Talk:Criticism of The Da Vinci Code

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Reasons for keeping this page

message: 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)
replies: text: Looks like simple vandalism. We'll get it moved back. -R. fiend (talk) 22:52, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: "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)
replies: text: An article about "inaccuracies" in a work of fiction just sounds silly. -R. fiend (talk) 04:32, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

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

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Why was this article moved? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Written like essay 

message: Specyller (talk) 10:54, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  The African Connection in the Grail 

message: 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)
thread_title: Non-Abrahamic mythology and religion

message: > 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Poor Word Choice, "The Sacred Feminine" 

message: 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)
thread_title: Rewrite needed

message: : 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)
thread_title:  Dead Sea Scrolls 

message: :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)
thread_title: Survey

message: 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)
thread_title:  Biblical dispute 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Move discussion in progress 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Poorly constructed prose and citations 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Topics merit articles if they pass the site's Notability test. Please refer to that policy. Nightscream (talk) 01:08, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Refer to it yourself, but please do not instruct me to do so. Paul B (talk) 17:11, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  This novel and movie is a fiction 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Scientific disputes: GPS underground 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Problems with page/sections off topic/poor citations 

message: 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 IITalk to my owner:Online 05:20, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blacklisted Links Found on [[Criticism of The Da Vinci Code]] 

message: 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 IITalk to my owner:Online 16:44, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blacklisted Links Found on [[Criticism of The Da Vinci Code]] 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Criticism of The Da Vinci Code. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  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.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 04:04, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
thread_title: [[The Death of the Author]]

message: 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.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:00, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
replies: text: Absolutely. Why not add one? Nightscream (talk) 05:01, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed section on literary criticism