Talk:Criticism of The Da Vinci Code

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)

In the style of Prof. Bock, who's indicated on the literature here, as he is quoted on the German Wikipedia (expanding what he said it to three theses): "Three theses can be defended. 1. Women were upheaved by what Christ taught and did (though possibly not as much as some now like to imagine). 2. There is a Church tradition about St. Mary Magdalene having been the sinneress that wept at Christ's feet (by common understanding a prostitute) and was forgiven her sins and praised for her repentance. 3. By what we know very certainly, this woman may also have been someone else. The rest is bogus."--131.159.0.47 (talk) 16:04, 4 February 2016 (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)

This article is widely based on the work of Carl E. Olsen and Sandra Miesel. Their book, "The DaVinci Hoax", was released by the catholic publisher Ignatius, whose purpose is to "support the teachings of the church". Not to claim that other Wikipedia articles are not biased, but this one is pretty obvious. This article is simply ridiculously attempting to deny Brown's theories on the grounds of poorly cited sources, and the evidence used to back up the contra claims to Brown's novel are non-existing. Remove this article. Wikipedia is not worthy of it.76.104.128.42 (talk) 08:06, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Except that what you say is total nonsense. There are numerous sources and not a single footnote to the book you mention. Paul B (talk) 08:48, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Paul -- I'd suggest reading through the sources. The vast majority of our current sources do indeed reference this book. I believe it has been noted, however, that at least one of the authors of the book is considered an expert (and not just by religious organizations). If the vast majority of sources do in fact cite this one book, I'm not sure we should consider this topic noteworthy. On the other hand -- I would recommend finding more varied sources if you feel it should be kept. This will strengthen the debate enough in one direction for there to be a consensus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Acronin3 (talk • contribs) 14:13, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

What do you mean by "reading through the sdources"? I can't see a singler footnotre to the book you meantion. It is only listed as one among many books on the topic in the list of references, but it is not even footnoted once. There is an overwhelmingly varied range of sources used for the article. Some are not especially good, for sure, but the claim that it is somehow based on one source appears to be outright false. Please provide some evidence for this rather than just assertion. Paul B (talk) 15:32, 7 November 2012 (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

Rewrite needed

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 Sea 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)

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)

I will suggest to editors who appear to be unacquainted with such policies to look over those policies as I see fit. You have zero authority to tell me otherwise, much while hypocritically claiming the right to tell me to refer to it myself. I didn't know you were a veteran editor, but if I knew you were going to respond with such a hysterical little hissy fit, I might've reworded my message. Either way, the tone of your response was uncalled for, and hardly in keeping with WP:CIV. Peace. Nightscream (talk) 01:16, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

A rather late reply: if you think the expression "please do do not instruct me to do so" is a "hysterical ltttle hissy fit", you may need to take some pills yourself for your tendency to over excitement. Paul B (talk) 12:20, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

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)

Welcome to Wikipedia, Acronin! Just so you know, new discussions go at the bottom of the talk page, not the top.

Thanks for trying to raise this issue in the careful manner that you did. The book in question was published by a notable Christian book publisher, Ignatius Press, and the authors' credentials appear to be acceptable. According to the book's page on Amazon.com, Olson is an editor/journalist who attended Evangelical Bible College and who holds an Master of Theological Studies degree. He has written for numerous religious publications, and his book, Will Catholic Be "Left Behind"? was selected by the Associated Press as one of the best religious titles of 2003. Sandra Miesel holds a master's degrees in medieval history from the University of Illinois and has written for the Catholic press and is a columnist for the diocesan paper of Norwich, Connecticut.

Nonetheless, are there any passages in particular that you could quote for discussion? Nightscream (talk) 01:16, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll remember that! Not being very informed on biblical material, I only had one quote that I felt should be discussed -- and upon closer reading, it wasn't attributed to Olson/Miesel, but another very reputable source. Apologies! I'll have to remember to re-check prior to posting, especially when tired! Acronin3 (talk) 12:12, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

S'okay. If you ever need help or have questions, feel free to drop me a line at the bottom of my talk page. Happy Editing! Nightscream (talk) 13:27, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Scientific disputes: GPS underground

Has anyone seen a reference to the improbability of GPS working underground? Similarly that GPS works underground but mobile phones do not? jmcw (talk) 11:55, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

HBHG

Calling this book "non-fiction" is simply silly, since it tells us nothing, and indeed implies that it is factually accurate. The book is overwhelmingly characterised as pseudohistorical and its claims have been repeatedly debunked. Paul B (talk) 11:58, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Edit summaries falsely assert that a citation is needed in the lede for one word, but apparently not for another. This is despite the fact that the pseudohistorical nature of the book is widely discussed in the text. See WP:LEDE. I have already stated why I think the first characterisation is more appropriate. In fact the extent to which the book is "history" or "fiction" was a feature of the court case (since it is impossible to plagiarise historical fact, the claim of plagiarism depended in part on the assertion that the authors created the story). Paul B (talk) 14:40, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

I have repeatedly askerd Nightscream to show the basic decency of discussing this on the talk page, as was requested by the editor who made the original edit. Nightscream has simply ignored the clearly explained reasoning behind my original edit. His/her current edit summary is the astounding "You do not need a citation to describe a book as non-fiction, since works such as books, TV episodes, films, etc., are their own primary sources for their content, per WP:BOOKPLOT. This article isn't about HBHG." The second sentence is irrelevant, since it would apply equally to any one-word description of the book. The first is absurd. The policy refers to descriptions of the content of books. The clue's in the name: WP:Bookplot. "Non-fiction" is a cataloguing/bookselling category. In this case it is being used to characterise the book for a particular purpose. That purpose is not entirely illegitimate in the context here (i.e. to point out to the reader that it's not another novel), so I'm willing to accept that my first message in this section was rather OTT. But it brings out other problems which I have clearly explained in my previous message written four hours ago. Paul B (talk) 19:34, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

It's not relevant to this article whether that book is "non-fiction" (misleading) or "pseudohistorical" (true, but requires references); only whether this book copied from that book. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:40, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

You do know that it it's been referred to as "pseudohistorical" in the lede this article for at least four years? It is not necessary to have references in the lede, especially as the pseudohistorical nature of the book is discussed in the main text, per WP:LEDE. However, if an editor believes references are required, they are to be found in abundance in the article on the book. There is no excuse for an editor to delete something that can easily be referenced, if the same editor can easily add references, having been informed where they are. There is certainly no excuse for repeadly misrepresenting what guidelines actually say. And it is relevant that it is not a claim of plagiarism from another work of fiction. One of the oddities here was the claim that supposed historical facts could be "plagiarised" Paul B (talk) 20:30, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, "pseudohistorical" wasn't sourced in the body or in the lead. I could accept it in the lead if it were sourced in the body. But it's not relevant in regard the copyright infringement claims, except in that the claim that HBHG is "non-fiction" damages the copyright infringement claim.

It's relevant in the HBHG section of the article, but still doesn't really belong in the lead unless that section were summarized in the lead. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:55, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Of course all sections, should be summarised in the lede, which is, as it stands, rather truncated, but this article is rather list-like and so it's difficult to know what the lede should summarise. The plagiarism section is distinctive, however, so I think it should have a role to play in the lede. I repeat the point that immediate deletion is not a legitimate response to absence of citation in longstanding text, especially where citation is very easy to access. If the relevant section is not properly cited then concerned editors should address the problem in the section itself, not the lede. Paul B (talk) 21:00, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks to everyone for the WP:CIVIL discussion and especially for Arthur Rubin (talk) last edit that has eliminated completely "pseudo-historical" and/or "non-fiction": actually they are both WP:WEASEL words.   M aurice   Carbonaro  06:54, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

I cannot see how they are weasel words. 'Non-fiction' is a publishing category and 'pseudohistorical' is a scholarly judgement about the content. "Weasel" in WP-speak usually means evasive. Paul B (talk) 12:32, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

I would call "evasive" whoever pontificates on whatever book without even reading it. I read it twice if not even three times. Then I saw the "The Da Vinci Code" movie and then I also bought the original screenplay of that movie (and, obviously, read that too). After spending countless hours trying to understand where truth was bordering with myth I must admit I found the whole "experience" quite challenging. Writing "simply silly", instead, looks to me very close to wp:personal attacks. This is not challenging at all: it's offensive.   M aurice   Carbonaro  10:38, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Calling this book "non-fiction" is simply silly, since it tells us nothing, and indeed implies that it is factually accurate.
No it does not. It indicates that it is not a fabricated narrative, which is what fiction is. That the conclusions or ideas in the books are wrong, is not what the word "fiction" means.

For the purposes of this discussion's context, books fall into one of two categories: Fiction and non-fiction. The passages to readers that Brown was accused of copyright infringement for his use of ideas from another book. It is crucial, therefore, to clarify to the reader that that other book in question was not a book of fiction, but a non-fiction book--that is, one whose authors present ideas that they argue as true. This is important, because usually when authors of fiction are accused of copyright infringement, they're accused of copying material from other works of fiction. That Brown was accused of this with regard to a book that was not written as a fictional narrative is not only rather unusual, but goes to the fact that Brown was cleared of those charges. Whether the material in HBHG is bunk is completely irrelevant to this, and is a tangential point, since this article isn't about HBHG, nor its ideas.

It is not necessary to have references in the lede, especially as the pseudohistorical nature of the book is discussed in the main text, per WP:LEDE.
Actually, the section of WP:LEDE pertains to citations, WP:CITELEAD, specifically says:

The lead must conform to verifiability and other policies. The verifiability policy advises that material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, and quotations, should be supported by an inline citation. Because the lead will usually repeat information that is in the body, editors should balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead with the desire to aid readers in locating sources for challengeable material. Leads are usually written at a greater level of generality than the body, and information in the lead section of non-controversial subjects is less likely to be challenged and less likely to require a source; there is not, however, an exception to citation requirements specific to leads. The necessity for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus. Complex, current, or controversial subjects may require many citations; others, few or none. The presence of citations in the introduction is neither required in every article nor prohibited in any article.

So it says nothing about citations in the article body precluding citations in the Lead.

However, if an editor believes references are required, they are to be found in abundance in the article on the book. There is no excuse for an editor to delete something that can easily be referenced, if the same editor can easily add references, having been informed where they are.
The obligation for sourcing falls on the editor who favors inclusion. Not the editor upholding WP:V who comes across uncited material. For each editor who favors a given piece of information to take responsibility for adding accompanying citations is logical, fair and egalitarian. Treating those editors who uphold WP:V as your personal nursemaids by acting as if they have to do this themselves is not.

The second sentence is irrelevant, since it would apply equally to any one-word description of the book.
It would apply to any non-controversial one-word description of the book. Because of the analysis of the books as pseudohistory is a contentious, or controversial judgment, it would need attribution to a secondary source, if included.

The first is absurd. The policy refers to descriptions of the content of books.
Whether a book is fiction or non-fiction is indeed predicated on its content. What do you think determines this? The book's thickness? The color of its cover? :-)

The clue's in the name: WP:Bookplot.
WP:Bookplot is not a name. It's a shortcut. Shortcuts are designed to make it easier for editors to find pages on which policies, guidelines, or elements of style are located.

I would know. I'm the editor who created it.

I did so in order to bring that guideline in line with similar guidelines (WP:TVPLOT, WP:FILMPLOT, etc.). Since there is no WikiProject for books in general, I added it to the Writing About Fiction MOS page. However, the relevant point is what the guideline says about citations: That the mere content of a work doesn't need a cite of a secondary source, but analytical or evaluative claims about them do. Whether a book falls into a non-fiction or fiction category is a content issue, which is why it doesn't need a secondary cite. But that a work is considered pseudohistorical is indeed an evaluative claim, and therefore it most certainly does.

actually they are both WP:WEASEL words.

"Weasel" in WP-speak usually means evasive.

That's not what how a weasel word is defined. A weasel word is a word that states one thing, but subtly implies something different, opposite, or stronger in the way they are made. Neither of the words is a weasel word, both are straightforward, and imply nothing (though Paul seems to infer that "non-fiction" implies "valid scholarship", which isn't the case). I think the reader needs to have it clarifies that HBHG is not fictional narrative, but presented as ideas of its authors that they believe to be true. Perhaps we can amend this by simply describing the book briefly? I've added details and citations. Let me know what you think. Nightscream (talk) 21:38, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

It would be pointless to reply point by point to this obsessive text. It would have been decent of you to have followed WP:BRD, as I did. And yes, I dis get angry, because you utterly ignored ettiquette and misrepresented policy in you edit summaries. Whether you originated WP:BOOKPLOT or not is irrelevant. I said the "clue's" in the name, but of course I read what it says, and nowhere does it say that the cataloguing designation should be accepted as fact. It only discusses the content of works of fiction. I am not the only one who said that "non-fiction" is potentially problematic in this particular context. Arthur agreed with that point, but of couse in my last edit I used both words, quite properly. Of course "pseudohistorical is an evaluative claim, you don't need to tell us what nobody disputes or has ever disputed. The problem was the act of eliminating text that is lingstanding and easily cited. I happen to feel very strongly about this. Deleting as uuncited what any one with basic competence can find a citation for is, in my view, profoundly disruptive because it is a wholly destructive rather than constructive act.

On weasel words " A weasel word is a word that states one thing, but subtly implies something different, opposite, or stronger in the way they are made." Yes, indeed that's a form of evasiveness. But since you seem to agree that neither word is weasely, your need to contradict me seems to arise from...a need to contadict me. Paul B (talk) 17:27, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Whether I originated BOOKPLOT is indeed relevant, because you were arguing that its name (which I came up with) supported your argument. It does not. What you see as a "clue" was just you interpreting it to mean what you wanted it to mean, and then arrogantly ignoring the intent of the person who came up with that name in the first place.

Implying something different, opposite, or stronger is not what an "evasion" is. Nightscream (talk) 15:23, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

July 2013 edits

I have recently copyedited the article ([4] [5]) a number of problems, but User:Arthur Rubin, who recently has been engaging in content blanking on the Zeitgeist: The Movie article, falsely citing WP:BLP for his deletions, has apparently followed me to this article, and appears to be arbitrarily reverting my edits here too, regardless of the fact that I made a number of improvements, such as sourcing unsourced passages, providing valid links where there previously were none, etc. Here are the corrections that I made which he reverted:

My first edit

• In the Fact or Fiction section, in the passage "These claims in the book and by the author, combined with the presentation of religious opinions that some Christians regard as offensive" someone placed a "who" citation tag on the phrase "some Christians". Since there is a section further down in the article that gives examples of prominent Christians who have been offended with the book, I added them to the prior passage using ref name, which is perfectly appropriate.
• In the Christian response section, the criticism that it is "full of calumnies, offenses, and historical and theological errors" was sourced to a link that leads to a New York Times Search Results page showing "Articles about Dan Brown". The next citation that is placed directly after that one leads to the main page of the Archdiocese of Newark's website, and not to any article on this book. This is inappropriate. A page of search results or the main page of a website, cannot be a valid citation if it does not directly support the material in question. If some other page on the website in question does so, then the url of that specific page is what should be cited. I tried searching through the Archdiocese website for the article in question, using the article title indicated in the Wikipedia article, but could not find it, though was able to locate the right New York Times article using Google, so I replaced the New York Times url, and removed the Michigan Catholic (Archdiocese of Detroit) link. By reverting this, Arthur Rubin placed two dead links back into the article, which in one case, replaced the valid link which which I had replaced it. This strongly suggests that he did not read my edits very carefully, and is simply being tendentious. (In the course of reverting him, I searched again for the Michigan Catholic article, and after I found it, I restored that citation back into the article, though it's not an online version, since that requires a Google link that WP's spam filter won't let through.

My second edit

• Prior to my edits, there were three citations that when seen in the Notes section, appeared merely as question marks, as the editor or editors who added them did not include the publication information for those citations. Two of them, Citation 11 and Citation 37, cite passages from the book itself. I added the full information to them. Other citations include only vague portions of publication info, like "Docetism", or "Full ruling" or "Catholic Encyclopedia article". I added the full citation info to all of these. Arthur Rubin reverted this.
• Two citations, 35 and 36, led to pages on the websites of the European Southern Observatory's and the Grand Masonry Lodge of British Columbia and Yukon. However, these citations are placed at the end of the passage that states "Brown characterized the cycle of Venus as "trac[ing] a perfect pentagram across the ecliptic sky every four years". If citations are needed for passages in the book, why are pages from the book not cited to support them, like elsewhere in the article? Neither of these two pages even mention Brown or the book, and therefore are irrelevant to the passage. Arthur Rubin reverted this, restoring two citations that do not support the material.
• In the Portrayal of Gnostic Christianity section, a passage states some varieties of Gnosticism went so far as to hold that the God of the Jews is only a demiurge who has trapped humanity in a fleshly prison; and that Christ is an emanation of the true God, sent to free humanity from that bondage to the flesh. (See Marcionism, Aeon, Archon)." There is no citation for this, so I added a fact tag. Arthur Rubin removed this.

• In the Allegations of plagiarism section, the passage "He has presented himself as being a deep and thorough researcher...evidence in this case demonstrates that as regards DVC [The Da Vinci Code] that is simply not correct with respect to historical lectures" and that "the reality of his research is that it is superficial." There were four citations for this passage, two of which were accurately marked as dead links. I tried finding replacement sources for this, but could not find any, so I removed the two dead links. However, this is not a huge loss, because one of the two viable links left at the end of the passage, a BBC News story, does support most of the passage. It supports it up until the word "lectures". It is only the subsequent remark about Brown's research being superficial that I could not find a source for, so I simply removed that portion of the passage, leaving the salient meaning and content of the passage intact. Arthur Rubin reverted this, restoring the two dead link and the unsupported portion. (UPDATE: I tried again, and found a source for the passage, and restored it.)

To be fair, I erroneously removed the MSNBC/Newsweek citation from the the Mary in Leonardo's The Last Supper passage that states "Virtually all art historians dispute that Leonardo's famous The Last Supper depicts Mary Magdalene beside Jesus." This is because when I investigated the url, I did so by copying the first url in the citation while in the Edit Field, which is dead, when I should've copied the archive url, which is the one displayed in the saved article, which is viable. I restored this, and copyedited both the citation info and the passage it supports to more accurately reflect its content.

Arhtur Rubin claims in his edit summary that my edits "introduce unnecessary redlinks, and seem to be misinterpreting sources.". First of all, there only red link that was in the article following my initial edits was for the term homoios. I did not add that red link, and have now just removed it, since its relevance to the passage in which it was included appears, at best, to be unclear. However, I did not introduce that red link, so I have no idea what Arthur Rubin is talking about.

As for his statement about "misinterpreting sources", I engaged in no interpretation of sources at all, let alone misinterpretation, nor has he elaborated at all on this. If he observed some misinterpretation, then he could've corrected it, or discussed it here, instead of doing what is essentially a wholesale, blind revert of all of my edits, including the constructive ones that he didn't bother to read. Nightscream (talk) 16:49, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Assuming good faith, I assume that Nightscream's edits are substantively correct. The last two reverts, I only fixed clearly incorrect or malformed citation templates. More of the templates are clearly wrong, but may still have adequate information to determine what should be there, so I didn't remove the clearly incorrect entries.

Finally, someone should rationalize the template style; for example, some references have "authors" as Last Name, First Name, and some as First Name Last Name. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:26, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Problems with page/sections off topic/poor citations

Hello All,

After reading the book, I came to this article (as I'm sure many do) to find what claims were historically accurate. Instead of that information - I found a lot of this page to be biased, poorly sourced or irrelevant. As I have rarely come across this issues before, I felt that I should address it. I think that a serious error in this article, is that the same 2 authors are used repeatedly to support claims (and are cited oddly too). There must be serious historical works that contradict some of Brown's claims!

Starting at the beginning:

"Charges of copyright infringement were also leveled by the novelist Lewis Perdue and by the authors of the 1982 book The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail, which puts forward the hypothesis that the historical Jesus married Mary Magdalene, and that their children or their descendants emigrated to what is now southern France, and married into families that became the Merovingian dynasty, whose claim to the throne of France is championed today by the Priory of Sion.[2] Brown was cleared of these charges in a 2006 trial." While a controversy, this is not an inaccuracy.

For example, a front-page article in The Independent on May 10, 2006 stated that Ruth Kelly, a senior British Government Minister, was questioned about her affiliations: "Ms Kelly's early days as Education Secretary were dogged with questions about her religion, and her membership of the conservative Opus Dei organization which features in the best-selling novel The Da Vinci Code."

Again, while this may be a controversy it is not an inaccuracy - nor is it a controversy stemming from an inaccuracy.

Criticism has been leveled at the book regarding what have been characterized as antiquated Protestant slanders against Catholicism, such as on the BBC's Sunday program on July 24, 2005.

This may be criticism stemming from inaccuracy - but shouldn't that argument be laid out? Also, there is no citation here.

The novel asserts that Mary Magdalene was of the Tribe of Benjamin, but historians dispute this claim, and there is no mention of this in the Bible or in other ancient sources. According to Sandra Miesel and Carl E. Olson, writing in their 2004 book, The Da Vinci Hoax, the fact that Magdala was located in northern Israel, whereas the tribe of Benjamin resided in the south, weighs against it.

I don't believe that this is proper citation of sources (at least, I never see it this way.)Also, The Da Vinci Hoax is cited repeatedly. It is a book with a pronounced agenda. Is it possible to find unbiased sources for this?

While the character Robert Langdon claims in the book that early Israelites worshipped the goddess Shekinah as Yahweh's equal, this is contradictory to Jewish ideology. Judaism is and was a monotheistic religion, and belief in a goddess counterpart to God is both illogical and expressly forbidden This has no citation - and, Brown is referring to an ancient form of Judaism, nothing modern. I do not know if his claims are true, but they can't be argued against by a simply "that's illogical."

Carl Olson and Sandra Miesel state that contrary to the book's claims, the Gnostic Gospels (e.g. the Gospels of Thomas, Philip, Mary Magdalene, and the Judas) also do not focus more on Jesus' humanity. The other Gospels we are aware of, for the most part, treat Jesus as more otherworldly and lack the humanizing detail of the Biblical accounts.[14] The assertion of "more than eighty gospels" written, with only the familiar four chosen as canonical, greatly exaggerates the number of Gnostic Gospels written This was expressed earlier, it does not need to be reiterated.

Silas, the murderous "Opus Dei monk", uses a cilice and flagellates himself. Some members of Opus Dei do practice voluntary mortification of the flesh, as has been a Christian tradition since at least St. Anthony in the 3rd century and has also been practised by Mother Teresa, Padre Pio, and slain archbishop Óscar Romero. Saint Thomas More and Catherine of Aragon, Queen of England both wore hairshirts in the Tudor era I do not see an inaccuracy here, it does not seem to contradict anything in the book.

The entire section of "Allegations of plagiarism" does not belong here, as it is not an inaccuracy. Also, I can understand how "christian response" could be included, if it focused on response to inaccuracies - but instead it focuses on response to the book.

Sorry if I did anything wrong! I just think that the arguments should be fleshed out and written better. Anzibanonzi (talk) 05:30, 7 December 2013 (UTC)Anzibanonzi 12/6/2013

Blacklisted Links Found on Criticism of The Da Vinci Code

Cyberbot II has detected links on Criticism of The Da Vinci Code which have been added to the blacklist, either globally or locally. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed or are highly inappropriate for Wikipedia. The addition will be logged at one of these locations: local or global If you believe the specific link should be exempt from the blacklist, you may request that it is white-listed. Alternatively, you may request that the link is removed from or altered on the blacklist locally or globally. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. Please do not remove the tag until the issue is resolved. You may set the invisible parameter to "true" whilst requests to white-list are being processed. Should you require any help with this process, please ask at the help desk.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

• http://www.bible-history.com/tabernacle/TAB4The_Shekinah_Glory.htm

  Triggered by \bbible\-history\.com\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:20, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on Criticism of The Da Vinci Code

Cyberbot II has detected links on Criticism of The Da Vinci Code which have been added to the blacklist, either globally or locally. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed or are highly inappropriate for Wikipedia. The addition will be logged at one of these locations: local or global If you believe the specific link should be exempt from the blacklist, you may request that it is white-listed. Alternatively, you may request that the link is removed from or altered on the blacklist locally or globally. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. Please do not remove the tag until the issue is resolved. You may set the invisible parameter to "true" whilst requests to white-list are being processed. Should you require any help with this process, please ask at the help desk.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

• http://www.bible-history.com/tabernacle/TAB4The_Shekinah_Glory.htm

  Triggered by \bbible\-history\.com\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:44, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Cyberbot II has detected links on Criticism of The Da Vinci Code which have been added to the blacklist, either globally or locally. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed or are highly inappropriate for Wikipedia. The addition will be logged at one of these locations: local or global If you believe the specific link should be exempt from the blacklist, you may request that it is white-listed. Alternatively, you may request that the link is removed from or altered on the blacklist locally or globally. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. Please do not remove the tag until the issue is resolved. You may set the invisible parameter to "true" whilst requests to white-list are being processed. Should you require any help with this process, please ask at the help desk.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

• http://www.bible-history.com/tabernacle/TAB4The_Shekinah_Glory.htm

  Triggered by \bbible\-history\.com\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:28, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Criticism of The Da Vinci Code. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090519030939/http://www.jesusanddavinci.com:80/popculture/movie_factcheck.html to http://www.jesusanddavinci.com/popculture/movie_factcheck.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:04, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

The Death of the Author

Leonardo died half millennium ago. Yet his intention and people’s attention thereto or interpretation thereof have lived since then. No doubt he drew The Last Supper full of super-surprises and super-agonies.

So surprisingly, however, the one between Peter and Jesus, allegedly John the Beloved, looking like a woman, remains as calm as Jesus himself, as if already informed of the betrayal.

It is all possible indeed that John happened to look like a woman, that Jesus loved John most anyway, and that Jesus happened to inform John of the betrayal in advance.

Nevertheless, regardless of whatever Leonardo’s real intention, there should be no interfering with our interpreting or simply understanding such that the one between Peter and Jesus should be a woman, judging from the womanly joining of womanly hands, at least!

In this perspective, to focus on Dan Brown’s total claim appearing to upset the truthfulness of the Bible may be to water down and at last upset our non-negotiable understanding, such as mentioned above. --KYPark (talk) 07:35, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Criticism of The Da Vinci Code. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070928001540/http://www.booksattransworld.co.uk/danbrown/interview.htm to http://www.booksattransworld.co.uk/danbrown/interview.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:00, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Criticism of The Da Vinci Code. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110606111345/http://www.catholic.org/national/national_story.php?id=19112 to http://www.catholic.org/national/national_story.php?id=19112
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110902013932/http://www.catholic.com/library/cracking_da_vinci_code.asp to http://www.catholic.com/library/cracking_da_vinci_code.asp
• Added archive https://archive.is/20120721194404/http://www.americancatholic.org/Newsletters/CU/ac0506.asp to http://www.americancatholic.org/Newsletters/CU/ac0506.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:56, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Early Judaism

I am not a Wikipedia editor, but I'd like to question the following paragraph:

Early Judaism did not deny the existence of other gods. "For I will pass through the land of Egypt that night, and I will strike all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, both man and beast; and on all the gods of Egypt I will execute judgments: I am the Lord."

The paragraph does not cite any source (excluding that of the verse). While I am not a Bible scholar, as a religious Jew, I know that the claim is not in line with the traditional reading of the original Hebrew text and that there are alternative, logical explanations of the verse that fit it with many others that indicate the opposite. While the argument is reasonable, it would seem to me that it is too controversial to conclude from a lone verse without citation. Did I misunderstand the context of the paragraph? שמואל גולדברג (talk) 18:39, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

This is true and the page seems to miss the point.

Judaism as we know it was a monotheistic religion - but the ancient Israelites and upto the First Temple period, the religion was polytheistic and monolatrist. Only by the end of the Babylonian exile, it moved from a monolatrist religion to a monotheistic one. When talking about the ancient Israelite religion - it doesn't make sense IMO to use the monotheism of Second Temple and future Judaism as the reference. Chargingtriceratops (talk) 10:58, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Sorry for misspelling Judaism. שמואל גולדברג (talk) 18:40, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Proposed section on literary criticism

I came here hoping to find a presentation of criticism of Brown's writing style in the book since the article on the book has only a snippet on it. Can't a section on literary criticism be added (especially given that the title is "Criticism of The Da Vinci Code"?2600:6C67:1C00:5F7E:C1E0:1BD6:49FE:7451 (talk) 03:01, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Absolutely. Why not add one? Nightscream (talk) 05:01, 11 September 2022 (UTC)