Talk:The Da Vinci Code/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Opening paragraph

Why does the article open with an uncited paragraph, claiming that "scholars" see the claims made in the Da Vinci Code as baseless? They may be baseless, but is that really the way to open a neutral article about the book? NIGGA PLEASE!!! What happened to references? It's hardly fair and NPOV to commence to article by immediately claiming it to be entirely factually baseless.

Some readers maintain that, though it may make enjoyable reading, the premise that there is a conspiracy within the Roman Catholic Church to cover up the true story of Jesus is not merely controversial but baseless.

The claim that Mary Magdalene had a child, a daughter named Sarah, with Jesus, and had a bloodline that descended into the Merovingian bloodline, this is in fact a baseless claim. The Dossiers Secrets, a collection of documents discovered by Pierre Plantard, in 1975, in the Bibliothèque Nationale in Paris. The collection includes many pages of alleged genealogies of the Merovingian bloodline and other documents related to a supposed secret society, the Priory of Sion, such as a list of alleged Grand Masters of the Priory, dating back to the 1100s. The list contained names such as Isaac Newton, Leonardo da Vinci, and Victor Hugo. In the 1990s, the collection was proven that they were forgeries, created as part of the Priory of Sion hoax, by Pierre Plantard and Philippe de Cherisey, as an attempt to show Plantard was descended from French royalty. Under oath, Plantard admitted that he had fabricated everything, and that he planted the documents in the Bibliothèque Nationale in the 1960s. The Gnostic Gospels mentioned in the book, the Gospel of Philip and the Gospel of Mary Magdalene, are in fact substantial. A single manuscript of the Gospel of Philip, in Coptic, was found in the Nag Hammadi library, a cache of documents that was secreted in a jar and buried in the Egyptian desert at the end of the fourth century. The Gospel of Mary Magdalene recovered in 1896 in the Akhmim Codex, acquired by Dr. Carl Rheinhardt in Cairo. At the end of the fourth century, Gnostic writings were being burned by the Roman Catholic Church, and this is evident, when Athanasius, the bishop of Alexandria, in 367 AD, urge Christians to "cleanse the church from every defilement" and to reject "the hidden books." With evidence of the Roman Catholic Church burning Gnostic writings, to "cleanse the church from every defilement," and to reject "the hidden books" does support the substantial claim that the Roman Catholic Church, at the end of the fourth century, did try to conceal the evidence about the life of Jesus which are associated with the early Gnostic Christianity. They are not accepted by mainstream Christianity as authentic, and are therefore declared heresy and not included in the standard Biblical canon. -- Greg - 10:58 PM 01 April 2007

I can't say I will lose any sleep over it whatsoever Paul210 12:11, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

The book is fiction, but all I'm saying is that not all the historical claims are baseless. -- Greg - 3:15PM - 03 April 2007 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 202.175.224.123 (talk) 07:14, 3 April 2007 (UTC).

There's probably a better way to word that, but adding a lengthy analysis to the opening paragraph is not necessary. If there's a deft, concise, way to word the point in the lead, please do. But I'd hate to more of the 'debate' creep back in from the criticisms article. Kuru ^talk 12:36, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Some readers maintain that, though it may make enjoyable reading, the premise that there is a conspiracy within the Roman Catholic Church to cover up the true story of Jesus is not merely controversial but baseless.

Remove or edit this opening paragraph then, it's very misleading, uncited, and biased, and it's saying that all the claims in the book are baseless, if you read my "lengthy analysis to the opening paragraph" you know what I'm talking about. To those who might answer me like this, "The Da Vinci Code is fiction, and should be treated as such, or shouldn't be taken seriously," yes, I know it's fiction, I'm not stupid or crazy, but if you look at it in it's historical context, you'll be most surprised, the Jesus bloodline theory, baseless. A conspiracy within the Roman Catholic Church to cover up the true story of Jesus, not entirely baseless, as the Roman Catholic Church burned Gnostic writings, declared Gnostics as heretics, "cleanse the church from every defilement," and reject "the hidden books" does support the substantial claim that the Roman Catholic Church, at the end of the fourth century, tried to conceal the evidence about the life of Jesus which are associated with the early Gnostic Christianity. -- Greg - 10:39AM - 03 April 2007

I actually agree, and I have removed both from the current version of the lead. It would probably make sense to mention the 'controversy' in the introduction - but I'd like to see something a little less weasel-worded. Would love to hear suggestions here before simply re-adding. Kuru ^talk 01:34, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you... and I would like to point out that I'm Roman Catholic, at birth and at death, I love our religion, and I truly believe that Jesus Christ is my saviour, I believe in possibilities, why couldn't Jesus had a family, a wife and child, and still do the amazing things he did? Shouldn't we take comfort from the fact that Jesus knew what it was like to have a family, to love and be human? Could having a family destroy Christ's message to a path to a better life or his divinity? As we venture more into the 21st century, there will be new discoveries, just this year, The Lost Tomb of Jesus or the Talpiot Tomb, discovered in the 1980s, got into the public spotlight, are we to reject these new discoveries, all because they contradict Catholic doctrine or what the Bible says? I do not believe that faith and belief should be fixed, I believe that faith and belief should have room for possibilities. -- Greg - 1:56PM - 04 April 2007 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.167.67.101 (talk) 05:56, 4 April 2007 (UTC).

The fact that the RCC burned Gnostic writings has nothing to do with the discussion at hand. If the idea of Jesus' bloodline with Mary Magdalene has true historical merit, I would like to see some sources by reputable historians, as opposed to a a couple on the fringe. Guldenat 18:38, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I suggest you read the book "The Woman with the Alabaster Jar", written by Margaret Starbird who is a Roman Catholic scholar. This well-researched book provides much evidence to support the theory that Jesus and Mary were married and had children. By the way, "reputable historian" is often just a euphemism for a historian who regurgitates the version of history that is generally accepted at the time. It often takes a very brave person to challenge accepted history. Logicman1966 06:45, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

The fact that the Roman Catholic Church burning Gnostic writings has everything to do with the discussion at hand, because the idea of Jesus having a relationship with Mary Magdalene and marrying her comes from Gnostic writings, here are passages from the Gospel of Philip:

There were three who always walked with the Lord: Mary, his mother, and her sister, and Magdalene, the one who was called his companion. His sister and his mother and his companion were each a Mary.

And the companion of the [...] Mary Magdalene. [...] loved her more than all the disciples, and used to kiss her often on her mouth. The rest of the disciples [...]. They said to him "Why do you love her more than all of us?" The Savior answered and said to them,"Why do I not love you like her? When a blind man and one who sees are both together in darkness, they are no different from one another. When the light comes, then he who sees will see the light, and he who is blind will remain in darkness."

Then a passage from the Gospel of Mary Magdalene:

He questioned them about the Savior: "Did He really speak privately with a woman and not openly to us? Are we to turn about and all listen to her? Did He prefer her to us?" Then Mary wept and said to Peter, "My brother Peter, what do you think? Do you think that I have thought this up myself in my heart, or that I am lying about the Savior?" Levi answered and said to Peter, "Peter you have always been hot tempered. Now I see you contending against the woman like the adversaries. But if the Savior made her worthy, who are you indeed to reject her? Surely the Savior knows her very well. That is why He loved her more than us. Rather let us be ashamed and put on the perfect Man, and separate as He commanded us and preach the gospel, not laying down any other rule or other law beyond what the Savior said." And when they heard this they began to go forth to proclaim and to preach.

These kinds of passages, and many other passages, is the reason why the Roman Catholic Church burned Gnostic writings, to conseal the other side of the Christ story... 122.53.81.250 06:40, 16 November 2007 (UTC)Joshua

Would the people who insist on posting in boldface please start their discussion from the basic understanding that this book is a work of FICTION? I think it would help to weed out those who can't tell the difference between religion and literature. Thanks. DOR (HK) (talk) 00:45, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me, Mr. DOR (HK), we understand that this book is FICTION, but if you read what Joshua has written, you'll understand that he did state that he knew that this book is FICTION, all he is saying, and what I'm saying is, that not all in the Da Vinci Code is fiction, I mean, the Gospel of Mary Magdalene exists, the Gospel of Philip and Thomas, they exist too, so how could you say that everything in the book is fiction? Not to mention that the Church did burn Gnostic writings in the past, so I say again, how could you say that everything in the book is fiction?Gregorynovella (talk) 10:41, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Article check and review

Concerning the discussion titled "Opening paragraph," yes, I agree that the opening paragraph, that states, "is not merely controversial but baseless," is biased, thank you for clearing that up, but I think the whole article should be checked and reviewed, for biases. And concerning that article called "Criticisms of the Da Vinci Code" I think an article about the "Supporting Views of the Da Vinci Code" should be created, Greg's lengthy analysis to the opening paragraph is a great example. - Steve

Leonardo vs Da Vinci

Although it is of course understood that Dan Brown named his novel 'The Da Vinci Code' I believe the correct abreviation for Leonardo Da Vinci is to use the first name only (ie 'Leonardo') - of course the 'Da Vinci' part does not refer to his name so much as where he was born.

If this is correct (as per my understanding and as per the Wikipedia article on Leonardo Da Vinci - and I would value other opinions) we cannot expect Dan Brown to alter his book for our benefit - but other references to Leonardo Da Vinci made in this article should not follow Dan Brown's error (if it is accepted to be such) but should use the correct abreviation. RogMcDog 15:35, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I understand that Da Vinci is a reference to where he was from, but are you certain that it was not used as his last name as well? I am legitimately curious because many people's names, even today, when translated are merely just indications of where their ancestors come from. Or even in the case of irish names like 'Fitzpatrick', which literally translated means 'Bastard son of Patrick'. Once again, I am not familiar with when using last names became common, so perhaps you are correct, but I just want to be sure. Guldenat 18:26, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree, from checking the Leonardo da Vinci rticle, i have discovered that... "Leonardo had no surname in the modern sense, "da Vinci" simply meaning "of Vinci": his full birth name was "Leonardo di ser Piero da Vinci", meaning "Leonardo, son of (Mes)ser Piero from Vinci." "84.13.229.51 16:33, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Plantard's fraud and arrest

How could Plantard be arrested in 1953 for the Priory hoax, when according to the article he created the society in 1956?

I understood that he was arrested in 1953 for other frauds, but did the Priory hoax (which may or may not have been illegal in the same way as the 1953 charges) later, in 1956. But the wording in the article does not make that clear, and should probably be fixed. Mlouns 19:58, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Dubious

It says sales rival that of Harry Potter. I find this highly dubious. The first HP book alone has sold over 107 million copies versus less than 70 million. Now to me, that alone makes the statement highly dubious. But then, the article says the Harry Potter series. The total series sales (per List of best-selling books) are over 500 million. Would someone like to explain how 70 rivals 107, or even 500+ million? Or does it refer to sales in 2004 alone? Because if it does, it should really be phrased a bit more clearly I think. - ^Estoy_Aquí^{(t • c • e)} 12:57, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Edited. Referring to the actual text in the source, it stated that only Harry Potter outsold it, which is not the same as saying it rivalled Harry Potter. I've made the claim match the source. Spenny 22:42, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

bloodline of jesus?

On The Da Vinci Code page about the book on this website, it says that Mary Magdalene had a child after the crucifixion of jesus and it was a daughter named Sarah. However, on the same page later on in the article it says there are three children attributed to Jesus, one of them Josephes of which the da vinci code is basing it's bloodline theory. I don't understand this can someone please explain? thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.141.242.5 (talk) 12:06, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Literary and historical criticism section is biased i thought wikipedia is supposed to have a third person view or whatever the hell thats called. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.83.182.12 (talk) 03:09, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

The book is Fiction. Why would you need any more explanation? DOR (HK) (talk) 00:47, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Novel?

sorry, bit drunk as i write this, so i may be wrong, but i didnt really see anything the article saying that the book is a work of fiction. some people dont seem to realise this?

thought it was important61.69.207.222 10:58, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

If I had a beer for every time someone said "IT'S ONLY A WORK OF FICTION!!!!!", I'd be very, very drunk :)

There is plenty of discussion in the article, it is after all introduced as a novel, but some people might not understand that it means fiction (not meaning to be condescending, some people may simply think that novel means book).

The point of the discussions are:

• even if no claims were made, the book talks about real subjects that interest people. Therefore those points raised are worthy of discussion here.
• but, Dan Brown uses some weasel words in the book to suggest that, although it is a work of fiction, he suggests it really can be taken as sort of fact: well it's all speculation, but it could have happened, and if it could have happened it probably did because otherwise we wouldn't have had the cover-up, which didn't happen, or did it?

I hope that helps. Spenny 12:10, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

The book is fiction with facts in it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.83.164.145 (talk) 00:44, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

...but when the facts are wrong, are they fiction? Spenny 11:38, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Margaret Truman wrote Murder at the White House, which included a lot of references to real people and places. Yet, surprisingly, no one -- and I mean NO ONE -- thought it was real. They understood the difference between FICTION and reality. DOR (HK) (talk) 00:50, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

"Fictional" in opening sentence

I figured I would bring this to the talkpage since it deals with the article's opening sentence. I'm going to remove the word "fictional" from that sentence. The fact that The Da Vinci Code is a work of fiction is already covered by the term "novel"—I'm sensitive to the concern raised above that some people might not know a novel is by definition fiction, but as "fictional novel" is not the way to go about fixing that. As it stands, the sentence is immediately jarring because it can only be read in one of two ways: either it's redundant, or it's saying that The Da Vinci Code is itself fictional (like Starfleet is fictional), in which case it's outright wrong. Binabik80 18:31, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

page 217

on page 217 in the edition that says some wierd code or somthing on the top of the page where "the da vinci code" should be any one knoe the meaning of this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.126.43.103 (talk) 03:21, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

LINKS TO THE NAME PIERRE

There's many links to the name Pierre, they are all factual and if searched can be proved, there are some that keep deleting this post! Why? IanMSpencer and Fishhook, WHY? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.209.3.27 (talk) 12:04, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

1. Because the writing is not encyclopaedic.

2. Because you have not given proper references.

3. Because it has been given undue weight.

4. Because it appears to be original research.

While you are welcome to edit, Wikipedia has policies to govern what is allowed and so you can expect people to delete information that does not appear to match the policies. Spenny 13:17, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

So are you guys saying that I cannot put this info here when I'm putting it in article ;Criticisms of The Da Vinci Code? and its not original, dan obviously did this deliberatly. All of it down to the copyright holder of blade and chalice(guide lines) to show images that is copyrighted by a person that is also called Pierre can all be checked! IanMSpencer or Spenny you delete the whole article, check each one and delete the one you think is not linked to this book, like Pierre de Coubertin! you might think that it is not in TDVC but if you do some actual checking and not spend all day deleting everyones edits you might understand why it's linked to his book! and you call your deletion fair because other than check this information you call it vandalism? or nonsense? whos the vandal here? If you can't find the link just ask and I will put it here for you to read and evaluate so you can see why its here for in Criticisms of The Da Vinci Code, I'm doing excactly what this article was opened for. ThankYou —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.209.3.27 (talk) 07:28, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Please stop. In addition to being original research, what you are saying about the name Pierre is so poorly written as to be almost incomprehensible. Find some sources, cite them, and summarize the information in a clear, concise, encyclopedic style. thx1138 07:46, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Please check each one first! how simple is it to understand in this book it clearly links to PIERRE in heaps of pages? I cannot make it any more simple! GET IT?! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.209.3.27 (talk) 07:51, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Even if true, it's completely irrelevant. You have not cited any sources explaining what, if anything, these instances of the name Pierre has to do with criticism or analysis of the novel. You haven't even cleaned up the writing - your paragraph starts with a sentence fragment and you didn't capitalize "Dan Brown". thx1138 08:15, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Even if true? and it's completely irrelevant? Read this page in whole and not just my comments, you will then understand why it's here for. As for my paragraph starts with a sentence fragment, I don't know? and I am showing my disrespect by not capitalizing "Dan Brown". Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Special:Contributions/121.209.3.27|121.209.3.27]] (talk) 08:43, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not here for the purpose of you, or anyone else, expressing their disrespect for someone. thx1138 09:05, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Please don't take this the wrong way 121.209.3.27 (talk · contribs) but besides the informational content of your edit, which I have no vested interest in whatsoever, your prose is barely English. Just the fact that you don't capitalise the first letter of the given and family name of the author suggests you haven't as yet grasped the basics of English grammar. In fact as you read through the section more of the language falls apart. Please if you are going to contribute please take more care; otherwise you "will" be reverted. If you have some piece of useful evidence to add to an encyclopedic article about this novel then do contribute it. However it needs to be encyclopedic in character, referenced (i.e. verifiable) and well written. If you cannot keep to these, please don't waste your time or ours. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 09:25, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes I agree! and I only answered why and just told the truth! and I am not disrespecting anyone personally with my comments. Wikipedia is here so if you want to edit,edit! and if you want to fix errors, fix them! Most of you give advice and is welcoming but our account is for editing after all and not just for deleting.

I at last have a contribution to The Da Vinci Code article in Wikipedia, there are now three plagiarism lawsuits against him and not two! because synopsis was already linking to many Pierre's, and this was before he read HBHG? As he told Judge in court(which means he lied.) L.Teabings limp, one of many but also not a coincidence. So thanks for removing my edits, about 1/2 the Pierre's I had to list, I won't continue to bug anyone of you guys again because SOMEONE would delete it anyway, but thanks...

This one will probably be a criminal lawsuit thats directed at his publisher aswell and it is by www.apperlate.com's(This page is called PI, and one owner is called Pierre)owners, they also made the file pi.exe, which is from connect.to/pyramids, available to reference or to verify, and it was used to claim for the million dollars at another sceptic's page www.randi.org, as dan brown has confirmed also by saying"I'm more of a skeptic." Finally, Pierre says "My Copyrights are all identical to what is in this sceptics book The Da Vinci Code!" and thinks *Why didn't anyone take action against dan until after Easter 2005 when he first wrote to randomhouse screaming "plagiarists"?*

I was blocked from editing for 24 hours for to many undo's which is fair, otherwise I would have answered a little quicker. Donate to Wikipedia! I'm going to. ThankYou. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.209.3.27 (talk) 09:14, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

121.209.3.27, I have no doubt you are sincere in believing you have an interesting and important point to make. As you have been told several times, your writing is not in good English, you have not provided good quality sources. With your explanation, you raise further concerns as you seem to be saying that this information is to do with a criminal action against a living person. In such cases, Wikipedia policy is strongly applied as there is the potential for Wikipedia being seen as responsible for spreading defamatory comments.

Be aware that the 3 revert rule is not an allowance and where you are being intransigent, you can be banned without going that far. Spenny 09:54, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

121.209.3.27, I'd like to add my voice to those who point out that your English is barely comprehensible and it would be better if you stopped writing like this. Ironman1104 (talk) 10:53, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Parodies

"The Asti Spumante Code" and the "VaDinci Cod" have appeared. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.41.51.240 (talk) 13:40, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Redirect from "oh lame saint"

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

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)

Characters and their involvement in The Da Vinci Code

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. 75.72.98.95 (talk) 00:47, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Why only criticisms?

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. 69.51.152.180 (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. 98.206.155.132 (talk) 07:05, 11 December 2008 (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." [[2]] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.185.158.205 (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 reviews here: [[3]] 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 81.106.152.184 (talk) 14:23, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

"The Revelation" (2001 film)

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.[4] 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.

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. 98.206.155.132 (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)

Where is the summary?

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)

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)

Remove Criticism Section

The criticism section should be removed since a wiki page[5] all ready addresses the criticisms of the book. 68.230.75.227 (talk) 06:56, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Many other pages have criticism sections. To remove this one would be improper. 142.33.122.30 (talk) 19:18, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Concur with removal. De facto style is to break out praise and criticism to a separate page to keep the main page from bogging down. 71.82.107.47 (talk) 05:04, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

It's not a very long page or a long section. I wouldn't say its bogged down at all, and I specifically was looking for the support and criticism for this book, and it was nice to see it on the page that discusses the book. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.61.18.150 (talk) 15:07, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Paris

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 212.142.175.22 (talk) 12:56, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Story

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)

Porn?

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. 99.161.189.151 (talk) 15:24, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

NPOV

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. 205.172.172.132 (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. 205.172.172.132 (talk) 00:57, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Edit-warring

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.

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)

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.[[6]] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.185.158.205 (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...

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. 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. 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."

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)

References

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) 17:57, 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! 24.98.121.85 (talk) 22:26, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Incomprehensible Plot Summary

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)

?

"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)

Tangential Subjects

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. 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)

References

Who the heck is Lincoln?

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 98.228.136.197 (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)

Incorrect

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 (talk • contribs) 01:26, 5 December 2011 (UTC)