Talk:The Da Vinci Code/Archive 3

message: The other day I saw an episode on the History Channel which featured DNA testing of a Merovingian queen. The results completely debunked the notion that Jesus Christ and Mary Magdalene had a child which became part of the Merovingian blood line.  The DNA from the queen showed zero probability of any Middle-Eastern ancestry. I did a search of the articles here and did not see a place to post this, so I figured I'd put it in talk.  If another Da Vinci  expert wants to review this and add it to the main article, great!  If not, no harm no foul. ;)
See Digging For The Truth:  The Da Vinci Code: Bloodlines
--Christa 14:59, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Might be old news/DNA testing 

message: I dunno if this is worth mentioning in an encyclopedia article. You guys know better than I.
Geoff Pullum, a linguist at Language Log, criticised Dan Brown for especially poor writing. He says he wouldn't criticise a new author, except that Dan Brown is so incredibly popular. 
Via the links at the bottom of the post, it seems like the other linguists are criticising, but I don't know if others have.
See this language log post 70.66.9.162 07:06, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  criticism of writing quality 

message: The first paragraph says that the Da Vinci Code is part two of a trilogy.  Is this true?  Has Dan Brown said there will only be three Langdon books?  I seriously doubt it.    Surely Dan Brown will continue to write Langdon books.  I suspect someone will say that it is going to be a trilogy simply because there are three books (once The Solomon Key comes out).  I disagree with this - I think in order to be a trilogy, it has to be already decided that there will be no more.  The first three James Bond movies weren't a trilogy just because there were only three of them - everyone knew there would be more.  So unless someone can find a quote from Dan Brown that there will only be three, I say it's not a trilogy and we remove that language. Andrewdoane 14:02, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not a Trilogy. And if I'm right, Hitchiker's is a Trilogy of 4 parts... either way, trilogy's are THREE, and Hitchiker's is just a joke. ~ The Haunted Angel 21:27, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trilogy? 

message: Mod Charlie came up with the ideal solution to all this crap: remove all the webquest info from this article and the newly created film article and link it to a totally separate page dedicated purely to the webquests, which he has kindly created already. Please can someone edit this page accordingly. Thank you Charlie for being the first MOD to have a clue. 67.101.134.76 10:17, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Solution to this Stupidity 

message: :As well as re-invigorating interest in the church, The Da Vinci Code has also :spawned numerous "knockoffs" (as they are referred to by Publishers Weekly) [2], :or novels that have a striking resemblance to The Da Vinci Code, including :Raymond Khoury's The Last Templar, The Templar Legacy by Steve Berry, and :Foucault's Pendulum by Umberto Eco.
The others are OK, but Foucault's Pendulum is said to have been published in 1988 in its respective article. How can then be a spinoff? AttishOculus 05:31, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That was my error which occurred while I was merging multiple paragraphs.  In any case, I've removed it momentarily as it doesn't seem that important.  I've read both books, and while one could argue that Foucault's Pendulum influenced Brown, there are certainly other books one could mention as well (The Club Dumas comes to mind).  Perhaps we should develop a separate section if one is needed.  —Viriditas | Talk 06:40, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spinoff sooner than the original? 

message: The Vitruvian man picture is messing up some of the text on the page. i tried to fix it, but it didn't work. can anyone mess around with it so it won't mess with the text? thanks. dposse 19:40, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image: Vitruvian.jpg 

message: Hello everyone. I'm the Charlie that 67.101.134.76 mentioned (I'm not an admin yet though). I came across this the WebQuest content being posted identically on a number of articles so on his talk page at User talk:67.101.134.76, I suggested moving the content to The Da Vinci Code WebQuests and linking to that page from the DaVinci Code franchise, thusly hopefully diffusing a war as to what webquest content goes with which article, and also slimming down the size of this and other articles (as I do notice it has a long article tag). 
Does this sound like a reasonable solution to everyone? I'll make the change on the article and we can discuss more cool? 
Regards --Charlie(@CIRL | talk) 11:12, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: With such a page, we could move it to something like The Da Vinci Code Puzzles and also pull the book jacket puzzle out to that page as well. Thoughts? --Charlie(@CIRL | talk) 11:24, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Better yet The Da Vinci Code Marketing as these things (WebQuests, Book Jacket contest) don't really have anything to do with the puzzles presented in the book for the protagonist, but are puzzles for the Mass Market Consumers to enjoy. It would be slightly less ambiguous I think. --Charlie(@CIRL | talk) 11:28, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Webquest solution? 

message: --Omigod already another member is proposing to delete the new webquests article. Can you people please get your sh*t together? The issue had been discussed and finally resolved here, and then someone decided to separate the articles as this one was too long. Fair enough, that's fine, and after further discussion, the google webquest info was moved over to the new film article as it is relevant to that, and the old webquests info stayed here as it is relevant to the book. Again everybody is happy. Suddenly some other member sticks their nose in and presumably didn't bother to read the discussion here and deletes the relevant links from this article and adds links that belong on the newly created film article - gawd only knows why - and then another vandal war starts as a direct result. Then a third article is created purely for the webquests, which is probably a good idea since it's caused so much problem (although there is a lot of traffic for it or I'd suggest deleting anything at all to do with the webquests), but now some other member has proposed to delete that new webquests article! What the hell is wrong with people here? The original webquests links were here for over 2 years without any issue whatsoever, now it seems everybody and their brother wants things done their way regardless of whether it makes any sense or not. This is ridiculous, and yet it should be so easy to resolve if there weren't so many Indians and no Chiefs who bothered to get the facts straight. Lets try some common sense here. There really are only three options here:
* remove all mention of the webquests from all articles and bury our heads in the sand.
* keep the two articles separate (one for the book, one for the movie) as has recently been done, and have the info for the older webquests included in the article for the book, and the info for the Google webquests included in the article for the movie since that is what they are related to, and cross reference if that makes people feel better. This option makes the most sense if we intend to keep the articles on the book and the movie separate.
* put all info on the webquests (both the original webquests from 2003 and the new 2006 Google webquests) onto their own special page, as has just been done, and place a link to that page from the book and movie articles.
It's really not that hard guys. Choose one option and stick to it. Do you think you can manage that? Please respond with your choice below, and reasoning if applicable. Thankyou for you cooperation and common sense. Oh, and instead of blaming everything on some anon user, perhaps realize that these agreements that keep getting reneged on by members are what is causing so much resentment and consequent vandalism. 69.3.199.103 20:34, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yet another new webquest has just been released by Eurostar.. it's starting to make sense to have a separate article for Da Vinci webquests, and then the two articles - one for the book and one for the movie(s). 64.105.73.85 17:34, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  regarding ongoing ridiculous amendments and vandalism 

message: At least one lawsuit was decided in DB's favor.  If both have, then this certainly should be indicated.  As it stands, DB sounds quite suspect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kdammers (talk • contribs) 
:I believe DB won the second plagerism lawsuit against Lewis Perdue, author of The Da Vinci Legacy and Daughter of God.   Pnkrockr 19:29, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Lawsuits

message: "It is also said that there is a code within italicized words in the book. One suspicious fact is that the page number on page 322 is just ***."
This is untrue. There is no page number on page 322 because it is the beginning of a chapter. SAlpsu 13:40, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow. 0wn3d to the extreme. --M1ss1ontomars2k4 | T | C | @ 19:53, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  There is not a code in italicized letters in the book, but there is a code in the italicized letters of the April 2006 trial ruling about the book.  See The Smithy Code.  There is also a code in bolded letters in the flaps of the bookjacket on the original American version of the book.  There are also other hidden messages, one of which does indeed use the letters on various chapter-beginning pages.  --Elonka 20:03, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page 322 

message: At the end of the day this book is just a rather interesting (and entertaining) work of fiction. That it is having such a severe detrimental effect on people's faith is the failing of the Church. I don't believe for one minute that Dan Brown is responsible for anyone's crisis of faith anymore than Marilyn Manson was to blame for the Columbine tragedy. The fact is that one's faith had to be questionable to start with to take the GIGANTIC leap it takes to believe the "claims" made in the Da Vinci Code. He hasn't put this book out there as a dissertation on the life of Christ or the history of the Church. His story is based on real peoples' work though, and I don't see anyone being critical of his sources. Besides, even if we accepted the book as unerringly factual, it doesn't change who Jesus is or what he did.
:Amen! Thank you. dposse 00:37, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "...it doesn't change who Jesus is or what he did." True. If a person's faith is that "bothered" by The Da Vinci Code, was it strong enough in the first place? This uproar is almost as ridiculus as the one of the movie, Passion Of The Christ. This is simply great advertising for the movie and book speak_up 16:16 21, May 2006
138.220.178.88 16:57, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Huh? Illythr 21:54, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question of Faith? 

message: Just to take a small break from the religious debates: Shouldn't this article have some discussion of the literary criticism of the book? The only criticism I can find is of the book's factual basis, which is largely irrelevant to a fictional novel. On the other hand, lots of people have criticised the book on its literary merits (Salman Rushdie being one), and that criticism should probably be worked in here. Thoughts? (Personally, I found it to be a horribly written book, but that's my personal opinion). JZ 19:06, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The lierary "merits" of the book are discussed in Criticisms of the Da Vinci Code. Paul B 13:03, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

text: They used to be there. Obviouisly someone has deleted them. Paul B 14:46, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Literary criticism 

message: Why is Margaret Starbird's book listed under the fiction section of references? I was under the impression that this was a non-fiction book, so clearly this is either error or vandalism.
Secos5 01:20, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Moved. —Viriditas | Talk 02:36, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, in my opinion, hun, this is a fictional book. SilverBulletx3 19:59, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Fiction?

message: Could the website www.davincicodeforum.com be added to the wiki.
The website offers a webforum for users to offer evidance and discuss topical debates on Da Vinci Code
Why was the following added to my request for a website to be added "Don't believe the Da Vinci code! It is crap! It is just some phony nonsense made up up a man jealous of Christianity!!"
That is not my view. The forum is extremely historical and offers opinions of over 1000 members
* Anon, I hope that the culprit has been disciplined, and maybe even banned from Wikipedia. Vandalism. Tsk. That's the problem with Wiki's open editing system. Not much we can do about it though.Digifiend 10:55, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Addition of website 

message: I want to read an article about the book and upcoming movie, not see a page protected due to this political debate. If I wanted to hear the same crap that I hear on U.S. television everyday, I would watch it! However, hearing the same points repeated by wiki editors, etc., just makes me sick. I expected it on pages like GWB and Iraq, but not for A FREAKIN BOOK!
Keep your personal views to yourself!  (see above, e.g. "It is just some phony nonsense made up up a man jealous of Christianity!!" —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.114.145.238 (talk • contribs) 20:08, 19 May 2006  (UTC)
:Amen! ;). Personal views are only valuable when they contribute to building an NPOV, factual article. ~MDD4696 03:13, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The key word, I think, is article. This page is not an article. It is a discussion about. Therefore, you can't do much if you feel offended by personal views on this page. NPOV only applies to the actual article. --M1ss1ontomars2k4 | T | C | @ 19:51, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  I sometimes wish that WikiPEDIA wasn't so popular nowadays... 

message: I know this is a sore spot, but there are waaaay too many external links. We don't need links to every single article written abou The Da Vinci Code, or fansites and "misc" sites. So... I'm gonna delete the ones that don't satisfy Wikipedia's linking policy sooner or later. ~MDD4696 05:42, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe if we delete all the links there won't be any edit wars... Ha! Whatever, delete 'em. But only if they're not in some way useful to the reader. --M1ss1ontomars2k4 | T | C | @ 19:47, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Way too many external links 

message: There are way too many "Skepticism and critical analysis" links. Can we please cut that down to half and get some positive reviews? Or maybe reformat the entire links section so it doesn't seem to be leaning to one side? dposse 17:14, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok --M1ss1ontomars2k4 | T | C | @ 19:45, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links 

message: I saw that the link to the wikisummaries.org book summary of The Da Vinci Code was removed.  The basis for the removal is that external links are flat out not allowed in the body of the DVC article.  I do not see that this is at all a concensus.  I feel the link brings value to the article as it is a free source of chapter summaries for DVC.  The like follows the general external link policy.  Further, the web site is a wiki based on the mediawiki software, so wikipedians will feel right at home.  I'm reverting the article back to the state where the link is included.  Could other people chime in on this matter? Geneffects 06:03, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Summary links

message: Can some Mod please add a cross reference to this article for the Da Vinci Code WebQuests - many of the visitors to this article come for the purpose of finding information on the webquests, and there is no reference to them on this article anymore at all that I can see. Seems strange not to have a link to it considering the webqusts have been running since 2003, yet there's a link to some article about a new playstation game.. 
Thanks 67.101.129.204 18:59, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, no problem. Also, could you please stop calling users "Mods" or "MODS"? There is no such class of users on Wikipedia. There are unregistered users (aka anons) like you, registered users (like me), admins (like people who can protect pages), bureaucrats (who...er...be bureaucratic? ...), and there's probably others too; I just can't remember what they are. I'm sure you'll find it somewhere. --M1ss1ontomars2k4 | T | C | @ 21:10, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A few more groups: Bureaucrats -> Assign users to MediaWiki groups (i.e. sysop (aka admin), bureaucrat, bot, etc...), Developer (depricated) -> Allowed to Lock/Unlock the Database, Bot -> make edits that are by default excluded from change lists, CheckUser(?) -> Allowed to use the CheckUser tool... It goes on from here --Charlie( @CIRL | talk | email ) 20:44, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't remember where I found the page listing all the kinds of users. But I used to look at it a lot. --M1ss1ontomars2k4 (T | C | @) 19:54, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: WebQuests

message: "The film was released on May 19, 2006, and will star"
should read,
"The film was released on May 19, 2006, and stars..." 
Verbs should not change tense, but the error was obviously due to updating the article.
:Well, you could have fixed it yourself, but apparently it's been fixed already. Also: Please sign your name using four tildes  ~~~~ when making your posts. I would also suggest that you get an account for yourself.--M1ss1ontomars2k4 | T | C | @ 00:14, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry. The page is not protected. --M1ss1ontomars2k4 | T | C | @ 00:15, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Error in article 

message: Can someone please note the fact that despite Brown saying that no chalice is pictured in the Last Supper painting, there is in fact a silver cup, exactly the size of most Seder chalices, to Jesus's left (the viewer's right)?
It's very faded and hard to see in the scanned version, but you can see it in any larger reproduction in artbooks, etc.  It's also mentioned in the wikipedia article on the painting itself.
:No. dposse 23:00, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, there's no chalice, but there are some wineglasses in the painting.... 203.215.120.28 00:03, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Send us links to a picture to show us. I want proof. Let me see. -Kid. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by A Minor Thr3at (talk • contribs) 13:17, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Chalice inconsistency in Last Supper painting

message: Just as in the Brown novel the Church suppresses the descendants of Jesus by murder and also by manipulations to deny any information about them from the general population, wikipedia.org has also done the very same thing.
Da Vinci Code by Dan Brown postulated in this work of fiction
that Jesus had descendants. The church (& Wikipedia) has heavily attempted
and continues to heavily suppress all information about this subject.
With scores of commentators who all attack this snippet or that of that general idea that Jesus had descendants down to today. And these attackers
esp use the misguided attack that the whole idea is heresy. When in fact
Jesus having had a family and children before his death on the cross in no
way upsets ANY theories of religion by anyone.
:A simple DNA test would establish if there are genes from the Galilea region in the current descendants of the Merovingian line. The fact that nobody bothers to carry out such tests might suggest something to you; the story is a lot of nonsense. See the TV programme "The Real Da Vinci Code" for example, which interviewed people who knew Plantard, De Sede and so on and whom to a man stated that the whole thing is a fiction. Arnaud de Sede, son of the author Gerard de Sede who helped fabricate the Priory of Sion fantasy documents, stated in the programme that his father and Plantard had invented the whole story. "Frankly, it was piffle" he said. It would also be helpful for you to consider the long history of anti-Catholic and anti-Christian propaganda stories - I am no Christian, but respect the truth, and there is a long, long history of fabricated stories, myths and propaganda surrounding the papacy, the vatican, the disciples, the life of christ, etc, etc, much of it created originally for malicious reasons either by various heresies or by dissenters. These people may have had a point, as does Brown now, in that the vatican was and is a corrupt institution, but not because of some bizarre conspiracy around a non-existent Jesus bloodline, juts because it has a long history as a political and pro-establishment organisation. Look for the facts, not some bonkers make believe. MarkThomas 20:36, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Huh? dposse 21:12, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Someone has been to crazy town. Well, dear crazies, I'm the one and only descendant of Jesus. Hurm. Yeah, me. So, give me all your money and have some Kool Aid and apple sauce on your way out, please. Also, if you are using any drugs prescribed by a psichiatrist, please, stop taking them so I can control your min... I mean, free you from your pain and stuff.
138.220.178.88 18:02, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Wikipedia.org suppression of Grail family info

message: The main thing this section needs is a proper title, not this jargon. Having said that, I haven't quite hit on the right title, but it should be something like Main Clues, or Plot Points. Someone with initiative please step forward. I think then the section might then have a purpose and could be better edited. Spenny 15:01, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Summary of Spoilers 

message: * A Knowledge of London tour of the Temple
* Da Vinci Code, the movie's official website Should already be part of film article. —Viriditas | Talk 01:37, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: At least keep the Sparknotes link in there. It gives great analysis of the book. dposse 01:41, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would prefer to see content incorporated into the article with a corresponding reference link.  Can you do that? —Viriditas | Talk 09:00, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Miscellaneous 

message: I've added links to the other three DVC articles on Wikipedia in the 'See Also' section (film, game and webquests). These crossreferences are also at the top of the article.. do they really need to be there as well? demonsurfer 02:56, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, the 'see also' links to the other DVC articles were removed by Elonka I think, along with the links at the top of the page.. and replaced with a link to a DVC 'disambiguation' article.. is it just me, or is that actually going to confuse 95% of Wikipedia users looking for info on the movie, the webquests or the video game..? Many people just dont realize what a disambiguation article is, thereby defeating the whole purpose of it. I suggest changing it back to links to the individual Wiki DVC articles separately - novel (this article), movie, webquest and video game. In order to avoid a bunch of reverts I'm asking for opinions first, so please comment. demonsurfer 05:03, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I just reverted to your version.  In this case, a dab page isn't what is needed.  We require a navigational template. —Viriditas | Talk 20:35, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Cheers Viriditas. Can you point me to a good example of a nav template? Might pay to get this resolved soon as there are a number of DVC articles now: The Da Vinci Code (this article), The Da Vinci Code (film), Criticisms of The Da Vinci Code, The Da Vinci Code WebQuests, and The Da Vinci Code (video game). demonsurfer 04:21, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, go here.  —Viriditas | Talk 07:20, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sorry, I understand your reasoning, but I disagree with the change, and believe that pointing to a disambiguation page is the appropriate way to handle things.  This issue has been discussed extensively on a wide variety of other articles around Wikipedia, and the use of disambiguation pages is routine.  As the header stands now, it doesn't refer to the "Criticisms" article, or point to the disambiguation page at all. Wikipedia guidelines state that when there is a pair of articles, listing the other one at the top of a page is fine, but When there are several articlces, include a link to a disambiguation page.  I recommend restoring my original wording, or using something like: "This article is about <subject>.  For other uses, such as the film and game based on the novel, please see The Da Vinci Code (disambiguation).  For more information, please be sure to read the guidelines at Wikipedia:Disambiguation. --Elonka 15:57, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, but in this instance, using a navigational or series template that links related articles may be preferable to disambiguating articles on different topics with similar titles.  In this case, a dab page is not required.  See :Template:Matrix for an example of a series footer that links related articles, or the more generic :Template:Otherarticles.  A sidebar like the kind found on Wikipedia:Article series might be more appropriate. —Viriditas | Talk 22:47, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I quite like the vertical series box idea.. comments? demonsurfer 23:19, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Template:Da Vinci Code. —Viriditas | Talk 11:11, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disambiguation 

message: I think an external links section is ok here, as long as we keep it brief. So, i'm going to add two external links to this page. The first will be Dan Browns DaVinci Code website, and the Sparknotes section on the DaVinci Code book. The Dan Brown site because it's the official website, and SparkNotes because it gives great analysis of the book. What do you think? dposse 01:00, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Official site is already linked in refs and sparknotes is either not notable, or if notable, should be placed on the criticism page.  —Viriditas | Talk 02:09, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Critcism? Why? SparkNotes has no critcism for the Davinci Code. It just gives analysis and explanations of the book. dposse 02:56, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Analysis is a form of criticism.  In any case, I don't see any need for the link on this page.  If you think you can include it in the body of the article and link to it as a reference, please do so. —Viriditas | Talk 08:12, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Uh, i think you misunderstand. I didn't mean criticism. The analysis that the site gives isn't criticising the book, it's explaining the book. That's what SparkNotes does. dposse 21:22, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Disagree, it's just a magnet for spamers. Wikipedia is not a link repository, any site which is used as a reference can be listed in the references section. /wangi 21:37, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: revival of the external links. 

message: It is thought to be the sixth biggest selling book of all time.
From where do you have this information? There is no chart of best selling books - and wikipedia doesnt need sentences like "it is though".
--85.70.245.86 22:45, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Source please 

message: In the opening paragraph it states "It is thought to be the sixth biggest selling book of all time."  Can we have a list of the other top selling books?  I have heard that there have been 100 million copies printed of "The Book of Mormon."  I don't know if it would qualify for such a list, but it could possibly be fifth.
Quite a lot of sites republish this list Bookseller World best selling books of all time, but a quick glance down the list suggests a US bias apart from the inevitable Bible and Chairman Mao's Little Red Book. I wonder if anyone has a global list? I severely doubt that Dan Brown even figures on the real list, whatever that might be, people like Tolkien for example who have been selling for decades will be much higher. MarkThomas 07:55, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Best Selling Books of All Time 

message: I have heard they speak about Disney in the book. Which chapter is this?
Chapter 61. In the Bantam Press hardback edition (2004), the reference to Disney is found in pages 271-272. Langdon claims that Disney uses feminine images, like Snow White, Sleeping Beauty and Cinderella, to convey images of a sacred feminine personality. There is also reference to The Little Mermaid, where the mermaid is seen with an image of George de la Tours famous painting, The Penintent Magdalene.
Gaz 13-7-06
:Langdon also has a Mickey Mouse watch. dposse 03:43, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disney in the Book 

message: Hmmm...
I read through the article and it seems to me that whenever something negative comes up about the book, the article says "the critics" say that it's wrong in this area and "the critics" have problems with the book.
Why does this article have trouble with coming out and saying what's fact and what is fiction?
Apparently, whoever wrote this article is trying to muddle everything up in a big ball of confusion; and the facts are in plain daylight for ANYONE to read and not cleverly hidden within the entirety of this letter by magically counting numbers and coming up with a "secret code" and/or drawing mathematical lines and triangles to form mysterious shapes of letters...
Check out the following links...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Priory_of_Sion
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre_Plantard
Thanks!
--JJ
:Uh, no. We have to keep a Neutral Point of View, and since this book is so controversial, it is even more important to keep everything in the article NPOV. dposse 18:07, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, preceding any flaws in the book with "critics argue that" is definitely NPOV...Stevage 14:08, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, because that is what critics say. We cannot state what the critics say is fact, because what critics say is only their interpretation of what is factual. dposse 21:01, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re: 

message: I just read the Illustrated Edition for the first time and the book references "The New Pope" on several occasions. The book was published in 2003, two years before John Paul died, so that suggests that Brown wrote the book as taking place in the near future. However according to the Wikipedia article on the film, there was a revised version of the novel published. I hadn't heard of this before, so my question is: did Brown revise later editions of the novel to reflect the change of Popes? Or was it just a presumption on his part that there would be a change in pontiff not long after the book was published - certainly there'd been a virtual death watch on John Paul II since about 2000 so for Brown to suggest a new Pope even by the 2003 publication of the novel is not unreasonable; as it turned out he was out by 2 years. 23skidoo 04:30, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you answered your own question. :) —Viriditas | Talk 10:51, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: New Pope and revised version

message: That is not a plot summary at all, it basically needs a total rewrite after the first little bit... - Abscissa 09:26, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plot Summary 

message: it is written that the curator had wrote the lines by his corpse by blood, meanwhile he wrote it using a special stylus pen, and its script is viewed using an ultra violet lighting. --هيثم أبو العلا 19:07, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  demonstration error 

message: Maybe it's just an oddity in my book, but on the top right of the page beginning chapter 33, it says "SOS". Anybody else see this, or no? Cao Wei 02:03, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: SOS

message: Since there is a separate article on the movie, do we really need so much info on it here?  Kdammers 08:31, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Um...there practically isn't any info here. What are you talking about? O_o --M1ss1ontomars2k4 (T | C | @) 18:31, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Movie

message: In everything I read people either praise it or criticize it. They fail to look beyond that. Let's look at it this way - it's a decent book that is mildly entertaining. It uses disproven theories to make an interesting idea for a story - to gain some controversy and bring in readers. Sure the entire idea may be wrong - BUT it got people to read. A lot of people to read. Most people skip books completely but Dan Brown got a lot of people to pick up a book, that's what he should be praised for. Sure it's like reading a grade 10 mystery novel with the vocabulary of 14 year olds, but that doesn't matter. It also doesn't matter that the underlying idea was proven wrong (and will people please stop acting like he invented the idea of Jesus's children). That's all that is to this book. 
:Could not have said it better myself. Harry Potter is another book that got lots of people to read, and no wizards are complaining about it.
::That's because it never claimed to include to hsitorical facts. It is presented as pure fantasy for kids. That's the whole point. Paul B 11:03, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Criticism 

message: It is often inferred that the female figure in the Last Supper scene is unique to Leonardo Da Vinci's version.  This is not correct, for many Last Supper scenes portray a woman to the right of Jesus.  I would propose the following amendment in the 'Secrets of the Holy Grail' section.
* Leonardo was a member of the Priory of Sion and knew the secret of the Grail. The secret is in fact revealed in The Last Supper, in which no actual chalice is present at the table. The figure seated next to Christ is not a man, but a woman, his wife Mary Magdalene. Most reproductions of the work are from a later alteration that obscured her obvious female characteristics. It should be noted that Leonardo Da Vinci's Last Supper is not the only Last Supper scene to include a woman on the right, and the sculpture in Drogheda Cathedral in Ireland is a good example of this unorthodox genre.
I have a jpg image of this sculpture, but I don't know how to upload it.  Any suggestions?
Ralph Ellis
:This proposed text is nonsense. The issue is discussed in detail in the articles The Last Supper (Leonardo) and Criticisms of The Da Vinci Code. You can upload an image by clicking on Upload file (under the search box) or click Special:Upload and follow the instructions. Paul B 22:12, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Every art historian identifies it as St. John. There is no "unorthodox tradition" of depicting a woman. The text currently in this page is summarising what the novel says, not what is historical fact or theory. Your text adds material that is not in the novel. I've no idea what sculpture you are referring to. Is it reproduced on the web? If not, if you don't upload it we can't see it. Paul B 00:06, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You can repeat the assertion as often as you like, but that does not make it any truer. It is not an "unorthodox tradition" if the images are in cathedrals is it? That means the images are accepted and endorsed by the church. The figure in this scupture is very likely intended to be St. John, though I don't know, not having any details about this work - which appears to date from the nineteenth century. Most of the apostles here have long hair and beardless faces and are dressed in androgynous tunics, so the usual cues that help us to identify gender are absent. Paul B 12:49, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure which "he" you are refering to. The figure to the viewer's right of Jesus has a swelling in his chest. The point is that this is a sculpture, not reality. The sculptor may not have been skilled enough to depict young men without making them look feminine. The swelling may be a clumsy depiction of pectorals. We don't know unless we have information about the sculptor, his intentions etc. Concluding that there is an unorthodox tradition on the basis of what something looks like to you, with no more evidence than that, is the very definition of Original research. Take this image. I wrote in a book once that it was a woman - and that it was based on portrayals of the Virgin Mary. I was at a conference earlier in the year in which another writer insisted that it was Jesus. Paul B 17:07, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I will upload the file for you if you want me to - but you will have to tell me the copyright status. Paul B 17:27, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Hello Ralph! I've seen this picture from Drogheda, but I don't recognise anything unusual - it is the traditional depiction of John as a young, beautiful male. He looks more often like a boy than like an adult man . It's a rather modern viewpoint to imagine all apostles like adults with beards. I think that's partly a result of all these Jesus-movies, where you usually have a bearded John. I would also say that this John form Drogheda doesn't really have such a "womanly looking bust" - there's only a slight bulge. For more information, please have a look at my website:  Fulcher 17:00, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Last Supper scene 

message: The introduction to this article states that the book met with glowing reviews. The reference cited for this statement comes from the author's website. Anyone familiar with the publishing industry understands that the back cover of any paperback is plastered with gushing blurbs, and that the critical value of this perspective is questionable. --Zenexp 01:49, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bias Conflict 

message: I recently made an edit to the Literary Significance and Criticism sub-section, which was promptly removed, perhaps understandably due to the sharp tone of my contribution, for which I apologize.
The tone of my contribution comes forth from frustration. Perhaps we should try to address the factual basis of my contribution. I essentially stated that virtually any serious critic of contemporary English literature does not take this book seriously as an art-work. The fact that this opinion is widely held is a fact, and should be reflected in some way in this article.
There have been a few comments in this discussion page addressing this problem with this sub-section, which have all been ignored so far.
In my personal opinion, the Literary Significance and Criticism sub-section of this article is an embarrassment, and reflects poorly on the Wikipedia Project. Perhaps someone more eloquent than myself should try to rebuild it from scratch. Zenexp 02:30, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Currently the section seems to have nothing about its "literary significance", so perhaps it should be retitled. Of course it has no "literary significance" except as a cultural phenomenon. Most of the material on this is in the Criticisms of the Da Vinci Code article. The important point is to source views. Paul B 11:42, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Literary Significance and Criticism  

message: Shouldn't the fact that Mary Magdalene was not in Da Vinci's painting of the Last Supper? In Da Vinci's draft itself, you can see that the figure that Brown states as Mary was actually John, and that, were she present, where would John be, seeing as how there are only twelve people sans Jesus Christ in the painting? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 58.69.228.166 (talk) 09:56, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Da Vinci's painting