Talk:The Da Vinci Code

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Remove Criticism Section[edit]

The criticism section should be removed since a wiki page[1] all ready addresses the criticisms of the book. (talk) 06:56, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Many other pages have criticism sections. To remove this one would be improper. (talk) 19:18, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Concur with removal. De facto style is to break out praise and criticism to a saperate page to keep the main page from bogging down. (talk) 05:04, 16 December 2008 (UTC) pecifically was looking for the support and criticism for this book, and it was nice to see it on the page that discusses the book.

Redirect from "oh lame saint"[edit]

Since that article did not exist, I turned Oh lame saint into a redirect to The Da Vinci Code. I felt it would be uncontroversial. -- Thinboy00 talk/contribs @99, i.e. 01:22, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Book's premise in relation to the Vatican[edit]

This line in the top section bothers me:

According to the premise of the novel, the Vatican knows it is perpetuating a lie about Jesus' bloodline and the role of women in church, but continues to do so to keep itself in power.

My problem is with the word "knows". The book not only fails to state in any explicit way that the Vatican is aware of the "lie", but Langdon's character specifically says that they propagate their doctrine out of genuine belief, but nevertheless are intent on covering up the Sangreal documents in order that laypeople are less likely to question it.

Also, on a more pedantic note, it should really be "the role of women in the early church". Robin S (talk) 05:02, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

The book is FICTION. What FICTIONAL people know or don't know has no bearing on reality. DOR (HK) (talk) 00:52, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Author is not copyright holder of blade and chalice[edit]

These copyrights are owned by [2] and this artistic expression was copyrighted early 2002 in a file that is available at [3] (a word play for connect two pyramids) In this file it also clearly states to merge images together to create a star of David to show hidden pictures or codes. The real author of these copyrights is speculating that the Da Vinci code's author or his researcher(s) had mistaken him for priory of sion's Pierre (Plantard) as his name is also Pierre, while he applied for the one million dollars which was/is offered by the famous skeptic James Randi at while using this code as e.s.p, as the claim must also include a supernatural ability. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Neights (talkcontribs) 11:22, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

What kind of crack are you smoking, man? ( (talk) 21:58, 30 April 2008 (UTC))

Characters and their involvement in The Da Vinci Code[edit]

What's the deal with this section? Why is it a bunch of bulleted factoids? Laziest writing I've seen in some time. Much as I hate excessive plot synopses, it seems like that's what they're going for here, and it would be preferable. Anyone keen to fix it? -R. fiend (talk) 03:20, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Wow, it's been almost a years since you brought this up ans till no one has done it. I agree, there are two small paragraphs for the plot summary, and then about 25 "bullet points" underneath the Character section that walks through the plot of the book. These two sections need HUGE rewrites. (talk) 00:47, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Why only criticisms?[edit]

Was there no praise for the book? Shouldn't a reception section be added? -000 (talk) 16:55, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

If someone wants to read up on a book using an encyclopaedia, they're probably going to want to hear more about criticism than praise. Granted the book was a worldwide success but that is pretty much it in the praise department. —— Ryan (t)

(c) 17:36, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think there was any prase for it ...Nearly famous writer (talk) 07:37, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Be one of the best selling books in the hisotry says enough about it. The only criticisms came from Christians, not from book reviewers. Speaker1978 (talk) 21:17, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Actually the frenzied criticisms are from Trinitarians, not nontrinitarian Christians. (talk) 03:11, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
The book was highly criticized outside the Christian community for cardboard characters, bad grammar, and a nearly identical plot to Brown's three previous books. BoosterBronze (talk) 16:30, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
But none of those literary reviews are included. Only arguments against Brown's fictional plot are included. --RossF18 (talk) 15:07, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
your right more criticism find some more and add it. just add good sources, published reviews. (talk) 07:05, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
The reviews here: [[4]] from 2003 seem to be broadly positive, at least from a quick scan of the last couple of paragraphs they seem to consider it an entertaining thriller. It seems that later reviews are a lot more scathing. The cited reviews are from 2004 and there seems to have been something of a backlash by that time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:23, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Here: "Seldom have I read a book that keeps the reader turning the pages like this one. Although the technique for creating tension is obvious, many readers will notice that and continue reading just to see whether the author follows through with this technique! The technique for keeping a reader interested is usually prescribed in the first chapter of all handbooks on fiction writing: the author should hide away the facts and only reveal what is necessary. From beginning to ending, this story moves ahead at a steady speed, never disclosing more information than needed to lead the reader on. Also, the narrative never moves outside the parameters predicted by the title. Few books are like that. Further, the author keeps his contract with the reader by never allowing his main characters to know more than the reader. Lastly, the reader is constantly entertained by the highly intriguing world of Catholic secret societies, the common person’s sense of religion, new perspectives on the famous art of Leonardo and the arcane discipline of cryptography. One could say that the readers are never disappointed by the promise of these themes. There is constantly a sharing of juicy bits of information, that otherwise might have seemed trivial, but which now assume ominous significance." [[5]] —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:52, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

You omitted the first and most telling sentence of that review: "Had the author not claimed on page 15 to be “accurate” in his treatment of ancient documents, the book would have remained in the realm of fiction and would have been remembered and honoured as a state of the art thriller with something to say about religion." To the extent that this sentence is true it would explain a lot about the critics' reaction. There would appear to be honour among novelists and critics of a certain kind having to do with the relationship between what you write and what you say you wrote: apparently only the former may be fiction. --Vaughan Pratt (talk) 05:04, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

"The Revelation" (2001 film)[edit]

What really surprised me about the reception of this book is that a large number of seemingly respectable news outlets acted as if this were the first major public portrayal of the whole Mary Magdalene Holy Grail thing. But besides more obscure mentions, there was even a 2001 film with extremely similar ideas.[6] In the film "Revelation", what you might call an alchemical couple are presented who are tasked with delivering the true bloodline of Jesus, after following a long series of silly clues with a look and feel very reminiscent of Dan Brown's novel. It has Isaac Newton, it has a creepy organization in the Vatican and so on. (I wonder if this constellation is a genre by now, like primitive men hiding from dinosaurs in caves near a volcano) I'm not sure if this film is derived from one of the other books listed in the article - it doesn't seem to be mentioned right now. The way the media sources were acting, maybe there isn't a source for it! In art, music, literature, ethics - good is whatever the PR people say good is. Wnt (talk) 19:37, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

NPOV Literary Section.[edit]

Please note Literary criticism. Criticism doesn't mean what many people seem to think it means. It means a balanced analysis, not a gathering of quotes bashing the author. See Harry Potter's criticism section. It has both positive and negative comments. Furthemore, it is a bit odd to have such a long article about mistakes in a piece of literary fiction. Has anyone ever read the Dumas' Three Muskeeters. Dumas also took historical figures and basically made up his own story, yet we don't see such a long and antigonistic article about his books. Balance the article, especially the literary criticism section and tone down religious sections. Right now the tone of these sections is very much "How dare he write such lies!!" Instead the tone should be, "Let's look at the things Dan Brown took literary license with" with rederects to articles that talk about more accurate accounts of history and religion. Bashing is not proper in a Wikipedia article. That's for blogs. --RossF18 (talk) 18:13, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

you compare Dumas to Brown? Dumas wrote classics, Brown writes cheap formulaic fiction, which he claims is fact. How much of the book is Langdon explaining things? These pseudo facts are the foundation, the meat, the very soul of the book. if there is a positive review please include it, but perhaps there is a reason everyone focuses on the accuracy of the books. He starts the book with the words facts, and much of its value comes from these wild claims. That's what makes it interesting. (talk) 07:23, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
I think you misunderstood. I wasn't compairing Dumas's writing to that of Brown. My comment was compairing the premise of using historical facts and molding them sometimes beyond recognition. Dumas, I would put forth, did it successfully, but most of the literary criticism section seems to focus on Brown using facts for his own purposes and changing them beyond recognition as if he committed some sort of crime. This was always a fiction book and the "FACT" disclaimer in the front of the book wouldn't have held up to even elementary research so to bash him purely because he played free and loose with the facts makes no sense becuase it has frequently been done before. Literary criticism, in my opinion, is more akin to critique of Brown's writing style, his use of the language, his themes, etc. That's were literary critique comes in, not whether or not Brown had a "fact" disclaimer in front of his book. Like you said "Brown writes cheap formulaic fiction." So, find comments to that effect from other authors or figures in the literary world and add that to the criticism section, but whether or not he claims his cheap formulaic fiction as fact is irrelevant since authors have been doing that for a long time. Talking about the accuracy of a fiction book that uses the "FACT" disclaimer as part of the fiction is kind of funny. Of course he makes wild claims. It's fiction and his "FACT" claim is fiction as well. If a science fiction writer placed a "FACT" disclaimer in front of his book, there would not be this uproar even if that author presented things in a similar way to Brown. Here, just because Brown is dealing with real time, his "FACT" claim causes an uproar regardless of the fact that his books are not even historical fiction, but just fiction. If the readers, and it looks like a vast majority of them judging by your comments, read the "FACT" statement in front of Brown's book and thought, "wow, I'm about to read some history," then I don't know what to tell you but it reflects more on them than on Brown. --RossF18 (talk) 19:58, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
A book that in any respect claims to be FACT needs to be examined and criticised based on that claim. The claim of factual accuracy was intrinsic to the book's success, impact and controversy. A fiction book that said "Fact: The Holocaust was an Allied invention," and proceded to unveil a vast legitimate-seeming conspiracy based on that "fact", would be notorious for that aspect alone, and that aspect would be highlighted in any coverage of it and its impact. The distinction between fiction and fact is that each honestly proclaims itself to be what it is, and is judged on those standards. Da Vinci Code breaks this convention, confusing the two genres in what many believe to be a dishonest manner. This is a valid subject for comment. Xandar 23:55, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
Firstly, the criticisms of the book's historical accuracy are legitimate because, unlike The Three Mustakeeters, the book and its author makes claims of its historical accuracy. Furthermore, criticisms or commentary on the book's historical accuracy make up a large portion of the reviews and other media that have been published about the book. That being said, that particular subject should not take up the entire section, as it currently does. The section as written is definitely not neutral. Discussion of the controversies should surrounding the historical accuracy should be summarized and shortened, moving detail to the main article, if necessary. Literary criticism on other aspects of the book, including positive criticism, should be added.Nimrand (talk) 04:35, 25 January 2009 (UTC)


I agree.. this article is definately NOT neutral...the author(s) of this article did a wonderful job on it.. and probably not without an impressive degree of research... but the general tone , and the zeal with which all the in-acuracies were pointed out certainly leaves the reader feeling as though they have stumbled across yet more religeous ferver.. and blind opposition to the ideas and theories of the book as a work. (talk) 23:26, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

That's because there is nothing positive anyone notable has said about the book (AFAIK). Wikipedia articles aren't required to "balance out" anything, only to accurately, and without bias, summarise what has been published by notable sources. Shreevatsa (talk) 19:08, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Notable to who? What qualities must one have to be ascertained as "notable"? Is it social status? Fame? Money? I know several people who enjoyed the book / movie and had positive things to say about it.. as a Fictional work. Is it really a work of actual facts? who knows? who cares? That the facts origionally posted were not unbiased is what I was pointing out. But thank you for your enlightening comments. (talk) 00:57, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Where is the summary?[edit]

Where is the summary of this book? It seems that most of the article is about only the research and controversy. Shouldn't we dedicate more page space to the summary? Angeljon121 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 02:03, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

a thrilling but very controvercial book

I have to agree, ususally a summary contains at least what happens in this book. This one only has one line, why is that?Wild ste (talk) 14:04, 22 January 2009 (UTC)


In spite of its errors and all the nonsensical controversies about "hoaxes" like the Priory of Sion, "The Da Vinci Code" is a lovely book to have a good time, but I'll point out that Paris wasn't founded in the Middle Ages as Brown says. The city is named after the Gaulish tribe of the Parisii and its Roman name was Lutetia Parisiorum (Lutetia of the Parisii). —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:56, 28 November 2008 (UTC)


Why is there only such a small portion on the plot? Amongst all the criticism and controversy paragraphs, it might be nice and usefull for some people to have an outline of the story... -- Imladros (talk) 20:38, 16 February 2009 (UTC)


I am woefully unfamiliar with Wiki-edits so I'm not going to attempt this, but has anyone noticed the "Main article: The Da Vinci Code Porn (film)" red link under the "Film" heading? Now, I saw "The Da Vinci Coed" on Cinemax the other night, granted, but I don't think one has anything to do with the other, so ... this kind of looks like someone fudged on purpose. Anyway, just thought I'd give a head's up so an editor could look into that. (talk) 15:24, 19 March 2009 (UTC)


As a reminder, if there's a dispute about the content of this article, it is essential that those involved in the dispute, also engage at the talkpage. Try to find a consensus rather than just reverting back and forth. See also Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. --Elonka 14:53, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Sub-page proposed for deletion.[edit]

For those interested, Inaccuracies in The Da Vinci Code has been taken to AfD as a procedural nomination after being proposed for deletion twice (after contest). Feel free to add your views at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Inaccuracies_in_The_Da_Vinci_Code, or help with clean-up at the article itself. Thanks, hope this is of benefit. --Taelus (talk) 10:46, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Fiction, blatant lie or reality-fiction? (see page 15 of book)[edit]

Had the author not claimed on page 15 to be “accurate” in his treatment of ancient documents, the book would have remained in the realm of fiction and would have been remembered and honoured as a state of the art thriller with something to say about religion... ...On the very first page, before the narrative begins, under the heading “Fact”, he states that his references to his documents are accurate. Did he mean to present that page also as fiction? It seems not. The “fact page” follows two pages in which he profusely acknowledges his sources and helpers, which are presumably not fictitious. The promise of truthfully keeping to the documents therefore constitutes a contract made with the readers. The later development in the book, amounts to a breach of this contract. Let us consider an example. The author, through one of his characters that is displayed as a credible source of information on ancient texts, dispenses information about the Qumran documents, making three serious errors, viz., by implying that the documents were discovered in only one cave; by stating that the discovery was in 1950; and by suggesting that in these documents mention is made of Christian history. All three these statements of “fact” are false and can easily be checked. On page 317, Brown has his character say: “The scrolls highlight glaring historical discrepancies and fabrications, clearly confirming that the modern Bible was compiled and edited by men who possessed a political agenda – to promote the divinity of the man Jesus Christ and use his influence to solidify their own power base.” Such gross misrepresentations under the ruse of being truthful destroy the contract with the reader and put all other references to ancient documents, codes and art under suspicion. The enlightened reader simply does not know where to trust the author and where not. For the specialist in the early history of the church, the errors above warn him or her of more roughshod statements to come, such as that the emperor Constantine compiled the present Bible for political reasons and that the divinity of Jesus Christ was a late development in the church. These are matters of debate, but no serious scholar would admit to such blatant anachronisms and distortions of fact... Possibly, the gullible uninformed reader will not notice this and therefore not hold it against the author, but then such readers are the very ones at risk of being brainwashed. However much one would wish to allow the author the artistic freedom to speculate, he has clearly overstepped the boundary here. This reviewer thinks there is enough space for an author to truthfully speculate on the suppression of feminine deity in ancient times. Even projecting a marriage and an offspring on to Jesus has been done before. But it is one thing to present it as a flight of the artistic imagination and quite another to make a truth claim regarding it.[[7]] —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:33, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

The sides are too polar, lets work in the middle to just try and clean the page up...[edit]

The idea of Wikipedia is to compile outside referenced sources to make informative information based on fact. As such, I'm not going to advocate removal of the 'Criticism' section from the Da Vinci Code page because I believe it should be included in this page, but I also understand why people believe it should be removed since we already have a page dedicated soley to it's criticisms. I'm interested in making the sentence structure in the page as cohesive and kopasetic as possible. I begin doing some edits to the wording of one paragraph under 'criticism' because it's really just poor english, grammer and reference. It does cite the authors page (the paragraph I edited involved only one source), but it seems a very bad extrapolation of the information contained in that author's article. Sentences run together suggesting the author stated things that in reality she did not.

Line 116

Many critics say that Brown should have done much more research before publishing this book. On February 22, 2004, an article titled "The Last Word: The Da Vinci Con" appeared in the New York Times by writer Laura Miller.[1] Miller attacks the Da Vinci Code on multiple levels, referring to it as "based on a notorious hoax", "rank nonsense", and "bogus", as she points out how heavily the book rests on the fabrications of Pierre Plantard (including the Priory of Sion which did not exist until Plantard created it) who in 1953 was arrested and convicted for just such frauds.

"Miller attacks the Da Vinci Code on multiple levels, referring to it as "based on a notorious hoax", "rank nonsense", and "bogus", as she points out how heavily the book rests on the fabrications of Pierre Plantard (including the Priory of Sion which did not exist until Plantard created it)..."

This is quite a wordy sentence that juxtaposes one part of the article with another. In using a comma between '"bogus"' and 'as she points out...' the initial author of this Wikipedia page creates the notion that Pierre Plantard's 'heavy amount of fabrications' made him a major contributor to the amount of '"based on a notorious hoax", "rank nonsense", and "bogus"' that in her eyes the book displays. The problem with this notion is that Pierre Plantard was referenced only once in the article, stating only that he was the one responsible for creating the idea of the Priory of Sion. She never made any assertion that he was responsible for other aspects of the content of the book. In short, she did not say that the book rests heavily on fabrications by Pierre Plantard, she only claims him responsible for contributing the idea of the Priory of Sion. It is therefore incorrect to make the statement 'including the Priory of Sion which did not even....' since (in her article) that is the only thing he contributed and the word 'including' suggests more than one.

"...who in 1953 was arrested and convicted for just such frauds."

This is very poor usage of Grammatical English. "...for just such frauds." is not only a run-on, but does not accurately import the work of the article's author. Nowhere in the referenced article does it state that the fraud charge was based on the creation of 'The Priory of Sion', which is what "just such frauds" implies.

About my Edit

I wanted to create this post because only a few hours after I made the edits, Paul Barlow undid them and said "alteration makes no sense". Thus I wanted to create a page that attempts to address what I couldn't in the limited character 'edit summary line.'

Here is my revised Line 116

Many critics say that Brown should have done much more research before publishing this book. On February 22, 2004, an article titled "The Last Word: The Da Vinci Con" appeared in the New York Times by writer Laura Miller.[1] Miller attacks the Da Vinci Code on multiple levels, referring to it as "based on a notorious hoax", "rank nonsense", and "bogus." She points out how heavily the Priory of Sion is based on (accused) fabrications by Pierre Plantard (the article states to offer proof from multiple sources that the Priory of Sion did not exist until Plantard created it) who in 1953 was arrested and convicted of fraud.

I attempted to keep the original intact as much as possible (it's criticism, I understand it's going to be harsh), but I wanted to remove wording that did not accurately represent the referenced article.

I'm going to revert it back to the edits I made, but wanted to get some opinion on it from others. I was also hoping to use this as a forum to better explain my reasoning behind making this and other possible future edits. Krezyle (talk) 03:20, 18 January 2010 (UTC)


That sentence is kind of run-on.

The Priory of Sion fabrication is a fact, and not merely alleged, both the Priory of Sion and Pierre Plantard article provides numerous references. CyroGeanic (talk) 14:31, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Which sentence is "kind of run-on"? And by 'kind of' do you mean a certain type, or its degree of incorrectly used grammer?

I agree with you that the Priory of Sion is a fabrication, but nowhere in this article did she say that Pierre Plantard was the one who invented it. The excerpt ultimately references Laura Miller's article. And the wikipedia article says that "She points out how heavily...", the problem is that in this article, she never pointed that out. The article says:

"Finally, though, the legitimacy of the Priory of Sion history rests on a cache of clippings and pseudonymous documents that even the authors of Holy Blood, Holy Grail suggest were planted in the Bibliothèque Nationale by a man named Pierre Plantard."[2]

Saying that "the Priory of Sion did not exist until Plantard created it" is incorrect in this instance. I have no problem with you referencing it somewhere else in the criticism section if you link to the article it came from. The problem is that this excerpt deals with Laura Miller's article, and in it she does not specifically state or offer evidence that it was Pierre Plantard who soley created it.

How about we compromise?

"She points out how the Priory of Sion is based on fabrications by Pierre Plantard (a man asserted to be largely responsible for its creation) who in 1953 was arrested and convicted of fraud."

Krezyle (talk) 02:43, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

The run on sentence I was referring to was the previous version, not the sentence you edited. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

I made an error in my earlier edit

It was supposed to read:

She points out how heavily the book is based on the fabrications of Pierre Plantard (the Priory of Sion did not exist until Plantard created it) who in 1953 was arrested and convicted of fraud.

CyroGeanic (talk) 03:50, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Biblical dispute[edit]

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 (talkcontribs) 17:57, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

If you are trying to refute "certain theories" you need to say what they are. It's not clear what point you're trying to make. When somebody dies his heirs stay heirs; that's the whole idea behind inheritance! (talk) 22:26, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Incomprehensible Plot Summary[edit]

The plot summary is basically incomprehensible. For example, Fache does not "THINK" Langdon is a suspect; he DECLARES Langdon a suspect because he THINKS Langdon is a murderer.

The nadir is this sentence:

"It turns out that Teabing is the Teacher who assigned Silas to kill Jacques Saunière and he also had information on the identities of the leaders of the Priory of Sion who then bugged their offices and had Silas assassinate them. Rémy is his collaborator."

The Priory of Sion didn't do the bugging, Teabing did. Do "he" and "his" refer to Teabing, Silas, or Jacques? (Having read the story, I know it's Teabing)

At the end it says "Silas died of his fatal wounds". Well, yes, that's what "fatal" means! Yet it didn't say HOW he got wounded. CharlesTheBold (talk) 03:12, 14 February 2010 (UTC) we should stop trying to break the code but try to understand what this code was made for and wht richies it holds......the fact still remains we are all to stupid to break this one no matter how much we try,its more like HIV we come so close to geting the formuler right but then we dont.And we wont. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:08, 18 May 2010 (UTC)


"The film had an opening weekend gross of $77,073,388 and grossed $217,536,138 in 2006, making it the fifth highest grossing movie of 2006. The film did very well overseas, grossing over $758,239,852 worldwide."

Is this Wiki in english or US Wiki? This approach is not good, an american view style. MachoCarioca (talk) 22:52, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

they said that vinci's code was a bogus but he denies it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:55, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Tangential Subjects[edit]

Certain elements of Plantard's history are tangential to the discussion of the book. The note , and who in 1953 was arrested and convicted of fraud.[1] is irrelevant to the publication cited in the title. Plantard's character is not an element in the accuracy of the book, the Da Vinci Code. Steve (talk) 03:05, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Who the heck is Lincoln?[edit]

There are several references to Lincoln in this article. The only full "attribution" is a reference to Mary Todd Lincoln. Surely, she had no involvement with Baigent and Leigh, the authors of Holy Blood, Holy Grail--and I'm not calling anyone Shirley. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:52, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Henry Lincoln, who along with Michael Baigent and Richard Leigh, authored The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail, the controversial book which presented some of the themes later used in The Da Vinci Code. Thanks for pointing this out. I've added explanatory details to where the article first mentions them. Nightscream (talk) 21:49, 8 September 2011 (UTC)


This book is NOT "the best selling English language novel of the 21st century and the second biggest selling novel of the 21st century in any language." The link on the page confirms it...hello. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChelleBelleRang (talkcontribs) 01:26, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Could someone help me understand this text?[edit]

I removed this text from the section on historical inaccuracies:

The Da Vinci Code also portrays the Council of Nicaea's decision to recognize the fully human and divine aspects of Christ as being a close vote, but O'Neill says this is not reflected in any of the sources.(ref)Jonathon Madrid. "Planet Envoy!". Retrieved 2011-01-04. (/ref)(ref)Hughes, Philip. The Church in Crisis: A History of the General Councils, 325–1870. 1964(/ref)

Sorry, but I can't make heads or tails of the sourcing here. O'Neill is a historian mentioned elsewhere in the article. In the other places where he is mentioned, references to him are sourced to his website on historical inaccuracies in The Da Vinci Code. Thus, one would expect that that website would be the source here. Not so. Neither of the sources are even written by O'Neil. Moreover, one is a broken link and the other is a print book, so I can't check either of them to see whether it mentions O'Neil. What happened here? What exactly do the two current sources support? Do they support the claim that O'Neil says so-and-so? Do they support the claim that, contra The Da Vinci Code, there's no evidence that there was a close vote at the Council of Nicea? I can't tell. --Phatius McBluff (talk) 07:20, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Overly Biased on the Reviews[edit]

There were several major publications that sang the praises of this book. Pretending like it was roundly panned is absurd. I can't believe this page. Yes, there are historical inaccuracies. But as a work of fiction, it received major kudos. I don't know if I have it in me to include all of them, but good GRIEF this is overly negative!Jasonnewyork (talk) 02:01, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

OK, I added some - gasp - positive reviews. This page should probably be semi-protected. I mean, no positive reviews were on here - for one of the best selling books of all time. Really surprising.Jasonnewyork (talk) 02:14, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Sales Section[edit]

One single line? Doesn't that look weird? DC outsold the fifth harry potter book by at least 2:1, who cares about picking a single year 2004. DC came out in 2003. This single line makes it sound like it really wasn't as big of success as it really is. It says above that it sold 80M copies by 2009 and that was 4 years ago. Darrellx (talk) 03:45, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

New discussions go at the bottom of the page, not the top, Darrellx. As for the section content, why not add more yourself? See WP:BOLD. :-) Nightscream (talk) 21:04, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Can someone explain?[edit]

According to this book, Mary Magdalene and her daughter lived and died in southern France, and their descendents include the early French royalty. Then how did Mary Magdalene's body, and other crucial documents, end up buried in a temple in Jerusalem, where they were dug out during the Crusades? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:47, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Scientific implausibility section looks like original research[edit]

"Scientific implausibility of blood line theory" amounts to one sentence that appears to be a footnoted factoid that Europeans share ancestors which the editor then interprets as "the blood line theory is scientifically implausible." If there is any serious work discussing this, let that work be summarized in more than a single sentence to justify the it being a section. Otherwise, scrap it.

And please, PLEASE consider the recommendation made elsewhere that this page be semi-protected. There are too many butt-hurt zealots trying to defend Jesus's divinity with their personal highly-flawed reasoning. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:15, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

I really do not get the relevance of the source quoted. The article says nothing about descent from antiquity. It says: "Whether they are a Serb and a Swiss, or a Finn and a Frenchman, any two Europeans are likely to have many common ancestors who lived around 1,000 years ago. A genomic survey of 2,257 people from 40 populations finds that people of European ancestry are more closely related to one another than previously thought, and could help to bring about new insights into European history."

So currently living Europeans share some ancestors who lived in the 11th century. Not that much of a surprise. What does that have to do with 1st-century ancestors? I am going to remove the source as irrelevant to the topic. Dimadick (talk) 21:39, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

  1. ^ a b c Cite error: The named reference davincicon was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. ^ [8]