic Faith. I said that these three ideas are deeply embedded in Catholic faith and culture, in Catholic outlook. Given that Catholicism and her fractured children ruled European culture for the last two millennium, it is hardly reasonable to claim that the Catholic /Christian take on sexuality is not being specifically manipulated in DVC.

And if you think that, you aren't well read enough. The notion that there isn't anything new in Catholicism that hasn't been there since 33AD is pure POV that would be contradicted by a mountain of scholars - including Catholic ones. The central problem with your additions is that you presented your idiosycratic views as fact. Paul B 09:25 22 Aug 2005 (UTC)

The idea that there *is* anything new in Catholicism is pure POV that none of your reputed scholars can maintain. I know because I used to *BE* one of those scholars.

And, btw, your vaunted attempt at NPOV, while admirable in spirits, is laughable in practice. You can't find an historian who would agree that what you are attempting in that respect is at all possible. You people seem never to have read Mcluhan, much less his predecessors. You are certainly uncontaminated by historiography. Your whole enterprise is built on a fabricated and unsupportable philosophy.

I've removed the following passage added by 12.203.22.146: "as has been pointed out (Kellmeyer, 2004) if she [Mary Magdalene] was of the tribe of Benjamin, she could not have married Jesus, a member of the tribe of Judah, since intermarriage between tribes was prohibited by Hebrew law." I've not been able to find evidence that such a law was in existence at this time, and the statement is contradicted by other information on Judaism of this era (e.g. Israelites). However, if anyone has clear info on this please restore. Paul B 22:55 22 Aug 2005 (UTC)

The law against tribal intermarriage is in Numbers 36:6-9. It is commonly acknowledged that both Pharisees and Sadducees existed during Mary Magdelene's lifetime. Both parties adhered to the letter of the Mosaic Law, although the Sadducees permitted more laxness wherever the law was not explicit. On the issue of intermarriage, the Law is explicit, so the two parties would be in agreement on enforcing it. The only way to argue the law was not being enforced is to argue that the tribes no longer existed. But if the tribes no longer existed, then Dan Brown can't say Mary Magdelene was of the tribe of Benjamin. The argument presented by Kellmeyer grants Dan Brown's basic assertion and plays devil's advocate, "If Mary Magdelene is of the tribe of Benjamin (although there is zero evidence of this anywhere, but let's grant it for the sake of argument), then the Mosaic law would apply. She could not marry Jesus, who is attested to have been of the tribe of Judah."

Numbers 36:6-9 only prohibits tribal intermarriage when the bride is an heiress, i.e. when she doesn't has brothers or other close male relations. You're not reading the source documents carefully enough.

You can't have it both ways. The argument grants Brown all the rope Brown specified and then hangs Brown with it. It isn't POV, it's simple examination of Brown's facts and logical consideration of them.

As for Duncharris' admission above, he knows "nothing about religion," so he isn't really qualified to edit either the DVC article *OR* the Intelligent Design article. After all, he argues that ID is essentially religious nonsense. If it is, then he should keep his hands off the ID articles because he knows nothing about ID - he has an incredibly biased POV because he only claims to know science. But if he edits the ID article or reverts someone who does, then he admits that ID *IS* science. Similarly, he claims I edited a "science" article. But the edits he chastised me for making were in an ID article. So, is ID science or religion? Apparently, the nature of the ID article changes depending on what Duncharris had for breakfast.

I admire the spunk it takes to think you can write an encyclopedia, and I'm sure you all are learning things left and right as you try to build one, but you really don't know enough to do a good job of it. This conversation is but one example of the fact.

If you could remove yourself from your unwarranted narcissism for a second you will see that Duncharris did not edit this article. He drew attention to your edits. I was already in the process of checking up on them, as it happens. Your laughable attempts at logic in the section on ID merely contradict your assertions in the previous paragraph. ID claims to be science. If it claimed to be theology, I'm sure Duncharris would not interfere in pages devoted to to discussion of it. Its claims to be science should be assessed scientifically. The fact that scientific methods should be used to assess the validity of something that claims to be science does not prove that it is science. By that "logic" anything I say is science is science. Now, can we leave ID in future to the ID pages.

1) What ID claims is immaterial to what it is. If it is religion, Duncharris is in over his head by his own admission.

2) There is no agreement among philosophers of science about what constitutes the scientific method (or even what constitutes science) so your ability to assess anything according to that method is questionable at best. You seem to have arbitrarily decided Popper is right. I like Popper as much as the next guy, but Popper's claims violate your vaunted POV - Kuhn emphatically disagrees with him, for example.

3) Duncharris commits ad hominem by claiming what he calls questionable edits in one article imply questionable edits here. And you bought it. Whether narcissism, or lack of it, you are displaying most definite POV.

The question is, as I wrote above, whether "such a law was in existence at this time [i.e. the lifetime of Jesus]". We know that at least one individual identified himself as belonging to a distinct tribe, because Paul says he's a Benjaminite. So what? The law in Numbers is essentially designed to protect land inheriatance so that the tribes are able to maintain their own territorial boundaries. These tribal territories did not exist in Herodian/Roman Judea. I know of no evidence that this regulation was still considered to be meaningful or enforcable. The Talmud speaks only of marriage with "an Israelite" as opposed to a gentile. Of course that's from a later period, but the question whwther we have evidence from this period. If you have EVIDENCE that that this regulation was enforced at this time then present it. If you have not, then you have no justification to present your hypothesis as fact. Your sense of what is "logical" is neither here nor there. Even a brief persusal of the Talmud indicates how the regulations in the Torah were analysed in such a way as to abbrogate or radically modify them. You may not agree with these conclusions, but your opinion is not the issue - the practice at the time of Jesus is the issue. Unless you have historical evidence to the contrary we cannot say she "could not have married Jesus" even if she perceived herself to be a Benjaminite.

Using the Talmud as an argument is the fallacy of anachronism. The Talmud was only written down between 200 and 600 AD, so according to your logic, the Talmud's contents are not necessarily a description of the practice at the time of Jesus either. We know the Pharisees and the Sadducees existed, we know that they both enforced the letter of the Law and we know that the law against intermarriage existed. Quite frankly, the information on Magdelene is so sketchy that anything said about her is arguably POV according to what you seem to be using for rules of evidence (although that isn't entirely clear, as your rules of evidence seem to change according to who is speaking and which subject is under discussion).

Finally comments about 'you all' not knowing enough are wholly unwarranted and unacceptable. This encyclopedia is open access. There are very knowledgable people who contribute and yes, there are aso opinionated ignoramuses. But such sweeping statements are wholly inappropriate and unacceptable. Paul B 10:04 22 Aug 2005 (UTC)

You say you have "opinionated ignoramuses" contribute so you thereby admit the comments are not "wholly unwarranted." Quite frankly, given the heavy skew of your contributors towards an empiricist POV (understandable, given the medium), it is quite clear that my comments are descriptive. Thus your outrage.

"Numerous works have been published which explain in detail why any claim to accuracy is difficult to sustain." - either reword with impossible, or say 'Numerous works have been published which explain in detail why any claim to accuracy is refuted.'

Further reading section

I feel it would be helpful for the viewer if the further reading section were divided into sub-sections based on what the books are about. For instance have a sub-section for books relating to theories and texts mentioned in the Da Vinci Code book like The Woman With The Alabaster Jar, The Gospel of Mary of Magdala, etc. And another section for books criticizing or debunking Da Vinci Code book, etc. As it stands now its very hard to tell which books fall into which category and the viewer is forced to look each book up to find out. Just an idea.--Fluxaviator 08:39, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

I want to reopen this as a proposal for division of Further reading into categories:

1. Sources and Background
2. Supporting
3. Critical
4. Other (including books containing both support and criticism)

• Support. For the reasons the reasons above. Feel free to suggest other categories. patsw 16:30, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Would Langdon divulge his secret?

do you think that langdon will tell where the grail is hidden User:152.163.100.131

No. Mainly because he doesn't exist. Paul B 14:52, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Also, neither does the Grail/Graal/Sang Raal or whatever the heck it's supposed to be called. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by MarkThomas (talk • contribs) .

Bias

I find this article to be extremely (and confusingly) slanted towards efforts to 'disprove' ideas from a fictional novel. I'm quite sure you could pull any random novel off the shelf and create a similarly huge and bizarre attack on the 'factual' errors therin so why the obsession with this particular title? 66.60.143.113 23:23, 3 November 2005 (UTC) Locker

Well that's an NPOV dispute, not a cleanup matter. However the answer is simple. The novel does not simply present itself as fiction. It refers to many historical events and makes extravagent claims about the history of Christianity that are presented as facts. Paul B 19:38, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Hmmmm.....reminds me remarkably of another extremely famous work of Western literature that I'm sure you are rather familiar with indeed!!--Lacatosias 12:21, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

fended the cleanup tag, so I am removing it. Paul B 07:43, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Per the book the only items being presented as fact are:

"All descriptions of artwork, architecture, documents, and secret rituals in this novel are accurate."

No mention or reference is made to history, historical timelines, etc therefore I remain confused by the statement:

"The novel does not simply present itself as fiction. It refers to many historical events and makes extravagent claims about the history of Christianity that are presented as facts."

The author specifically describes the items being presented as fact which does not include "the history of christianity" in any way, shape or form. I would be interested in any challenge to the accuracy of the artwork, architecture, documents and/or secret ritual that appear in the story but I see no basis for the factual challenge of information that is not being presented as fact.

I believe that the 'criticism' section should only include disputes that go directly to the accuracy of the artwork, architecture, documents and/or secret ritual.

In addition I apologize if this comment should appear elsewhere in the Talk section. Any guidance would be appreciated. 66.60.143.113 23:23, 3 November 2005 (UTC) Locker

i agree completely. when i read the book, i kept flipping back to that notice, just to make sure i shouldn't be pissed off, or think i'd just learned something. criticism of the book's "facts" should, as you say, be isolated to what it claims to be true. Wbfl 23:27, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

I wholly disagree. This article refers to a book that has been very controversial and about which several books of refutation have been written. We report on and summarise the criticisms that have been made in a number of other publications, and they very much include the claims about religion etc. Paul B 10:28, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

All novelists take license with fact and and history. This novel may do so a little more than other, but Dan Brown certainly doesn't hide that. Brown is perfectly clear to those who bother to read the notice(like me). The lists of every factual inaccuracy and narrative error are clearly POV. There are no lists of factual accuracies, nor should there be. I've tagged the article NPOV again before acting because of this existing discussion; however, I think most of the list items should be removed wholesale, as I did on Angels and Demons. See Talk:Angels and Demons and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of factual inaccuracies of the book Angels and Demons. Superm401 | Talk 04:33, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree that the article has a bias towards criticising the novel. I also agree that the article should only contain criticisms of the material stated in the book as being "fact", i.e. "artwork, architecture, documents and/or secret rituals". Everything else can be summed up by explaining how many readers mistakenly assumed much of the book's material to be fact, when it is actually a work of fiction. It can also be said that Brown's statement of SOME of the novel to be fact can be misinterpreted to mean that ALL of the novel is factually accurate. The ideas contained within the books criticising the novel should also be summarised, if necessary, but they should definitely not be written in full, bullet-point form, which is the current state of the article. That is just a list of information, which as with the article concerning Angels and Demons (see [[1]] and [[2]]), should be deleted, as it is irrelevant. Mushin 15:47, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

The fact is, many people criticise the book because of its factual problems regardless of whether the book asserts them to be fact or not. We can discuss how best to present such criticisms (and it could be that an exhaustive list of inaccuracies is not appropriate), but we cannot simply decide for ourselves which criticisms we think are most suitable, and exclude the rest if we want to be NPOV. — Matt Crypto 18:09, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

A criticism section itself is somewhat biased. If we are going to have one, we should be careful. First, even if all those errors did fall under the categories Brown listed, the list would still be excessive. It must be drastically reduced. This is an encyclopedia. We discuss the most important aspects of all topics, and avoid unnecessary detail. That is why we use summary style, for instance. However, the list is especially excessive given Brown's very limited factual guarantee, and that this is fiction. As the paragraph should explain, the vast majority of errors are not in the categories Brown listed. If we must have a list(which seems doubtful), it should focus on the errors within Brown's "accurate categories." However, you're are absolutely right that we should consider all types of criticism. I think the best way to do this is to mention a few of the best-selling critical books and describe the criticism they offer without trying to judging its validity. Superm401 | Talk 04:27, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't see any problem with the article. It states relevant and important facts that the book attempts to use; as it is a bestseller, deals with history and claims to be factually correct in some respects, it of course gets more attetion than other books might. Would you claim that the description of plot details in Pulp Fiction is excessive? --Malyctenar 14:50, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

It doesn't take an exceptional insight into the behavior of the typical Wikipedia reader to know that he or she is coming to this article to see a discussion of the various truth claims that the characters make inside this fictional world of DVC which is so much like our own.

Personally, I'm fascinated by what's true in my world and what's false in the DVC world and vice versa. So bring on the archeological, historical, and documentary evidence. For me, what Dan Brown has done is like writing Moby Dick in which whales have wings. patsw 15:27, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Regardless of why most Wikipedia readers come to the article, it's focus should not be on disproving the inventions of fiction. It's alright to mention the bigger errors(the ones equivalent to whales having wings), but an exhuastive list (including minor details) is just overwhelming to the prose, as well as POV. It isn't appropriate in an encyclopedia, despite being true and somewhat interesting. See what's being done at Angels and Demons. Superm401 | Talk 03:40, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Firstly, it's not "POV", however many errors are listed, as long as the list is accurate. You are confusing POV with even-handedness. They are two quite different things. A fact is a fact, not a point of view. Secondly, as Patsw says, most people who look up this page with be mainly interested in the question of what aspects of the novel's claims about history and hidden symbolism are accurate and what aspects are not. The more exhaustive is the list then the more we will satisfy that, entirely understandable, urge. Yes, of course some 'criticisms' can be trivial and nit-picking. Some of the most trivial ones have already been removed, but the ones that pertain to claims about the Holy Grail, hidden symbolism etc should remain. Another point to bear in mind is that the 'criticisms' section is not just about fault-finding. It's about evaluating some of the specific claims that are made, that involves distinguishing the elements of truth from the elements of fiction. For example the sections on Mary Magdalene and on the "sacred feminine" both attempt to distinguish the legitimate from the illegitimate aspects of the claims made in the novel. Finally, it's not good enough to say that the novel is simply fiction. It contains a paragraph at the beginning that makes claims about fact. That paragraph is ambiguously written in a such a way as to mislead readers. The central character is supposed to be a Harvard professor. We hear snippets from his lectures, a device that grants spurious authority to some pretty absurd statements; we get references to recent events (such as the results of restoration work on Leonardo's Adoration of the Magi), to 'facts' from history, theology etc. All these things are thrown into the novel as though they are real, not as though they are simply accounts of fictional people in a fictional world. That is why we need to address them here.

Yes, of course it would be desirable to arrange these matters more effectively and clearly if we can find a way to do so. Maybe the criticisms should be grouped in 'religion', 'art', 'science' sections etc. Paul B 08:12, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

"Firstly, it's not "POV", however many errors are listed, as long as the list is accurate." That's simply wrong. POV is not about factual accuracy. It's about whether all sides are presented fairly. If I make an article about Microsoft and spend half of it discussing the anti-trust suits, that's POV, even if everything I say is correct.. I'll accept the compromise of including all "the ones that pertain to claims about the Holy Grail [and] hidden symbolism", and a select few others. Superm401 | Talk 08:22, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

No it was not "simply wrong", a fact is a fact. If there are factual inaccuracies in the accounts of the disputed points, then correct them. If there are factual omissions in them which bias the article against the novel then add them. But it is a total misrepresentation of NPOV policy to imply that for every "bad" point we should add an equal and opposite "good" point in order to even things out. Fairness is about being accurate and complete in including all legitimate arguments and information on a given issue. If that means they pile up more on one side than another, so be it. That's how we distinguish what's reasonable from what's unreasonable. So your Microsoft analogy does not hold.

After the standard summary-introduction, this article begins by summarising the claims made in the novel as though they are true. It then contains a section pointing out why there have been so many objections, gives the defence of the author and his supporters, then goes into detailed discussion of the specific points at issue, giving links to other Wikipedia articles and other sources to anyone who wishes to follow up. I don't think this is in any reasonable sense "POV". If you can find anything in this article that is substantially omited or inaccurate in such a way that the issues are misrepresented, then say what it is. Otherwise the NPOV notice is unwarranted. Paul B 08:39, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

"If there are factual omissions in them which bias the article against the novel then add them." Are you really asking me to list every detail that the novel is accurate about? I think that's a bad idea, and I'm not going to make a point. You also say that "Fairness is about being accurate and complete in including all legitimate arguments and information on a given issue." While an admirable sentiment, that is simply not possible in an encyclopedia. It's a plain fact that despite Wikipedia not being paper, are articles must be limited in length. Therefore, judgement calls must be made. Sometimes people judge poorly, either deliberately or not. You say my Microsoft analogy doesn't hold because if the half the aricle were about the anti-trust issues, that would just show the importance of that perspective. However, I could also easily write an article that didn't mention the anti-trust cases at all. Both are bad judgement. I absolutely don't believe "that for every "bad" point we should add an equal and opposite "good" point in order to even things out." Topics should be addressed in depth loosely proportional to both their importance and to the number of their adherents. When you consider the number of people who read The Da Vinci Code without complaining about its deceptive inaccuracies, it becomes clear how much this section is overemphasized. This remains true when you consider that the novel is fiction, and written by someone admittedly without academic credentials. Superm401 | Talk 08:52, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

I wrote that "If there are factual inaccuracies in the accounts of the disputed points, then correct them." and "if you can find anything in this article that is substantially omited or inaccurate in such a way that the issues are misrepresented, then say what it is." The point is not to list all things that are accurate. That would be silly ("he correctly identifies Paris as the capital of France"), but to discuss those that are at issue. A useful analogy would be with articles on the Bible, in which the historical accuracy of its accounts of events are being discussed. The articles on the Historicity of Jesus don't waste time pointing out that the Gospels correctly identify Jerusalem as the main city in Judea or that the Roman empire was in control. The debate about accuracy is defined by the issues in question. As far as the DVC is concerned these centre on the claims about actual history, actual paintings, builldings, etc, that are incorporated into the fictional narrative. The novel is written in such a way as to leave the average reader very confused about what is fact and what is fiction. I think it is very useful to provide such readers (and, of course the viewers of the upcoming film) with as solid and accuarate an account as we can of where fact and fiction mesh and where they clash. Paul B 11:47, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia should not only explain controversy, but also fact. Superm401 | Talk 13:13, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

PaulB has done a good job of explaining why a discussion truth claims made by characters in a work of fiction belong in the article. Let me develop the idea of serving the user a bit more. I think that paper encylopedia writers were and continue to be frustrated by the necessities of the format. When I prepare matter for print it involves many considerations that I don't have in the electronic format.

If there were a best-selling and much-discussed novel that placed New York City in the southwest United States, we know we're dealing with a radically different world from ours. On the other hand, if New York City is located in the right place and time but has the French as its original European settlers rather than the Dutch. We wonder -- why did the author do that? Was it deliberate or unintended? Does it add anything to the plot? Is there any evidence in our world of attempted settlement by the French prior to the Dutch? (etc.)

A work of fiction which is not a fantasy starts out with premises and a back story which is presented as fact. Think of the absolute commitment to accuracy which Patrick O'Brian made to create the character of Jack Aubrey, Dan Brown is his polar opposite. That there are so many points of discussion on DVC is a problem (or opportunity) which originates in Brown's choice to tinker with religion, history, art, and archeology. patsw 14:36, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

This discussion is progressing very slowly. Here are my primary claims, neatly ordered. Please try to address them as presented:

1. An encyclopedia can not, and should not try to, report all information available.
2. Editorial judgement is required to select the information to be included.
3. In that selection, as always, editors must strive for NPOV.
4. Brown's book is fiction, and as such, there is no traditional burden of factuality; Brown is not a fraud.
5. However, DVC's realistic writing style, narrow but mistinterpreted claims of fact, and critical responses mandate a segment addressing his historical and factual accuracy.

--Superm401 | Talk 16:55, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

The place to debate whether Brown is a fraud or not is elsewhere. We're dealing with DVC as it is. Don't forget to sign comments with 5 tildes. patsw 17:44, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Brown states clearly: "All descriptions of artwork, architecture, documents, and secret rituals in this novel are accurate." So a valid criticism would be IS he correct in his descriptions. Is he a fraud is not the issue, assuming he isn't an alien in disguise. Is his factual work that he sells as part of "the charm" of the book factual or fictional. This isn't a PoV issue. There is an easily discernable answer. Dominick ^(ŤαĿĶ) 18:06, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Re Superm's 5 points:

1 The article does not or try to report all information available. There are numerous links in the article that discuss issues treated in passing in the article in far more detail. That said, I think there are some sections where detail presented does go overboard. I will address these areas below.

2. Indeed. I don't think there are many people questioning that.

3. Granted. Again, that is not questioned.

4. Regarding the question "is the factual accuracy of the book in general relevant?" I contend that the answer is yes. A very large factor in the success of the book has been the "non-fictional" aspect of it, and this has been emphasised in the promotion of The D Vinci Code. I think the statement "Brown's book is fiction, and as such, there is no traditional burden of factuality; Brown is not a fraud", kind of misses the mark. This is because on several occasions the author has gone on record publically defending the truth claims of the book, and an enormous amount of public interest in the book, as opposed to other books, has been concentrated on the veracity of various suppositions underlying the book. (I can go into more detail at a later time about this if anyone desires this) I think "fraud" is an overly strong word, however. To sum up, the issue of factual accuracy in "The Da Vinci Code" is extremely relevant and should be discussed, as distinct from other books, because this is a key factor in the "Da Vinci Code" phenomenon and one in which much interest has been focused. That said, I think there is room for further discussion. The list of specific factual inaccuracies may or may not be appropriate in its current form, it doesn't really bother me, most people historically seem to have been happy with it staying in the article.

I am going to edit some obvious parts and propose other parts be changed now:

• "and historians consider factually inaccurate."

The statement is more or less true, but it betrays a viewpoint. I'll try to rewrite it more neutrally.

• On a related note, fâché is French for "angry", but "Fache" is also a reasonably common French surname, and would not even be pronounced as such.

Bit clumsy and I'm a bit suspicious of the tone.

• The allegation that "the Church burned at the stake five million women" as witches has been a problem for many critics .... that they were a purely Catholic event.

This could be discussed more concisely perhaps.

• The portrayal of the Priory of Sion as an ancient organisation: ... which forms such a substantial part of his novel.

Too long, polemical and most of it is discussed elsewhere. (eg "Priory of Sion" article)

• The convention used in the book is probably due to the fact that its target audience, mainstream America, know the painter as "da Vinci".

Hmm, possibly, do people agree with this assessment? Was that the reason, ie if the book had been called "The Leonardo Code", would fewer people have known what it was about? Maybe so, can anyone else confirm? One obvious reason to me is that "Da Vinci" is more upbeat and has fewer syllables, more catchy.

This is one of the most trivial complaints against the book. It's really on a par with complaints about the use of terms like "Symbology" instead of "semiotics", or "Venus" instead of "Aphrodite" when discussing Greece. It's just to make things easier for the average reader. "Da Vinci" is commonly used in the USA, but academics generally prefer "Leonardo". Because of other people called Leonardo, the use of the name would be slightly less clear to most readers than Da Vinci. Paul B 13:50, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

• Also, many literature scholars contend Brown's writing style is trite or Hollywood-esque.

Shock, horror. A best-selling novel that isn't a literary masterpiece. I'll qualify the statement.

• Finally, Brown has suffered multiple plagiarism lawsuits relating to the storyline of Da Vinci Code.

This one is an interesting point but needs rephrasing as in its current form it leaves out information and looks like it is deliberately worded so as to paint the author in as negative light as possible. Georgeslegloupier 01:51, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

I rather see the point of the criticism section. There is controversy over the book and it seems reasonable to discuss the societal reaction to the book. No different than the entry for Rushdie's: The Satanic Verses. As far as limiting the section to those things outlined in the opening line of the book. There are three criticisms I would have over that limitation.

i) Brown uses some weasel words in that statement. For example DB apears to say in that line that all descriptions of documents are accurate. Now in a extremely litteral sense 'Les dossiers secret' is accurately described - in the sense that it exists and mentions some names. However I would think it reasonable to assert that novels 'describe' things in more than one way. In other words the 'Les dossiers secret' is portrayed as, at the very least a document who's authenticity is unquestioned if not actually true. So I would say that the criticism section deserves a little lattitude there.

ii) Brown has, in places outside of the text made allusions to the truth of the book being carried in more than those things described in the opening line. For example in an interview taken from his website the following statement is made:

"HOW MUCH OF THIS NOVEL IS TRUE? - The Da Vinci Code is a novel and therefore a work of fiction. While the book's characters and their actions are obviously not real, the artwork, architecture, documents, and secret rituals depicted in this novel all exist (for example, Leonardo Da Vinci's paintings, the Gnostic Gospels, Hieros Gamos, etc.). These real elements are interpreted and debated by fictional characters. While it is my belief that some of the theories discussed by these characters may have merit.."

Saying that a book is complete fiction - and therfore merits no discusion of it's historicity seems rather different than saying it contains 'meritorious theories'. Granted that DB doesn't say exactly which ones are deserving of merit or not. I think his critics can hardly be blamed for his imprecision here. So again, it seems reasonable that criticism may be leveled at points other than the "documents, rituals, etc" described.

DB pushes this point further in that selfsame article where he says that he disagrees with people disproving the DC. You can read the whole thing yourself at: http://www.danbrown.com/novels/davinci_code/faqs.html

iii) Finally, it's interesting. No different to me than the discussion of the historicity of the Trojan War. If there is terminology that seems overly biased in the article by all means change it but I think there's plenty of leeway for factual criticism of the theories and facts presented in the DC.

205.211.168.10 23:05, 20 December 2005 (UTC)J. Graham

Factual Accuracy

The Bias section is getting out of control. In summary, I think it is appropriate to discuss any aspects of factual accuracy that are directly relevant to the plot or the history, other than minor details. This is because the book is fiction, but both the authors and critics have emphasized its factual accuracy more than usual. It should be clarified which errors fall under his categories, but these should not be the only errors mentioned. It is POV to explain his mistakes in more depth than his correct points. In practice, this means the long paragraphs for each error need to be trimmed, because that length is infeasible for each accurate statement in the book. Is this an acceptable solution? Superm401 | Talk 07:39, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm going to be bold and start working towards the above. If you revert, please explain why here. Superm401 | Talk 07:40, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm removing the NPOV dispute tag. I hope people will make a good-faith effort to fix the problem. Superm401 | Talk 08:56, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree with the bold edits you carried out. I still think there is much to be done to bring this article up to a good standard though. Please see Summary of spoilers list vs. Plot summary. Mushin 17:53, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Its factual inaccuracies might be loosely compared to Washington Irving's 1828 novel, The Life and Voyages of Christopher Columbus where many gullible generations of Americans were left believing (and still believing) that the reason Columbus had difficulty obtaining support for his plan was that Europeans believed that the earth was flat. Irving's claim has no historical basis. In fact, what was at issue was not the shape, but the circumference of the earth. Widespread damage to generations' understandings of history and trusts of various entities (especially the Church) for the sake of entertainment(!), borders on extraordinary irresponsibility if not maliciousness.

Summary of spoilers list vs. Plot summary

There is already a cleanup tag for the Summary of Spoilers section of the article. I think this should be reworded into a continuous prose, 'Plot Summary' section. Bullet points are good for a concise list, but not for 20 lengthy points (see Guide to layout). This is of course, assuming that the bullet list isn't essential to "break up what would otherwise be an overly large, grey mass of text, particularly if the topic requires significant effort on the part of readers". I personally believe this section can be reworded into prose and still be read without requiring significant effort, whilst improving the overall structure of the article. Thoughts, please? Mushin 17:47, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Someone with a knowledge of Paris streets should point out that you can't turn left onto one of the roads outside the Louvre. Can't remember what the name of the street is but a Parisian has assured me that Dan Brown has Robert Langdon and Sophie driving down a one way street.

I'm sure this is true, but it's just the kind of pointless "criticism" that leads to the complaints we see above. We needn't bother ourselves with this type of error any more than we would in discussions of any other book. Paul B 18:01, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Of course, they are making a desperate getaway at the time, so I doubt following traffic signs would be the first thing on their minds. user:Shara

Behind Trues and Lies, Split Criticism section into two

Im a regular reader and colaborator of the wikipedia in both its spanish and english versions and I must say that Im totally for neutrallity when it comes to writing articles of controversial topics such as The Da Vinci Code. It is obvious that all descriptions of artwork, architecture, documents, and secret rituals in the novel are accurate, I mean, Dan Brow just cannot made his mind up and say things lacking of accuracy when it comes to art as well known as The Monalisa. I noticed also that most (by not say all) the claims in the Criticism section are against the book, there is not a single claim that states or support the accuracy of some of the information given in the book. I think it would be a good idea to split the claims section into two new sections, one stating the erroneous facts and another one supporting the accurate points. Finally, I think that its hard to try to see this book as a Scientific Religious Simbology text, being The Da Vinci Code just a novel. Greetings from Mexico, Omar Estefan. PD.Sorry for my bad english

Crticisms? How About Just Plain Bad

Bad enough to have Silas' gun run out of ammo just before the coup de grace, but then we find out that its not only a semi-auto, but that it’s an H&K USP 40.

1. The slide would jack back after the last round was fired, which would be impossible not to notice, so the hammer would not “click on an empty chamber”
2. Silas would’ve had to have discharged 12 rounds of ammo prior to shooting Sauniere. We get no idea that he has been shooting up the Louvre, so he must’ve pumped the senechaux full of lead (4 bullets each) and never thought to reload?
3. .40 caliber is pretty big, with a great degree of stopping power and unlikely to enter the belly in such a way as to leave a man slowly dying but ambulatory.
4. Further, Silas can somehow tell in the darkened museum that the wound will suffice to kill Sauniere, and he need not feel compelled to take any action to finish him off.

Coincidences, and particularly implausible ones on which the ENTIRE PLOT hinges like this, are the very hallmark of bad writing.

We'll see how they make that work in the movie :P

I'm sure Dan Brown is really losing sleep over this one. I mean, it's this sort of thing that stops people buying a book. Oh, hang on... Graham 05:10, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Great argument. Oh hang on....

We already know how much the book has sold, but in no way invalidates any of the criticsms of it. Being wildly popular has little to do with quality.

That's what they all say. So, if I write a book and it sells 0 copies, it must be perfect by definition! Wake up, chum, selling 40 million copies of a book is jaw-droppingly impressive by any standard. Onomatopoeia 16:07, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Wow, this has rapidly turned from discussion to a collection of logical fallacies. Yours is called a false dichotomy. Suggesting an inverse relationship between quality and success is um, what's the word... stupid. And I didn't say anything remotely approaching that, you did. What I said was that they are separate issues, and I think that's pretty indisputably true.

Just curious; what bearing does a small, inconsequential error on the part of an author have on this article? Maybe it's just me, but I don't think this issue requires discussion. Daler 01:57, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Removing blatant systematic bias

This article was really, really biased. It was very striking that there was no Acclaim section, but an Criticism section expanded to infinitum ad nauseam. It was as if a Boston Red Sox fan wrote an essay on the New York Yankees. A fact about the previous revision:

• The article (minus book annotations) had 8590 words.
• 3431 words were solely Criticism.
• A grand TEN words are acclaim. BTW, no Acclaim section.

In numbers: 40% of the article devoted solely to highlight negative points, and a grand 0,1% to highlight positive points. Even if the negative points are all correct, this is no excuse for the utter absence of an Acclaim section. NPOV means authentic-warts-and-all commentary, but this article just features the warts, and this for a book which sold better than Thriller by Michael Jackson. Come on, Wikipedia, you can do better than this, Daniel Brandt would be so happy to read this. And I am not even a Dan Brown fan. Onomatopoeia 15:58, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

The term "criticism" does not always imply "condemnation". It means evaluation (art criticism is not about attacking art!). We do not have sections called "Acclaim" listing praises. It's pointless. The criticism section is about evaluating the validity of the disputed points as accurately as we can. Please read the discussions about this above. By the way, it is worth mentioning "systematic bias" and systemic bias are two different things. There is a policy concerning the latter. There is no policy that says we have to praise and attack in equal measure. Paul B 16:06, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Point taken, but I do not share it. For me, criticism is a fair evaluation, and fair also means pointing out the positives. If for you, Acclaim=Weasel talk and Criticism=hard fact, then OK, go re-edit. For me, 40%-0,1% is hard to swallow. But moreover, I found the 3431/8590-version tedious, in-concise and bogged down to read in the previous draft. Onomatopoeia 16:15, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Nice editing. The article is definitely improved with the loss of the huge list of 'disputed claims'. Mushin^talk 18:54, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Lame. One dude comes in here filled with obvious admiration for Dan Brown (despite his claims) and the criticism section disappears. There can arguably be no art without criticism, which as noted above by Paul B, does not mean "ripping on". **Prev comment by 204.15.3.5

When there is art, there is not only criticism, but also acclaim. FYI, I like the book but I do not admire it. I am interested in reading good Wikipedia articles, and I made the legit claim that the article was skewed. BTW, if you so disagree, then feel free to edit the article... which you have not done, seeing the history. But OK, I admit that Diablo_II#Easter_Eggs is indeed more interesting than this book. Onomatopoeia 08:13, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

What don't you understand about the word criticism encompassing the idea of acclaim? As used both in the article and by me in the sense of evaluation. Think about it like the clearly non-oxymoronic phrase "critical acclaim". And why are you spying on me?

Categorisation

I've removed this from Category:Roman Catholic Church and put the book's meta category into Category:Anti-Catholicism. The Anti-Catholicism area is a subsidiary of the Catholicism category for the various criticisms of the church from the radical Protestant, anti-clerical and occult angles.

I'm puzzled by this. I've read the book and do not see how it is in any way "anti-Catholic". (Major spoiler: none of the villains are in Opus Dei) thx1138 10:44, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

(spoiler) That's not true. He may not be the ringleader, but he does kill several people. Superm401 | Talk 10:39, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Right, but it turns out the guy giving him orders isn't in Opus Dei and is playing him. Regardless, it's a work of fiction. I don't see how a work of fiction that casts Catholic leaders as some of the bad guys is "anti-Catholic", any more than the X-File is "anti-American".thx1138 12:37, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Doesn't the book claim that "The Church has suppressed the truth about Mary Magdalene and Jesus' bloodline for 2000 years. This is principally because they fear the power of the sacred feminine, which they have demonized as Satanic." I'd say that claiming an organization is dedicated to supressing the truth is commonly described as "anti".--Samuel J. Howard 02:55, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

To me that sounds like calling "The X-Files" anti-American because it claims the US government is collaborating with alien invaders.thx1138 07:57, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Given that the novel claims that the Catholic Church was responsible for the deaths of five million women who knew the grail "secret", I think that it could easily be seen as anti-Catholic. --Donahoo 16:38, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

In addition, the book's frequent habit of casting the entire history of the Roman Catholic Church as a sham and repeatedly utilizing outrageous statistics to paint the Catholic Church in a harsh light is blatantly anti-Catholic. -LoL

So what? You all seem to forget that this is a work of fiction. It is not any more anti-christian than Harry Potter. dposse 20:08, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

This article should be deleted

One simple reason: the history of this article is too TERRIBLE!!!!! 203.186.238.141 06:43, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm confused. Are you responding to the history tab of the article? Or are you referring to history referred to in the article?

In response to the first, that's no reason to delete an article. If you are referring to any real-world history, this article is about a novel. After reading it again, it seems to me the article is clear throughout that it is referring to points made within the novel, and not to historical facts that may or may not be related.

Perhaps you could be more specific in your objections. Aaronwinborn 22:53, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't think the history of an article is a reason to delete it. Mushin^talk 12:50, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Merges

I added mergefrom notices from Criticisms of the Da Vinci Code and Symbology. Neither contain information that deserve to be in an article of their own, especially Symbology. Will 01:20, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the merging of Criticisms of the Da Vinci Code as a POV fork. Werdna648^T/_C\^@ 02:48, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I was the one who outsourced the Criticisms of the Da Vinci Code. My rationale was that at that time, the negative criticism part alone was almost half the article (which exceeded IMHO the intended scope of a general article on TDVC), there were no references to the success of TDVC and that section was IMHO half-baked and doubtfully sourced - it was then called "disputed claims" - and also failed to give rebuttals, because every disputed claim has a counterclaim. My solution was to divide and conquer, excise the half-baked part and keep the main article focused on the reception in general:

Why is TDVC popular? Because it is hailed as suspenseful, intelligent and thought-provoking.

Why is TDVC disputed? Because it is full of disputed claims, and for an in-depth list which transcends the general scope of this article, see detailed subarticle.

If keep the articles seperate, Ok, if you remerge, also ok, I assume good faith. Onomatopoeia 15:22, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

BTW: an example of a absolute bulletproof sourcing, which I would find great and would give the criticism article legitimacy, would be like John Byrne \\ Onomatopoeia 15:32, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I do not agree with a merge of the criticisms. If you feel the articles should not have their own space, then I am for deletion. The whole idea of removing this huge list of points was that it was cluttering the Da Vinci Code article, and giving it a huge bias. The material should either stay in its own article, be cut down immensely, or be removed completely. As for the article on symbology, apparently this is a real term (see its talk page), so I don't think it needs to be merged. Mushin^talk 16:23, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I oppose the merge of the Criticisms article, but support the merge of "Symbology" into the main article. The Criticism article is lengthy, and deserves a separate page. Plus there are going to be more "branch off" articles as soon as the movie comes out in May. Elonka 16:39, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

IMO, we should keep a seperate Criticisms article, but we should backport some of it into this article, as the current section needs to be fleshed out more (although not to the same extent as the Criticisms article). — Matt Crypto 16:51, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Keep the "criticisms" page separate. Otherwise, I think it wouldn't be NPOV. I this article should be about the book, not what some guy thinks about it. Calicore 16:00, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

What guy would that be? The criticisms section was written by numerous guys (and dolls). I don't object to the article being separate, simply because the main article was becoming too long. But it is a very important aspect of the book to discuss, probably the most important, since readers will want useful information about how to separate the historical facts from the fiction. Did Leonardo really mean to refer to Amon and Isis in the title of the Mona Lisa? Did the chutrch suppress information about Mary Magdalene? Was she of the tribe of Benjamin, as the novel claims? etc etc etc. Paul B 17:48, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Symbology should definitely be merged with this article, as it was a term coined in the book, and has no meaning anywhere else. In fact, its being seperate is somewhat misleading, setting it up as a new discipline - which it is not. It is entirely fictional, as is the book in question. Fuzzform 21:19, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Symbology should NOT be merged at all. Look it up in a dictionary, it is not "entirely fictional" at all. Check your facts before being so sure. Comments about the fictional status of the book are irrelevant and if anything detremental to the conversation, so please keep them to yourself. I have removed the merge tags:

• Criticisms: the article is far too large to merge back into the main article. And if even if it was, it would create a very biased article, which is against NPOV (whether or not the points are correct, this is irrelevant - it is the article as a whole that is important here).
• Symbology: this is not fictional. If people feel that there shouldn't be an article for it, then list it on AFD, as there is a good argument for keeping it as a separate article. Mushin^talk 13:15, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

The length argument is legitimate buut the NPOV argument is, I think, spurious. Either the criticisms is NPOV or it isn't. Having it as part of this article or as a separate one makes no difference. The issue is the same. Anyway, this is a misunderstanding of NPOV, which does not mean the same as "even handed". We do not devote half of the anti-Semitism or racism articles to giving the reasons against it, and half to the reasons in favour of it. Nor do we have an evenly balanced article on the Flat earth theory. NPOV means we should be fair and accurate in the arguments we present. If there are more authorities who support one point of view than another then the balance should be in favour of the majority view. Paul B 16:21, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

NPOV has nothing to do with accuracy, though you are correct that it does not mean equal time either. Superm401 - Talk 04:22, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

NPOV does mean accuracy (factual correctness) as well as weighting of views according to their status WP:NPOV: "But it's not enough, to express the Wikipedia non-bias policy, just to say that we should state facts and not opinions. When asserting a fact about an opinion, it is important also to assert facts about competing opinions, and to do so without implying that any one of the opinions is correct." Paul B 13:11, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Last Book of the Trilogy

The introduction mentions that "The Da Vinci Code" is the second book on a 3 part trilogy. Angels and Demons is the first, but what is the third? Mention it in the intro as well. 70.111.251.203 13:40, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

It hasn't come out yet. Superm401 - Talk 17:34, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Introductory paragraph?

The intro paragraph states "the novel has helped generate popular interest in certain theories concerning the Holy Grail legend and the role of Mary Magdalene in the history of Christianity — theories that Christians typically consider heretical and that have been criticized as historically inaccurate." (emphasis added) Is there any evidence at all to suppport using the word theory - doesn't this position the book far too seriously? A wikipedia-quality intro would simply discuss the book as a work of fiction and entertainment. flux.books 04:10, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

There are theories mentioned in the book, though they were not invented for the book. For example, the book centers around the theory proposed in Holy Blood, Holy Grail that Jesus survived and went to France with Mary Magdalene and a child. This theory was popularized so much that another edition of that book was printed. Note also that I am using theory in the popular (and social studies) sense, not the scientific one; regardless, Wikipedia editors should not try to judge an idea's correctness before describing or mentioning it. As for your idea of only mentioning the fiction, that is unreasonable. The book should be viewed as only fiction, but it is not, so we can not pretend otherwise. Superm401 - Talk 04:20, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

It is a novel. It's a debasement of wikipedia to suggest otherwise. flux.books 04:55, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

A novel can contain any or all of 1) true assertions about the real world, and 2) things that people believe are true assertions about the real world, but may or may not actually be true and 3) things that are made up. The sentence you quote looks fine to me. — Matt Crypto 12:56, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

There is so much opinion in the first paragraph! Is this the "anon" referred to above? It's not right to say anyone who finds the novel thought-provoking is anti-Christian.

No. The judgemental statements were added only yesterday by 65.94.198.33 and Thx2005. Paul B 09:41, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Continuity Question

The "continuity question" at the end of the spoilers section isn't a question. It's just stating something.

Hmmm, wouldn't Jesus contradict himself if he had any wife and children at all?

Luk 14:26 If any [man] come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.168.243.219.16

No contradiction. He had a mother and a father, so why does this imply that he can't have had a wife? Paul B 20:48, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Because there is, very literaly, a call to leave everything, even wife and kids, and follow Him. Yes, for Jesus the service of others is more important than His father and His mother. Family is important, but to be a disciple of Jesus, someone who follows his steps, you have to leave everything and give your life to service so that others may have happy and joyful families. I don't have a family so my brothers (the human race) have more resources for their families. Instead of using resources for myself I produce resources so my brothers, all human beings have happy and plentiful families. To be His disciple you have to leave it all behind and serve Him. He said it. He left everything behind and gave His life so that all of us could be saved.168.243.213.2

Luke, Chapter 14, 26-35:

26 "If any one comes to me without hating his father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters, and even his own life, he cannot be my disciple. 27 Whoever does not carry his own cross and come after me cannot be my disciple. 28 Which of you wishing to construct a tower does not first sit down and calculate the cost to see if there is enough for its completion? 29 Otherwise, after laying the foundation and finding himself unable to finish the work the onlookers should laugh at him 30 and say, 'This one began to build but did not have the resources to finish.' 31 Or what king marching into battle would not first sit down and decide whether with ten thousand troops he can successfully oppose another king advancing upon him with twenty thousand troops? 32 But if not, while he is still far away, he will send a delegation to ask for peace terms. 33 In the same way, everyone of you who does not renounce all his possessions cannot be my disciple. 34 8 "Salt is good, but if salt itself loses its taste, with what can its flavor be restored? 35 It is fit neither for the soil nor for the manure pile; it is thrown out. Whoever has ears to hear ought to hear."168.243.213.2

None of this implies any contradiction, just that if he had a wife he would reject family "responsibility" to her, like Buddha did. Anyway, the novel implies that the Gospels have been manipulated by thre church. Unfalsifiable, of course. Please remember that this page is for discussing the article, not evangelising. Paul B 22:15, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Leaving a family, wife and kids, you already have would be anti christian. When you have a family, you must take care of them. But I'll stop evangelising.168.243.213.2

P.S.: Also, Monet's Water Lily Pond is not a water lily pond at all. It is a pregnant toilet! (that's what I think of the Da Vinci Code's big mystery thingie).168.243.219.16

Insightful. Paul B 20:48, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Wait... Christianity contradicting itself? NO! That's impossible! Let's be serious. 99% of the things attributed to Jesus were plain made up after his death.. and 50% of the things about him now were added in later versions of the Bible by people who had never heard him say a word nor read a word about him. All the good things he said were left out because the church thought it was too dangerous for them, so instead they placed in their millions of lies. Of course there are contradictions... religion is nothing BUT.

And your sources for this statement are?

By the way, I've added a page on the Jesus bloodline mythos now, so that may help - the consensus is that the "bloodline" theory was invented in the 60s in France by a surrealist, a fantasist and an aristocrat. Your usual thing. :-) MarkThomas 08:15, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Other fighting back

" The catholic personal prelature Opus Dei is fighting back. Their leaders ... "

As no source was mentioned, is there any proof for this claim by Uzawaung? Túrelio 07:42, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sp sure about the 'fighting back' terminology, but it's essentially true. The BBC did a report on this some while ago, and were given access to Opus Dei members as part of this positive-publicity campaign. Paul B 11:20, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Myth Making - The Da Vinci Code

The process of weaving lies and myth, as can be observed in "the De Vinci Code," to sell a product, is not a new phenomena. The use of controversy and propaganda to capture the public's imagination, is hardly original.

What is ironic, is that the Vatican and Catholicism - has used the same method - of myth making and relic production for centuries in order to promote the "Universal Church." What the Vatican is really unhappy about, is that myth of the De Vinci Code undermines its own mythical status. The Vatican itself, is founded on the myth that Jesus Christ wanted a Universal Church - with Saint Peter being the first Pope!

After all is said, the Vatican has promoted Mary as the Mother of God, Jesus as God himself..... a blatant myth and a false doctrine! If the Da Vinci Code did not so much create a non-Vatican sanctioned myth - the Vatican would only be too happy to support it!

For centuries, the Vatican and the various churches of Christendom have been merrily creating myths and relics, all bogus, for the benefit of its coffers. Mystifying its parishioners, creating fear and encouraging superstition. One example of a fraudulent myth is the doctrine of Purgatory, a mythical halfway house to heaven, which allows the Churches to fleece its congregations of revenue.

The Vatican has been the best selling, money making, myth-producing institute the world has ever seen: the ILM of World Religions! Only now, it is under competition from a modern-day myth-making colossus, the Entertainment Industry. In an increasingly secular global-society, it is not difficult to predict who will win.

The issue is not whether or not the Da Vinci Code is true or false, we let science clarify that matter, it is whether or not the Churches can maintain their already shaky “monopoly” on belief. If the mythology of the Da Vinci Code provides a more convincing argument against the legitimacy of the Churches, then it shows how weak the Churches claims are.

Observers should not allow themselves to be swayed by the Churches apparent “defensive” stance on this matter. That somehow, they are the injured party needing support. It is not in defence of the “Faith” that the Church leaders pout and glower. It is in defence of the Myth - that they are making sanctimony.

For in truth, the drastic claims of the Da Vinci Code that Jesus Christ was married and produced children, pale as - tactless banter - when compared to the doctoring, this gentle-horror that masquerades as an institution for the good of mankind – has made to the tenets of Christianity.

• I appreciate your initial comments about the storyline of the book and how it relates to the Roman Catholic Church. However, somehow you went off track and ended up trashing the Vatican and the Church (if not Christianity itself) instead. This barrage of anti-Catholic and apparently anti-Christian talk does not belong here. Physicq210 21:27, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Comment and criticism from Pagans and Gnostics

I have been rereading DVC and as I'm reading error after error made about history and Christianity, I'm wondering, if Dan Brown got the details right when it comes to the pagan and gnostic references.

Calling all Pagans and Gnostics: Here are some examples of things presented in the article by Brown which could be explained in the article either as elaboration or criticism.

• Were pentacles really signs of the sacred feminine?

• Does the Rose line have pagan significance?

• Does the idea that the Holy Grail is the body of Mary Magdalen original in ancient texts or with Holy Blood, Holy Grail?

• Ideas of a Goddess blur (for me) between pagan and gnostic boundaries. Can this distinction be drawn, and if it can, does Brown get it right? patsw 02:42, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

'

umm.. yes. Most Christian traditions were either Pagan or Jewish. Christmas is Pagan. Easter is Pagan. Circumcision, obviously, is Jewish. Menstral blood was considered divine, the Christians made it wicked and unclean because, in short, they suck. Dan 06:19, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Easter is defined by the date of Passover. Menstruation is defined as unclean in pre-Christian Israelite culture. Nor are they unique. Paul B 18:48, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

• Pentacles are speculated to have many meanings, but the sacred feminine is not one of them. Brown got this wrong.

• The Rose line is just another example of a Church having a dual purpose, in the case, as an astronomical observatory. Brown got this wrong.

• The idea of Holy Grail not being the blood of Christ but being the offspring of Jesus and Mary Magdalen is neither Christian or Gnostic but the product of a recent misreading of the Gospel of Phillip. Brown got this wrong.

• The Goddess isn't Gnostic at all, but pagan. Gnosticism's connection to the Goddess or female principle is in the being of Sophia or Wisdom. Brown may have got this right, but I haven't seen a Gnostic critique of DVC yet. patsw 03:02, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Pentacles have been associated with gender depending on which direction they 'point.' The familiar inverted pentacle equated with Devil worship by many Christians is considered female, while the same pentacled turned 'right side up' is considered male. I don't think this is controversial and is fairly common in Hermetic traditions (which borrow heavily from traditional Christian symbolism). stanleylieber

As far as I know the pentacle with one point up has been seen both as a symbol of humans (head up, feet down), but also as a symbol of Jesus (then the five points symbolises the wounds (hands and feets nailed trough and had wounds from the thorny crown)). // Liftarn

Atbash of "Shekinah"

Shekinah was mentioned in the book as the principle of the divine feminine, the counterpart of the male God Yahweh. But if you apply the Atbash cipher method to "Shekinah" you can produce "Ba'alat," a pagan goddess. Thoughts? 69.194.120.28 05:14, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Err... Yahweh, does not have a counterpart, female or otherwise. He does have an enemy, Satan who constantly seeks to defame him and paint him in a false light. Wonders will never cease; the pagans do have some "wonderful" gods. In essence we are seeing a confrontation between the false and centuries old falsehoods, like a Clash of the Titans! - 10:26, 21 April 2006

Shekinah, as well as having an article all of its own, is also discussed in the Criticisms of the Da Vinci Code article. Paul B 09:33, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Rather opinionated, aren't you? It's just as likely that Porky Pig created the universe on April 12, 1937 together with our false memories of a far older time. And if we don't eat bacon every day, Porky will plant his Cloven Hoof of Retribution up our backsides and propel us to the Bad Place, colloquially called the Great Frying Pan, there to be fricaseed for all eternity. There is just as much proof for that as for your specific mythos of God or Satan.

But since the fiction book, THE DA VINCI CODE, mentions a Jewish belief at some time of "Shekinah," I thought it was amusing that the Atbash cipher transposed that into "Ba'alat". Perhaps when Judaism began, some people still could not shake off beliefs in a female deity entirely, so they encoded "Ba'alat" into their early beliefs as "Shekinah," while still trying to believe that God is one. Just like when Christianity began, they still could not entirely shake off Jewish beliefs, which is why the Pope wears what's essentially a yarmulka on his head today.

You may have made a typo, or a Freudian slip, because you said "between the false and centuries-old falsehoods". Maybe you meant to say "the truth" but the book has made you think about how relative ALL religions are. I personally believe all religions are false, so we'll let them argue and thrash it out among themselves, recognizing that one religious faction only gets the upper hand, not through "truth," but through how much of a bully-boy it is willing to be...The underdog, the "losing" opinion, will still struggle on in just the sort of hidden, conspiratorial form described in the DVC.

It's hardly a cosmic struggle of good and evil to realize that religions don't spring 100% into being as separate things. Religions evolve slowly with transitional forms -- though don't say that in Kansas!69.194.120.28 18:03, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

It's a god job wikipedia is not a discussion board, eh? Mushin^talk 19:33, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Facebook

The Da Vinci Code is currently the number one listed favorite book on student profiles on Facebook.

I don't think Facebook is a very relevant source of information. This also strikes me as too time sensitive. So, I moved it here. DAF 17:17, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels

The project has undertaken the task of improving this article, which is currently in a very poor state, to FA or near-FA quality. We shall be utilising the guidelines formulated through consensus at the project to give this article a complete overhaul. Discussions geared specifically to this major overhaul should be directed to the temporary special sub page /project_talk. Editors who are not members of the project are also welcome to help. Loom91 07:32, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Protection and tagging

Hi. I just wanted to clarify that, despite the tag that was on it, this article was never semi-protected. Anons and new users are able to edit the article normally. If anyone believes that the article should be protected, please post a request with evidence (diffs, brief explanation of the situation) at WP:RfPP. Thanks, Redux 02:35, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I have protected this page due to spamming from IP addresses. Please notice that: 1) Protection is not endorsement of the current version; 2) This is a temporary measure, and the page will not stay protected forever. This action has been automatically logged and registered by me here. If you have any objection to the temporary protection of this article, however, please elaborate your point on this talk page. I would also like to encourage the parties involved in the issue that led to this protection to work out their differences on this page. Please remember to be civil, polite and thorough in your comments. Remember: the sooner the issue is resolved, the sooner the protection can be lifted. Thank you. Redux 16:25, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I think the lastest protection has now been on for five days. Isn't that long enough? Could we try unprotecting to see whether this gets spammed (or whatever) again? The protection tag just looks so ugly and itself disrupts the article. --A bit iffy 20:57, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

re webquest help links removed

I can't believe how you people run this place. What the heck is wrong with you? There were 5 different linked sites that provided help on the Da Vinci Code webquests - 2 were for the original webquest and those links had been here on Wikipedia for several years without issue and were the most well-used resources for the webquests on the internet, and then 3 more links were recently added for help with the NEW Google webquests that just started this month. NOTE that these new Google webquests are not related to the older original webquests at all, and do NOT superced them in any manner. ONE person comes along who has created a new site that provides help ONLY for the NEW Google webquests (and no help whatsoever with the older original webquests), and this prat deletes ALL the links and information to ALL the webquest help sites both old and new, and replaces them with his own link, and when several site owners try to put their information back up, this clown repeatedly deletes it ..and then you mods back him up??? WTF is up with that??? PLEASE EXPLAIN YOUR ACTIONS??? Your page now provides absolutely no links to help with the original webquests, and only one link for help with the new webquest, which is all thanks to this one selfish prat from googlefact.blogspot.com. Oh wait, there's one more link too, and that's to his mirror site at davinciquest.blogspot.com. How can you justify your actions? The owner of googlefact.blogspot.com also posted on the site of one of the links he removed (student-rant.blogspot.com), to laugh at everyone and thank us all for the traffic and the ad-impression revenue it is generating for him. AND THIS IS WHAT YOU PEOPLE SEEM TO CONDONE???? If you could give some reason for your actions then perhaps all of us site owners who were deleted could understand, but we do not see that there is any justification for what you have done, nor has anyone offered any. The ONLY message we're getting here is that it pays to manipulate Wikipedia for personal gain and delete everyone else's links but your own. WE HUMBLY REQUEST YOU RECTIFY THIS MATTER AND THEN LOCK THE PAGE TO STOP THE PERSON WHO STARTED ALL THIS FROM DOING IT AGAIN - which happens to be the one link you have left on the page. At a bare minimum, restore the help links to the original webquests so people looking for help with them can actually get some. I still can't believe how unjustly you mods have administered this matter so far.

---

I am the webmaster of the website http://student-rant.blogspot.com. My blog was the first to start providing discussions of the latest webquests sponsored by Google. Infact as you can see with the links coming in to my site, various other blogs picked it up and referred to my site for further discussions. This stayed that way until day 3 or day 4 of the google webquests, the owner of googlefact contacts me asking me to link up. I did not acknowledge his request as I wanted my visitors to have fun solving the quests themselves. I frequently edit the comments section in my blog to remove any direct references to answers to the webquests. I did not even observe that the link to my blog was removed until one day i received a whole bunch of emails from my visitors telling me that my link has been removed along with everyone else's and the only reference is that of googlefact. I have no complaints against how googlefact runs his blog, but I believe that the general public must be given access to sites providing different points of view. So, I request the wikipedia webmaster(s)/police to do a fair trial and restore the original links and punish the offending party. Thanks! Student

---

I have to say, http://student-rant.blogspot.com was the first and best for the latest webquest, for me. I've checked the current links and there are now three... However it looks as though it IS possible to get your link back on that page. You now have to contact the wiki admins as they have temporarily disabled editing. Actually it says " As a result of recent vandalism, or to stop banned editors from editing, editing of this page by new or unregistered users is temporarily disabled. Changes can be discussed on the talk page, or you can request unprotection."Good luck Student and others! Laurel Papworth 04:07, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

---

I am the webmaster of the website that hosts the Da Vinci Code webquest solutions and discussion for the original webquests dated 2003 that are unrelated to the newer Google-sponsored webquests. My blog has featured on this Wikipedia page for a couple of years now without issue, and has been one of the primary sites on the internet for solutions and discussion on the original two Da Vinci Code webquests (which are not related to nor superceded by the new Google webquests). You can see links and comments on my site dating back to 2003, and as with Student-rant above, a lot of sites refer to my site for further discussions and clarification, and I will usually come up in the top few results for related Google searches. The information about the original webquests and the help links to my site and one other site had been on Wikipedia for a couple of years, as I mentioned, and there had been no issue until recently when this Google webquest started, and apparently the owner of googlefact.blogspot.com took it upon himself to remove all the other links and information and replace it with his own. Student-rant had previously added his info and it was clearly defined as separate from the original webquests and thus had its own subheading (Google sponsored webquests or something like that) and was placed in such a way to avoid any confusion between the old and new webquests. Much like Student-rant, I was tipped off by a visitor to my site that my link had been removed along with everyone else's and the only reference was that of googlefact. Furthermore, Googlfact does not deal with the older original webquests whatsoever, so why that entire section was removed is without justification. I have no complaints against how Googlefact runs his blog, but I also believe that the general public must be given access to sites providing different points of view, and the way it stands at present is that there ARE no links for the older original webquests at all now, and only one to the Google quests (Googlefact's link). I was involved in trying to unsuccessfully revert Googlefacts changes, and I apologise that things got so out of hand. However I request the wikipedia webmaster(s)/police do a fair trial and restore the original links and punish the initial offending party, Googlefact. Thanks! demonsurfer.

---

Hi I am representing GoogleFact in this matter. Nobody from the GoogleFact blog deleted links. Check the revision history. I replaced the student-rant link with my link only after my link was repeatedly deleted from below the student-rant link. Apparently the people at student-rant felt like they were the only site who was allowed to have a solutions blog. I went to wikipedia authorities/admins immediately after the wikiwar began with student-rant to try and resolve the issue and allow all solution sites to be listed at the bottom of the page under external links. After discussion and request of those changes my blog was re-added to The Da Vinci page. The people at student-rant still could not agree to this and continued spam linking their site after which they were banned from revisions. Additionaly, the owners of student rant are allow the owners and publishers of http://assfucked.blogspot.com/ If you are looking for that sort of quality content to be linked from Wikipedia then I suggest readding their link immediately Rodgerbales 00:29, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

---

Hi Student here from [3] Student Rant again. I have no idea who was deleting links of Googlefact. I believe in live and let live and being able to give the Da Vinci Code webquest fans different approaches. I request the wiki admins to restore the original settings with everyone in there and let the people visiting the Da Vinci Code wiki page make their choice.

---

Finally the links for the original webquests are back, as well as ALL the links for the new Google webquests - and in the order they were originally added. PLEASE do not start deleting or changing things around again.

What happened to Vittoria?

I'm wondering what happened to the female from the first Langdon book. Can anyone tell me? Rockhound 17:31, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

• She was absent from the second book. Only Dan Brown could tell you more than that, and how authoritative his personal unpublished views on the matter will be is open to debate. Loom91 07:52, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
• Not quite absent- she was mentioned in Chapter 3, but all that is mentioned is that the promises they made each other had been unfulfilled. No mention of why.
• There are many small references to how their relationship fell apart in the first chapters.

Solutions addition

I have a suggested site for solutions to the new Google sponsored contest: <http://daresler.net/info/da-vinci-code/> Thanks!

---

added :)

Christian response section

I was looking at the Christian response section. Recently in the news I heard that the Catholic Church was urging people to actually boycott the film. I noticed that this piece of information is missing. Should it not be added as part of their response?Giovanni33 05:37, 1 May 2006 (UTC) Ok, I found a news article about the issue and added in the information about their plans to protest and boycott, which I find pretty funny. :) Giovanni33 05:50, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

It is treated at The Da Vinci Code (film) - since the boycott is mainly aimed at the movie, that probably suffices. Kuru ^talk 23:16, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

The Seventh-day Adventist Church in the South Pacific has just recently produced a book that is a Christian response to the novel that does not actually involve slamming the novel or the movie. They've simply used the opportunity to affirm the positives of Jesus. The free ebook is available for download at The Da Vinci Decode. 211.26.160.44 01:48, 15 May 2006 (UTC)