Talk:The Da Vinci Code

This article is a former featured article candidate. Please view its sub-page to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.

Archives
August 2004 – August 2005 August 2005 – April 2006

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)

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 thats taking up room --Steven 03:44, 17 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)

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. Thankyou 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.

• original Da Vinci Code WebQuest
• second Da Vinci Code WebQuest aka 'Uncover The Code'

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

• Da Vinci Code webquest solutions and discussion (warning, spoilers)
• another webquest solutions site (warning, spoilers)

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):

• How to approach the latest Da Vinci Code Google webquests (warning, spoilers)
• The Google Da Vinci Code Quest Solutions (warning, spoilers)
• The Google Da Vinci Code Quest Solutions (warning, spoilers)
• The Google Da Vinci Code Quest Solutions (warning, spoilers)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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!

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)

Spoiler Warning

I haven't read the book - and was only brave enough to slightly skim through the content on this page. I still feel a bit disappoint that I did that - I'd appreciate it if a spoiler warning notice be put up by somebody.

Spoilers!

The spoilers in this article need some warning! It is unfair for those who haven't read the book to not warn them that this article contains MAJOR plot spoilers! Please do something about this immediately. 203.109.166.228 07:50, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

there is already a spoiler warning on the page. dposse 19:26, 16 May 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

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!?

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)

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

Don't believe the Da Vinci code! It is crap! It is just some phony nonsense made up up a man jealous of Christianity!!

Interesting you feel that way. Thanks (not really) for sharing! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.114.145.238 (talk • contribs) 20:08, 19 May 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:

• Priory Babylon: Declaration by the Current Grand Master of the Priory of Sion A satirical response to the Priory of Sion claims behind the novel

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)

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)

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.