Talk:The Da Vinci Code/Archive 1

message: How can we rewrite this article to remove the point form? I'm thinking of placing this on peer review to see what people think. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:54, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't have any great ideas, but the point form is quite distracting ;-) — Matt Crypto 12:56, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Point form 

message: Does calling it a novel make it immediately and indisputably clear that it is fictional?  I've run into a few people that asked about the book, "is it real?"  Because of that, I'd lean toward explicitly saying it is fiction, unless there's some overwhelming reason not to. Bantman 05:56, Jan 9, 2005 (UTC)
According to the wiki article on novel, it is quite clear that a novel is a work of fiction.  I have thus added links to both of these topics within the Da Vinci
Code article itself, so that people who don't have a clear understanding of this  can check it out themselves.  And while I don't believe it is really necessary to state blatently that novel = fiction within this article, I am not opposed to it being done, if necessary.  The problem IMHO is wild interpretation of, as the article states: "the novel's claim to contain elements of historical truth within its fictional framework"; so what is the truth, and what is not.  Of course, everyone will have an opinion on this, especially as it strikes close to personally held truths.  Sfdan 11:05, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quick question... 

message: The basic premise of this "novel" is that there were descendants of Jesus
that come down to ONE person today, the heroine in the book.
That is genetically an extreme silly proposition...
From the time of Jesus (and his children) to today is 
(2000 years from time of Jesus or approx 1950 years from time of his children divided by 25 years per generation = 1950/25 = 78 generations (or 2000/25
= 80 generations) Such a massive number of generations simply means 
that today the descendants then of Jesus would blanket Europe.
And clearly NOT be one person.
And that is the case ... see books delineating some of those descendants.
Considering the limited number of birth/death/marriage records, and high mortality rates for much of history since the first century AD, it would be rather difficult to keep track of Jesus' descendents if any. (He might have had some or siblings had children of course).
Applying Occam's Razor - there are too many disparate components involved - and there are no obvious other links between them.
:A few points on what is written above:
:* That was not the main premise of the book. If that section was removed from the book then the plot would remain exactly as it currently is.
:* The heroine also had a brother.
:* The book did not state that the heroine was the sole descendant, only that both her parents were from the strongest bloodline.
:* Why have you quoted the word "novel". Are you implying that it isn't? 
:* What in the world does any of this have to do with Occam's Razor? Please elaborate.
:I liked the novel, it wasn't fantastic but was entertaining. Obviously some people take these things a little too personally.
:--13:51, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Has this got anything to do with the article? Remember, Wikipedia is not a discussion forum... — Matt Crypto 14:04, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Basic Premise 

message: The article currently says there are over "44 million copies sold." A recent Associated Press article claims there are 25 million copies in print (in 44 languages).  Given that even the AP gets it wrong once in a while, does anyone have a source for the 44 million figure? - Walkiped 03:24, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Plenty of sources give the lower figure. The higher was added by an anon and never changed. DJ Clayworth 19:24, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text: 36 million copies in print as of August 2005, according to Dan Brown's agent, Heide Lange, quoted in the NYT  --Lucien 00:21, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Number of copies in print

message: How did Davinci knew so much about Jesus if he lived several centuries after Jesus did? Couldn't Davinci just be concocting his own theories about the biography of a historical Jesus just like many of us do in the XXIst century? And is Jesus more important for His biography or for His teachings according to this book?
:It's a novel. DJ Clayworth 19:21, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Bah, if you think that then you're clearly one of them :) -- John Fader (talk | contribs) 20:09, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Just curious 

message: I've just discovered that we've been carrying the wrong sales figures on this page for over a month. They were overestimated by a factor of more than two. For those who like to keep track of how accurate Wikipedia is, the change was made by an anon on 17th March and never changed again. See   DJ Clayworth 19:21, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Sales figures

message: Robert Langdon's New York editior(Jonas Faukman)'s name is an anagram for Jason Kaufman, Dan Brown's real New York editor. Also, in the internet scavenger hunt, participants, at one point, actually call Jonas Faukman, whose answering machine points out that is publishing company is called Doubleknight (play on Doubleday, Jason Kaufman's company).
I really think this should be noted.
P.S. One of the names in the acknowledgements is Andre Vernet, matching the Depository Bank of Zurich head's name. Does anyone know what that means?
:Apparently one of Brown's teachers had this name . I doubt it is worth mentioning his in the article. Thincat 11:45, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jonas Faukman 

message: I moved most of the information in this section of the article to the separate article dealing with the film.  Since there is a clear message at the top of this article that it has to do with the novel, and that there is a separate article for the film, I could not see any reason to maintain information in two places.  I left the bare minimum information in this article. Sfdan 07:20, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Film adaptation