Talk:Criticism of The Da Vinci Code

Neutrality and Sources

I believe this article needs serious revision, as it is certainly not written from a NPOV. I'm new to Wikipedia, but I also question the use of the book by Olsen and Miesel, as the entire book is written from an "I'm right and you are wrong" standpoint, lacking any real evidence to support or discredit any claim made by either party. Neither Olsen nor Miesel are considered experts in theology OR history, and it seems as if their viewpoint is given undue weight. I'd rather spark up a discussion than begin any editing, to avoid making any stupid mistakes. I'm still learning! Acronin3 (talk) 18:02, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

In all fairness...

Should there also be a page "Accuracies in The Da Vinci Code" in all fairness? Darrellx (talk) 04:23, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Can we get rid of this page?

How do we nominate pages for removal? This entry is ridiculous. And full of ridicule. We could nitpick every single book ever written, why pick on this in an encyclopedia? Some people ... Truce m3 17:45, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

The book has sold over 60.5 million copies, was published in numerous languages, was made into a successful film in wide release, and has become a cultural phenomenon not just on the internet, but in society at large. It fuels tourism in the areas mentioned in the book and has inspired numerous imitations, including people claiming to be descended from Royal Bloodlines in real life. There are dozens of documentaries about it. A few countries had the film version add "disclaimers" before and/or after the movie saying it was merely speculative fiction. There were some protests, and at least one "book burning" in India (iirc).

Since one of the most "controversial" aspects of it are related to its claims of historical accuracy (made by the author in public interviews, plus arguably in the novel itself with the opening "FACT" page), it makes sense to present the information that has come out since 2003 relating to those claims of accuracy. Scholars and experts in relevant fields have commented on it, so it bears mentioning (and cannot be considered "original research"). If Dr. Bart Ehrman can write a book about it, release a revised edition (and make it into an audio book), then surely wikipedia can cover it! Polls show that there are at least a few million people who think the theories in the novel are accurate or extremely likely (the bloodline theory and the conspiracy to suppress it).

Oh and the allegations of anti-Catholic bias is also noteworthy, even if the controversy is "dying down" (but we still list other works that had an impact via a public "controversy"). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.59.228.228 (talk) 18:07, July 31, 2007 (UTC)

For this particular book, the accuracy of the facts presented has been a very big issue. The book itself claims to be largely based in fact, and many people reading it take that at face value. I agree that a lot in this article is indeed nitpicky and probably should not be here, but I also think that much of the material is of interest for discussing a book that purports to set the record straight about supposed actions by real historical people and organizations. Mlouns 18:36, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I have read the book, seen the film, and have read various books which (similar to this article) refute or seriously question Brown's assertions and apparent historical claims. While Brown sometimes claims historical accuracy and sometimes claims "it's just fiction", The Da Vinci Code book (and film's) large impact on the culture (including believers in its assertions) means that the book and its truth claims should be scrutinized. To delete a scholarly analysis (and/or debate) over this book thus would be to subject Wikipedia to the claims that it is partisan in its search for knowledge. 71.155.241.40 (talk) 14:45, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Anything dealing with the contents of the book, the movie, Plantard, the Priory of Siam, their respective Wiki articles, even (or specially) this article (including this very talk page) and just about all research on them should be taken with not only just a grain of salt, nor a pinch, not even a spoon full, but a whole ladle of the stuff. "The Da Vinci Code" deals with a monumental conspiracy theory, and one which directly attacks religious beliefs; even (or rather, specially) if true, anything supporting these claims MUST be debunked, disproved, besmirched and relegated to the realm of sick fantasy least the standing dogmas crumble.

Otherwise, if it really is only a work of fiction, many of those whose faith was offended will still do the utmost to protect their beliefs (remember the criticism on Saramago·s "The Gospel According To Jesus Christ" or the fatwa on Rushdie).

Dan Brown committed far too many factual errors and mistakes for them not having been intentional, the most obvious of them being that the Opus Dei isn·t a monastic order, but a papal personal prelate - even though its male numeraries mostly do live monastically and practice mortification, while the female ones are just about reduced to domestic servants to the monks... er, male numeraries! This appears to be (IMO, POV, OR, etc.) an obvious, if effective, "if he can·t get even that right, his research is obviously completely flawed and can be safely disregarded" self-defence tactic.

As for me, to prevent hate mail (or a contract on MY head), I·ll just call myself "anonymous". Call me a coward, or whatever, but I (also?) had more than my fair share of religious fundamentalists...  :( 190.38.203.28 (talk) 00:25, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree, why should the DaVinci code have this page, while no other book has? DELETE —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.232.69.135 (talk) 21:01, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Reasons for keeping this page

I agree that for just about any book written, there could be an article "Criticisms of..." but I think that, in view of the television programmes and books devoted to this very subject, we can make a special case for allowing this particular article. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 20:44, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Most of this is not criticism per se, but inaccuracies in the underlying background material presented in the book. I'd suggest moving it to Factuality of The Da Vinci Code or something similar, and moving the literary criticisms back to the main article, where they'd be balanced with literary praise from equally reliable sources. Fishal (talk) 17:34, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Literary Criticism

Hi, the references for Stephen Fry and Stephen King are non existent. Can someone find those or should that section be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.211.104.126 (talk) 00:18, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. It seems Stephen King's address had disappeared from his website; fixed it from web.archive.org. As for Stephen Fry, there is an existing reference. (He seems to have said even before in QI, but TV is harder to cite.) Shreevatsa (talk) 00:38, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

It was QI C 12: Combustion

However, as much as I like Fry, his ~I think the book is shit.~ is not literary criticism or a cogent argument, no matter how eloquent his circumlocution.

Why was this article moved?

It seems this article was moved from Criticisms of The Da Vinci Code to Inaccuracies in The Da Vinci Code without much discussion. I think this was a bad move. There is content in the article that fits with the previous title but not with the current one. "Criticism" is a general word that can denote both positive and negative reactions, but "Inaccuracies" limits the scope to negative ones, and to factual issues at that. Shreevatsa (talk) 21:44, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Looks like simple vandalism. We'll get it moved back. -R. fiend (talk) 22:52, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

"Criticism" articles are often breeding grounds of POV material, by virtue of the "negative" definition of the word being prevalent in society. Seeing as the majority of this article is about inaccuracies, it's a better title. The stuff about plaigiarism can be imported back to the parent article. Sceptre ^(talk) 23:04, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

An article about "inaccuracies" in a work of fiction just sounds silly. -R. fiend (talk) 04:32, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

So, what should this article be called? Shreevatsa (talk) 02:59, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Above, I suggested naming it Factuality of The Da Vinci Code and moving the literary criticism to the main Da Vinci Code article. Fishal (talk) 23:30, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Why not call it Controversy involving The Da Vinci Code? --96.247.80.232 (talk) 04:42, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

The only important issues are about the history of religion and art. Whether or not you can turn left at a junction in Paris is really trivial. Lots of novels contain errors of fact, but we don't have entire articles about them. It's only the wild statements made about christian history and hidden meanings in paintings that are important. So I'd suggerst it should be called Historical criticism of the Da Vinci Code. Paul B (talk) 10:17, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Why not put it up for a vote? --96.240.61.34 (talk) 20:34, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree that 'Inaccuracies in The Da Vinci Code' is a terrible title, for the reasons given above (most importantly: it's a work of fiction. Of course it's inaccurate!). It should probably be moved back to Criticisms of The Da Vinci Code; there are several other possibilities, like Disputes over The Da Vinci Code, Da Vinci Code controversies, etc., all of which would be better than the current title. Robofish (talk) 01:55, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Not sure if I should mention it here or start a new thread, but, in retitling this article "inaccuracies", it renders the section on copyright dispute off-topic. I'm actually alright with this; I think that the section should be kept in the main article on the novel. -Verdatum (talk) 16:07, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Written like essay

This whole article is written like a school report or opinion article for a paper, complete with opening quotes to set moods for separate pieces, as in the 'Historical Disputes opening line.

Also the entire section about "education" doesn't even point out any _actual_ innacuracy. The entire section is about something that Dan Brown implied. This is seen thru

"...probably in an attempt to indicate his elite education...."

Hattable (talk) 07:46, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

The African Connection in the Grail

Specyller (talk) 10:54, 11 April 2009 (UTC)The Old World Cultural Area and the Sahara Population bear testimony that Africa cannot be ignored in the Grail mystery anymore. And for one very simple fact,the people(culture and genetic pools) that went south could be traced to Kenya, Siaya District and especially in Alego based on references in THE SM OTIENO CASE; Kenya's Unique burial saga of 1986 pgs 181 & 182, Paul Bohanan's African Outline under the topic farming and iron.

Grail pundits allege that the Grail was of the houses of David and Magdalene (according to Holy Blood, Holy Grail). In Siaya is a certain Magdalene, daugter of K'Ogelo and aunt of Barrack Obama who married Otin Opwapo. A local nobleman and prominent diviner of his time. It is this Otin who received Oginga Odinga's present to the brides' kins people in the marriage that culminated into Raila Odinga. But it is Ndege, a descendant of Gor Mahia's (Luos most prominent diviner) niece who sired the lady that eventually married a certain son of David (called Jared) who is descended from a line of obscure kings and settled with a few of his kin after offering his (David's) only sister as currency for peace, in Gem.

The eldest grandson of David and Magdalene is one Edwin. The only circumcised fellow in the village, used to have an entire hive as his pillow and has 2 fishponds. This Edwin has amalgamated Islam and Judaism and Christianity the way Ormus is purported to have done. He has established the link between Isis and Virgin Mary and is the founder of Afro-esoteric cryptography whicch basically is the study of esoteric similarities in language between Negroes and Europeans with reference to the Old World Cultural Area. Extremely introverted and hermetic. The only other fellow with a comprehensive dossier on him is [email removed]. Too, the fellow has deciphered the meaning of the bee in occidental esoterica & subjected 13 to enoptromacy with surprising results. Currently he lives in N'giya Alego Siaya alone in David's home stead, writing poems that he uses to stoke his fire with. 13 manuscripts have been unlucky so far. HE IS THE KEY. Specyller (talk) 10:54, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't get what that any of your post has to do with this article which is Criticism of the Da Vinci Code, as in the book?? This isn't a page for Holy Grail Conspiracy Theories. While it might be an interesting theory, it has NOTHING to do with the actual criticism of the book by Dan Brown. Also, because it nearly gave me a migraine trying to read it, I felt obligated to corrected your spelling, your spacing, your punctuation, your (lack of) capitalization, and your formatting. TIP: You have to put spaces between sentences, and you have to format the text that you place within the box, if that was indeed your goal. I think it was an accident, that possibly you used indents out of habit. However, if you were trying to use the box, in order to do so, you must format the text within the box by pressing enter at the end of each visible and readable line (the natural way the line ends within your visual perception), and then you have to indent the next line, each and every subsequent line thereafter, until you are finished with the boxed text. Otherwise it messes up the page formatting, and you end up without a word wrap, so to speak. I simply removed the box formatting to preserve the page format. --Chÿna ChÿnaDragön (talk • contribs) 23:39, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

"I felt obligated to corrected your spelling"

Nice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.207.189.3 (talk) 22:47, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Re: Literary Criticism

Re:Rv, other sections are not directly relevant to the inaccuracies, but it is still a useful adjunct to the subject matter regarding the general criticism of the book. - which would be fine if this was 'Criticisms of The Da Vinci Code', but it isn't. 'Criticisms of The Da Vinci Code' is a completely different article, which talks about the literary criticisms within it. Including it in the 'Inaccuracies...' page is just an attempt to increase the physical size of the article to give the impression that there is more inaccuracies within it than there actually are. This is true of the 'other sections' you speak of; which also should be removed and placed in the 'Criticisms...' page. Having this information on this specific page undermines the encyclopaedic nature of wikipedia and undermines the purity of this article. This article demands all subjective literary and religeous criticism of the book to be removed - for example the 'Christian response' and 'Allegations of plagarism' sections - so as to leave just the inaccuracies (or, as an alternative, this article should be renamed 'Criticism regarding Claims made by The Da Vinci Code' or similar). 90.202.60.106 (talk) 04:09, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, this article was called Criticisms of the Da Vinci Code, and someone renamed it because the title might attract NPOV edits. There wasn't any consensus about this, see discussions above on this same talk page. For now, I agree with you and I have moved the "Literary criticism" section to the main article. Regards, Shreevatsa (talk) 04:24, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't see whats wrong with that title. I'd be all for restoring the literary criticism section, and changing the title back. --Pstanton (talk) 05:25, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it's suitable to have a general criticism page with the vast majority of content being about factual inaccuracies.Back2back2back (talk) 21:51, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

This book is FICTION - a NOVEL (it says so on the front cover!) The truth of the matter is that anyone can write a book based upon a rumor of a historical fact, and call it historical fiction, and they can put in a bunch of false statements, and you know what? It can still be called historical fiction! If this page exists because the author claims something is factual, then fine, I understand the criticism, and an argument can be made that this page should exist. But to have a general criticism by anyone and everyone is not encyclopedic, and totally destroys the value of Wikipedia's encyclopedic content. Criticisms, in essence, are point of views (POV), someone's personal opinion, which is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia. POV isn't allowed because that it cannot be verified by outside sources. "Encyclopedic content must be verifiable (<-- written right below this box I'm typing in right now.) So I agree that general criticisms or what so-called critics are saying should not even be in this article. --Chÿna ChÿnaDragön (talk • contribs) 15:09, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

On the contrary, POV is not only allowed, it's essential. Articles are supposed to balance relevant POVs of authories on the topic. There have been many published criticisms of the DVC. Paul B (talk) 15:24, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Then they should have citations, if they are published. But several of the references that are stated are not reputable sources! There has to be a line drawn regarding authoritative opinions and a free-for-all, which is what this page is turning into.

Non-Abrahamic mythology and religion

I pretty much have a problem with every paragraph in this section, and I think it should either be completely clarified that these so-called inaccuracies are debated, or completely removed.

First problem: The article states, "The book claims that the Egyptian gods Amun and Isis represent a divine couple. In Egyptian (and later, Greco-Roman) mythology, Isis was never the spouse of Amun, but of Osiris (god of the underworld). Amun's spouse was Mut." Later, the article goes on to say, "(For that matter, some Egyptians at times identified Mut with Isis. Egyptians combined deities often.)" So basically this sentence is declaring its previous objections moot and irrelevant, because if they are factual, then it cannot be called an inaccuracy! Yes, Amun was given a spouse in mythology, Mut, but as the deities' names and attributes changed and/or merged with other deities, the spousal link can be supported between (a form of) Amun and (a form of) Isis.

Second problem: There is evidence to link Isis and Amun as spouses, albeit in a round-about way. If Dan Brown made this connection in his book, especially because the book is fiction, he should be granted free creative license to run with it! The Ogdoad of Hermopolis was a changing myth which began with eight deities. Then there became a cult having Hathor and her son, Ra (and later, Horus as the son of Isis, who was also identified with Hathor); later changing to a cult where Hathor and Thoth were the main deities over a much larger number of deities; and even later, Ra was assimilated into Amun-Ra; in the final version of the creation myth a lotus, a symbol held by Hathor, was said to have arisen from the waters after an explosive interaction, the lotus was said to have opened and revealed Ra, who later became identified as Horus.

In a complicated relationship Hathor is at times the mother, daughter and wife of Ra and, like Isis, is at times described as the mother of Horus. When Horus became identified as Ra in the changing Egyptian pantheon, under the name Ra-Horakhty, Hathor's position became unclear, since in later myths she had been the wife of Ra, but in earlier myths she was the mother of Horus. When considered the wife of Thoth, Hathor often was depicted as a woman nursing her child. Isis is the goddess of motherhood and fertility. After her assimilation of many of the roles of Hathor, Isis's headdress is replaced with that of Hathor: the horns of a cow on her head, with the solar disk between them. Usually, however, she was depicted with her young child, Horus (the pharaoh), with a crown, and a vulture. In many of these depictions, Isis is shown nursing Horus.

Attempts to solve the Hathor/Isis/Ra/Horus relationship gave Ra-Horakhty a new wife, so Hathor became identified only as the mother of the new sun god. However, this left open the unsolved question of how Hathor could be his mother, since this would imply that Ra-Horakhty was a child of Hathor, rather than a creator. Such inconsistencies developed as the Egyptian pantheon changed over the thousands of years becoming very complex, and some were never resolved. Some ancient Egyptians regarded Thoth as The One, self-begotten, and self-produced. In areas where the cult of Thoth became strong, Thoth was identified as the creator, and therefore that Thoth was the father of Ra-Horakhty, thus in this version Hathor, as the mother of Ra-Horakhty, was referred to as Thoth's wife. Elsewhere, Thoth was considered the heart and tongue of Ra as well as the means by which Ra's will was translated into speech.

So Amun became synonymous with Ra, and in many circles Thoth was the creator with the same attributes of Amun-Ra. Isis merged with Hathor, and while Osirus is thought to be the father of Horus, ultimately it is unclear who was mother, father, wife, and child of whom. The bottom line is that it is not historically inaccurate to have made the connection that Amun in any of his many forms (such as either Ra or Thoth) was the spouse of Isis, in her form of Hathor. And if Thoth was Amun-Ra, and Hathor, who was spouse to Thoth, was indeed Isis, and both were said to have been mother to Horus, then it is not too much of a stretch to say Amun and Isis were spouses.

Third problem: The article states, "Dan Brown also misleadingly claims that Amun was the god of masculine fertility, which was in fact Min. Nevertheless, in a late phase of Amun worship, he was merged with Min as Amun-Min." Again, contradicting itself, although more subtly than the previous time. When Egypt conquered Kush, they identified the chief deity of the Kushites as Amun. This Kush deity was depicted as a woolly ram with curved horns, so Amun became associated with the ram. Rams were considered a symbol of virility due to their rutting behavior, so Amun also became thought of as a fertility deity, and so started to absorb the identity of Min, becoming Amun-Min.

Fourth problem: The article states, "Brown spells the name "Amon" (a common variant from the normative "Amun") to make the claim that the name forms part of an anagram of "Mona Lisa", however it also raises the question whether Brown intended to refer to the Hellenized version of the cult, in which the name is normally spelled "Ammon"." This part should be removed, as it is simply speculation, and not a factual inaccuracy; therefore, both non-encyclopedic as POV and irrelevant to the overall theme of the article, which is inaccuracies.

--Chÿna ChÿnaDragön (talk • contribs) 20:49, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Poor Word Choice, "The Sacred Feminine"

> The Catholic and Orthodox Churches particularly venerate the Virgin Mary

I move to change this on account of it sounds too much like "penetrate" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.13.36.152 (talk) 04:55, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

This is a new low; I'm speechless. [...pause, deep breath...] "Venerate" is a perfectly fine and common word, and it sounds nothing like "penetrate". Even if it did it would be perfectly fine, because words are what they are and not what they sound like. Shreevatsa (talk) 06:52, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Section on Opus Dei needs to clarify that Opus Dei are not a sect

The section on Opus Dei should really open with a central inaccuracy - Opus Dei do not regard themselves as a "sect" of the Roman Catholic Church. This information can be found in "Opus Dei Responds to the Da Vinci Code" in Burnstein, D. (ed.). (2004). Secrets of the Code. London: Orion. pp297-302

Wow

This page needs to either be completely rewritten, or deleted altogether until someone can restart it from scratch. I don't think any single section would pass either weasel words, or npov...

Alleged marriage to Jesus

"Alleged"? Why do we need that word in the title of a section? The article is why or why not it would be innacurate, it should be "marriage to jesus", and then article says why not or such. Writing "Marriage to Jesus" is not saying it's true, we wouldn't have "Alleged faked moon landing" or etc...

Many parts where the same fact can be used to prove for the book, are used only from the point where it disproves it, such as:

In the novel, the Gospel of Philip refers to Mary Magdalene as Jesus' "companion", and says Aramaic scholars know that this means "wife." However, James M. Robinson, an authority on the gnostic gospels, has pointed out that "companion" was not necessarily a sex-related term. Also, "the Gospel of Philip is in Coptic, translated from Greek, so there is no word in the text for Aramaic scholars to consider. The Gospel of Philip depicts Mary as Jesus's koinonos, a Greek term indicating a 'close friend', 'companion' or, potentially, a lover. However, in context of Gnostic beliefs, Gnostic writings use Mary to illustrate a disciple's spiritual relationship with Jesus, making any physical relationship irrelevant

You can easily see a section that says how this part is saying Mary was Jesus's close companion, lover or 'close friend'. Yet this section is used to say something like, "She's a close friend/lover, not his wife, so the marriage thing is fake". Completely glossing over the fact that the book is also saying she was his lover/close friend. This article needs to be retitled (it too is biased), and have part where it also proves _for_ the information in the book.

I can't even continue... I think if you delete all the weasel words and fallacies in this article it would lose half it's length. I'll do just one:

Virtually all art historians dispute that Leonardo's famous The Last Supper depicts Mary Magdalene beside Jesus.[19] The figure to the left of Christ, also wearing blue and red, is usually identified as John the Apostle, who is identified to be the disciple whom Jesus loved seated next to Jesus and who was customarily depicted in the Renaissance period as a beardless, often "effeminate" youth with very long hair.[20] The "femininity" of the figure can be attributed to Leonardo's artistic training in a workshop of the Florentine School, which had a long tradition of often depicting young males as sweet, pretty, rather "effeminate" persons.[21] Some speculators, before and after Brown, have entertained the idea that John was depicted in this way to hint that he was Mary Magdalene, but this is decidedly a minority view.[22][23] However, in rough sketches of the painting, the person next to Jesus is actually labeled as John.[24]

Even so, the book points out the absence of the traditional chalice (the "Holy Grail") on the table in the painting as proof that Leonardo considered Mary Magdalene the "real" Grail. However, there is no established "tradition" of depicting a chalice in scenes of the Last Supper. Some paintings do depict a chalice, others cups or wine-glasses. Leonardo depicts unadorned glasses filled with red wine. It could be argued that Leonardo eschewed traditional iconography for contemporary realism.

Another explanation concerns the biblical scene Leonardo intended to depict. Scholars have suggested that the text the artist had in mind was John 13:21, where Jesus announces that one of his disciples will betray him. The scene depicted therefore shows the disciples reactions to Jesus' words and the figure of John can be seen leaning over to confer with Peter, seated further to his right.[7] Furthermore, in the Gospel of John, Jesus does not institute the Eucharist (identifying bread and wine with his own body and blood) at the last supper and may have led the artist to think that the inclusion of a chalice was not necessary as it was not spoken of in his chosen passage of scripture.[7]

It has been claimed that the painting does appear to contain a conventional chalice — on a shelf above the head of the leftmost Apostle.[25] This detail was made visible due to the restoration of the painting. However most art historians consider this to depict decorative panelling on a door, as in close up it is seen to extend downwards as a vertically symmetrical pattern.

Like I said in the beginning, this article is so contested to disprove anything in the book, that it's at the point where it's just like like frothing babblings of people who were offended by it. I don't agree with many things in the movie or book, ok most things. But I just watched it, came here, and was surprised by what wiki had let pass just because some people were mad. Well guess what, just like there's a separation of church and state in the U.S., so there is a separation of Church and Policy in Wiki. So why are people letting this go on when any smaller mistake in a lesser article wouldn't? People need to step back, and look at what this article has become. A mess of fallacies, npov statements, weasel words and counter-arguments 24.91.72.168 (talk) 04:12, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Dead See Scrolls

The assertions that the Dead Sea Scrolls, discovered in 1947, contain lost or hidden Gospels is also false. The scrolls contain books of the Hebrew Scriptures, apocryphal and pseudepigraphic books, and manuals used by the Jewish Essene community at Qumran. All of the scrolls were written before the time of Christ; no Christian documents—orthodox, Gnostic, or otherwise—have ever been found at this site.

According to the Dead Sea scrolls article, "These manuscripts generally date between 150 BCE to 70 CE", or before the Jewish Revolt, which was a few decades after usual dating of death of Jessus. Taw (talk) 22:29, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

This page should be deleted

This page dhould be deleted in it's entirity! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.184.234.255 (talk) 07:22, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Dhould it? Vhy? Str1977 ^(talk) 16:15, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was no consensus.  Skomorokh  07:54, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

---

Inaccuracies in The Da Vinci Code → Criticisms of The Da Vinci Code — This was the original name. While other names have been suggested, consensus is that the current name is inappropriate. It was changed by one editor unilaterally at the beginning of this year with no prior discussion. It would have been changed back long ago had this been a simple act, but it seems that a longstanding name can be changed with no discussion or consultation, but changing it back, in contrast, is a chore. Consensus at the AfD debate was clear. Paul B (talk) 19:09, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.

• Support More neutral name. TJ Spyke 21:26, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose While I don't oppose the existence of a criticism page, I feel that the bulk of the content of this article is wholly separate. Not all inaccuracies are criticisms. Separating out inaccuracies seems like a good way to organize the content. I expand on this below, since I expect it will generate discussion (I do however, chastise the initial move. I'm not a fan of contentious pagemoves without discussion.) -Verdatum (talk) 22:07, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

Many aspects of this article indeed detail inaccuracies, and not criticisms. One can point out that the novel asserted something to be true when in reality, such is not the case. But pointing out such an inaccuracy does not necessarily reflect a criticism of the work. It could instead be considered a reasonable use of artistic license. I think because there are so many inaccuracies that have (mostly) been previously mentioned by independent sources, the article with its current title serves as a good organizational partition of the information. So I would propose editing this article to only reflect inaccuracies, and move other aspects, such as general criticisms and copyright battles either back to The Da Vinci Code. Alternatively, if there is enough content to warrant it, WP:SPLIT Critical response to The Da Vinci Code (or some similar title) off of the parent article.

Also, before it is repeated, I read the argument above that because the novel is a work of fiction, the issues raised in this article aren't technically inaccuracies. I counter this with the argument that from the writing style, and from the author's statements, it is clear that the novel is intended as a work of realistic fiction; that the only fictional aspect is the characters and storyline, not the background. -Verdatum (talk) 22:07, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

A list of inaccuracies probably would not survive AfD, since it would be a petty and pointless accumulation of data about whether or not one can take a left turn at a junction in Paris etc. See the debate. The AfD debate made it clear that the article should be an account of notable criticism, which includes debatable points, not just outright errors. There is, for example, reasonable debate about whether or not early Christians considered Jesus to be divine. It's not a simple case of "fact" or "error". If we split the article as you suggest the "Criticisms" one would probably survive and this one be deleted - rather defeating the object from your point of view. Likewise, Brown's statements about Mary Magdelene are not simply erroneous. She has been popularly depicted as a prostitute, and prior to that as a promiscuous woman. It's rather that his account distorts the facts and omits complexities. It's not in any simple sense 'inaccurate'. Paul B (talk) 09:15, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

To clarify, when I used the term "criticisms", I was referring to literary criticisms; evaluations of the quality of the work as a novel; plot, characters, originality, writing style, etc. A critic could freely say "The novel was historical BS, and details about the present where completely incongruous with the real world. Still, I thoroughly enjoyed the novel, with every page, I couldn't wait to find out what happened next." just as well as he could say, "I found every factual claim in the novel to be completely dead-on accurate. Regardless, I hated the book; boring plot, detestable characters, and it felt as though it was written by a first grader." Any arguments about the accuracy of historical claims made in the novel would still be inaccuracies, just not necessarily proven ones. Inaccurate doesn't have to mean false, just "less than accurate".

Given this clarification, I don't see evidence from the AfD that a page specific to inaccuracies would fail AfD. There are television specials and published works that specifically discuss inaccuracies of the work in detail, meaning that it satisfies the WP:GNG. Even without that, WP:SPINOUT articles aren't held to the same standard for inclusion, they are separated largely for reasons of page size. They generally result in merges, not deletes. -Verdatum (talk) 17:33, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Biblical dispute

Since "The Da Vinci Code" attempts to make certain theories from various scripture, it is also possible to likewise dispute it. The following is such a scriptural dispute.

"The wife is bound by the law as long as her husband liveth; but if her husband be dead, she is at liberty to be married to whom she will; only in the Lord." --1 Corinthians 7:39

The point being even if we did entertain the thought that Jesus was married (to Mary Magdelene or whomever), that when he died at the cross, that earthly marriage would have been dissolved. His resurrection does not undo the marriage being dissolved by the death. This would have the tendency to nullify any so-called "royal bloodline" the movie spoke about. This statement is further proved by Jesus statement to the Sadducees that following death and resurrection, earthly marriages are no more.

"For when they shall rise from the dead, they neither marry, nor are given in marriage; but are as the angels which are in heaven." --Mark 12:25 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mywiklogin2010 (talk • contribs) 17:26, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Unsourced material, POV and OR

This article was filled with unsourced OR and POV material, as well as material that cited sources for some facts, but which made no mention of criticism of the book. I removed this.

This article should focus on criticism that has actually been directed at the book, as supported by reliable sources, and not as analyzed the editor or editors who added this material. For one thing, it doesn't matter if one has a map source that shows that a flight from New York to Paris would not travel over Portugal. The map site may establish that, but that doesn't constitute criticism from someone who was actually referencing the book. It constitutes nothing more than the editor pointing out a bit of trivia that has nothing to do with publicized criticism of the film, which focused on the aspects of history and religion touched upon in the book, and not things like engineering, where everything is in Paris, how cars and planes work, etc. Take this one passage for example:

The main character leaves the driving to the female protagonist in one scene, being unable to drive stick-shift. However, later on, he drives in a high-speed chase on a frozen Swiss highway. The vehicle he drives is a massive cargo truck. It may also be that the cargo truck had an automatic gear shift system.

Not only was this unsourced, but had nothing to do with the criticisms that were leveled at the book and film, and even ends in pure speculation by the editor who wrote this. Sorry, but this sort of material not permitted in Wikipedia. We do not include editors' own opinions and analyses.

Another problem is how the falsity of certain passages in the book is stated matter-of-factly, with wording like "this is false". This is not appropriate. When relating material of a controversial or disputed nature, it must be worded in a manner that emphasizes its attributive nature. For example: "According to Bishop Whathisname, writing in the October 4, 2002 issue of Bishop Weekly, this is false." Wikipedia is supposed to report such assertions, not repeat them as its own position. I didn't look through all the passages that have sources to see if they support this information in relation to the book, but someone should, and if they don't, it must be removed. This article is not a clearinghouse for any and every bit of trivial anomaly unrelated to the narrowly-defined areas that Brown's asserts in the beginning of the novel are based on fact, or on which there has been controversy or criticism. Nightscream (talk) 11:04, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

The title of this article is Inaccuracies in The Da Vinci Code, not criticism of The Da Vinci Code. Therefor it's not necessary to have sources that criticize the book, but sources that verify the facts. Unsourced information is a problem but I disagree with your removal of information that was sourced. --87.10.167.6 (talk) 14:43, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Wrong. Material must be presented in the manner that the sources do, and in relation to the article's topic. If the sources that establish these facts are not doing so in relation to the book, then a context is being created by the editor, which is not permitted. Doing this violates WP:SYNTH and WP:NPOV. In articles on controversial or disputed topics, Wikipedia must present the points of view established by sources, and not make matter-of-fact assertions of its own. If a given source does not present a point of view, such as the assertion that a given passage in the novel is "false", then who is the one saying it is false? The answer is that it is the editor adding that information, which then gives the appearance that Wikipedia is. This is not permitted. A source providing information on a New York to Paris flight, and nothing else, would be perfectly appropriate for an article on such a flight. It would not, however, be appropriate for an article on criticism centering on that fact, since that source did not provide any "criticism". Please read WP:NPOV and WP:SYNTH. Nightscream (talk) 19:50, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

In that case this whole article should be removed, as it's against the Wikipedia "rules". --79.56.32.164 (talk) 09:45, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

No. The rest of the material is indeed supported by proper sources that reference the book. Nightscream (talk) 20:15, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Reiterating what I said above back in February of last year, if a given source does not specifically mention given facts in order to contrast the content of The Da Vinci Code, then it does not belong in the article. Quite a bit of material that was in the article was followed by citation of sources that clearly did not do this. These instances fell into one of the following examples:

• The source makes no mention of Dan Brown or the novel. An example of this would be the website that illustrates how Mary Magdalene is revered in France, which was cited in the final paragraph of that section.
• The source was clearly written before the novel was published, and therefore, could not have included material about it. One example was the Philip Hughes book cited in the section about the Portrayal of Gnostic Christianity. (I left that passage in, however, because it also cited Carl Olson and Sandra Meisel's book, which is entirely about the novel's inaccuracies.)
• The source was a dead link, such as the cite for what the Anglican Church responded to the film in the Christian response section, or was to an article that is restricted to readers for other reasons, such as the Detroit News citation in the same section.
• The source turned out to be personal websites not run by credentialed authors, such as the art gallery cited in the Mary in Leonardo's The Last Supper section.
• The source was a book that doesn't even have a listing on Amazon, such as Karl Hammer's The Secret of the Sacred Panel.
• Some passages lacked any citation at all, and clearly appeared to be the personal speculation of the editor (such as the passage about Leonardo eschewing traditional iconography for contemporary realism), which is not permitted.
• The source was one that included criticism of the novel, but did not include certain details mentioned in the passage. One example is the passage that explained that the change from Mary Magdalene's sin from adultery into prostitution arose from Mary's role as patron saint of repentant sinful women.

I tried to find sources for some of this material, and managed to find a few that I added to the article in order to avoid having to delete some of it. I also added the full publication info for a lot of the valid citations, which were lacking it. I want to include as many of these criticisms as possible, as I'm sure most of them have been made, but we need to source them to publications that have actually made them. Using a source that merely establishes a given fact, when the author of that source did not state that fact in order to criticize the novel (like when one editor used an online flight calculator to show that Robert Langdon's trip to Europe in the space plane in Angels & Demons was too fast), means that the person observing the inaccuracy is the editor. Using published material in this manner is called synthesis, which is a form of original research, and is not permitted. Please see these policies to familiarize yourself with them if you're not already.

I recall that plenty of books critical of the novel/film were published around the time the novel and movie were made. If you want to add material from those books, then you have to do the leg work by reading and citing them. Shortcuts like the ones listed above are simply not permitted by the site's rules. Nightscream (talk) 23:42, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Criticisms of socialism which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. Marcus Qwertyus 21:37, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Poorly constructed prose and citations

I came to the topic looking for the background information on Lisa del Giacondo. I found the material almost unreadable, and cleaned it up a bit from original source material. Steve (talk) 00:53, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

this novel and movie is a fiction

where is a need for this article? do we really need article explaining meaning of fiction? 72.185.61.209 (talk) 13:40, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

You might have taken the trouble to read as far as the first section - entitled "fact or fiction". Paul B (talk) 15:03, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Topics merit articles if they pass the site's Notability test. Please refer to that policy. Nightscream (talk) 01:08, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Refer to it yourself, but please do not instruct me to do so. Paul B (talk) 17:11, 1 July 2012 (UTC)