Talk:The Da Vinci Code/Archive 2

message: At the end of the article"Others Respond", there was boderline spamming so I deleted the offending text and integreated it with "Christian Response"
If you have any issues, give me a shout on my user talk page.
(vendettanine{didn't sign on})
68.126.207.160 03:39, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Spamming

message: Heya,
have noticed this article claims Christian Anarchism to have been an influence on the Da Vinci Code, however, it doesn't mention anything about the nature of this influence. Offhand the only example I can think of is a negative view of the church as absorbed into the Roman Empire by Constantine, a view which is by no means unique to Christian anarchists. Is there something I'm missing, or should it go? --Black Butterfly 02:14, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Christian Anarchism? 

message: I feel it would be helpful for the viewer if the further reading section were divided into sub-sections based on what the books are about. For instance have a sub-section for books relating to theories and texts mentioned in the Da Vinci Code book like The Woman With The Alabaster Jar, The Gospel of Mary of Magdala, etc. And another section for books criticizing or debunking Da Vinci Code book, etc. As it stands now its very hard to tell which books fall into which category and the viewer is forced to look each book up to find out. Just an idea.--Fluxaviator 08:39, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I want to reopen this as a proposal for division of Further reading into categories:
#Sources and Background
#Supporting
#Critical
#Other (including books containing both support and criticism)
* Support.  For the reasons the reasons above.  Feel free to suggest other categories. patsw 16:30, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Further reading section 

message: do you think that langdon will tell where the grail is hidden User:152.163.100.131
No. Mainly because he doesn't exist. Paul B 14:52, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Would Langdon divulge his secret? 

message: The Bias section is getting out of control.  In summary, I think it is appropriate to discuss any aspects of factual accuracy that are directly relevant to the plot or the history, other than minor details. This is because the book is fiction, but both the authors and critics have emphasized its factual accuracy more than usual.  It should be clarified which errors fall under his categories, but these should not be the only errors mentioned.  It is POV to explain his mistakes in more depth than his correct points.  In practice, this means the long paragraphs for each error need to be trimmed, because that length is infeasible for each accurate statement in the book.  Is this an acceptable solution? Superm401 | Talk 07:39, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm going to be bold and start working towards the above.  If you revert, please explain why here. Superm401 | Talk 07:40, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm removing the NPOV dispute tag.  I hope people will make a good-faith effort to fix the problem. Superm401 | Talk 08:56, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with the bold edits you carried out. I still think there is much to be done to bring this article up to a good standard though. Please see Summary of spoilers list vs. Plot summary. Mushin 17:53, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Factual Accuracy

message: Bad enough to have Silas' gun run out of ammo just before the coup de grace, but then we find out that its not only a semi-auto, but that it’s an H&K USP 40.
#The slide would jack back after the last round was fired, which would be impossible not to notice, so the hammer would not “click on an empty chamber”
#Silas would’ve had to have discharged 12 rounds of ammo prior to shooting Sauniere. We get no idea that he has been shooting up the Louvre, so he must’ve pumped the senechaux full of lead (4 bullets each) and never thought to reload?
#.40 caliber is pretty big, with a great degree of stopping power and unlikely to enter the belly in such a way as to leave a man slowly dying but ambulatory.
# Further, Silas can somehow tell in the darkened museum that the wound will suffice to kill Sauniere, and he need not feel compelled to take any action to finish him off. 
Coincidences, and particularly implausible ones on which the ENTIRE PLOT hinges like this, are the very hallmark of bad writing.
We'll see how they make that work in the movie :P
:I'm sure Dan Brown is really losing sleep over this one. I mean, it's this sort of thing that stops people buying a book. Oh, hang on... Graham 05:10, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That's what they all say. So, if I write a book and it sells 0 copies, it must be perfect by definition! Wake up, chum, selling 40 million copies of a book is jaw-droppingly impressive by any standard. Onomatopoeia 16:07, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Crticisms? How About Just Plain Bad 

message: I've removed this from :Category:Roman Catholic Church and put the book's meta category into :Category:Anti-Catholicism.  The Anti-Catholicism area is a subsidiary of the Catholicism category for the various criticisms of the church from the radical Protestant, anti-clerical and occult angles.
: I'm puzzled by this. I've read the book and do not see how it is in any way "anti-Catholic". (Major spoiler: none of the villains are in Opus Dei) thx1138 10:44, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  (spoiler) That's not true.  He may not be the ringleader, but he does kill several people. Superm401 | Talk 10:39, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Right, but it turns out the guy giving him orders isn't in Opus Dei and is playing him. Regardless, it's a work of fiction. I don't see how a work of fiction that casts Catholic leaders as some of the bad guys is "anti-Catholic", any more than the X-File is "anti-American".thx1138 12:37, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Doesn't the book claim that "The Church has suppressed the truth about Mary Magdalene and Jesus' bloodline for 2000 years. This is principally because they fear the power of the sacred feminine, which they have demonized as Satanic."  I'd say that claiming an organization is dedicated to supressing the truth is commonly described as "anti".--Samuel J. Howard 02:55, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: To me that sounds like calling "The X-Files" anti-American because it claims the US government is collaborating with alien invaders.thx1138 07:57, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

text:  Given that the novel claims that the Catholic Church was responsible for the deaths of five million women who knew the grail "secret", I think that it could easily be seen as anti-Catholic. --Donahoo 16:38, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In addition, the book's frequent habit of casting the entire history of the Roman Catholic Church as a sham and repeatedly utilizing outrageous statistics to paint the Catholic Church in a harsh light is blatantly anti-Catholic. -LoL
So what? You all seem to forget that this is a work of fiction. It is not any more anti-christian than Harry Potter. dposse 20:08, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Categorisation

message: The introduction mentions that "The Da Vinci Code" is the second book on a 3 part trilogy. Angels and Demons is the first, but what is the third? Mention it in the intro as well. 70.111.251.203 13:40, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It hasn't come out yet. Superm401 - Talk 17:34, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Last Book of the Trilogy 

message: The intro paragraph states "the novel has helped generate popular interest in certain theories concerning the Holy Grail legend and the role of Mary Magdalene in the history of Christianity — theories that Christians typically consider heretical and that have been criticized as historically inaccurate." (emphasis added)  Is there any evidence at all to suppport using the word theory - doesn't this position the book far too seriously?  A wikipedia-quality intro would simply discuss the book as a work of fiction and entertainment.  flux.books 04:10, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There are theories mentioned in the book, though they were not invented for the book.  For example, the book centers around the theory proposed in Holy Blood, Holy Grail that Jesus survived and went to France with Mary Magdalene and a child.  This theory was popularized so much that another edition of that book was printed.  Note also that I am using theory in the popular (and social studies) sense, not the scientific one; regardless, Wikipedia editors should not try to judge an idea's correctness before describing or mentioning it. As for your idea of only mentioning the fiction, that is unreasonable.  The book should be viewed as only fiction, but it is not, so we can not pretend otherwise. Superm401 - Talk 04:20, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is a novel.  It's a debasement of wikipedia to suggest otherwise. flux.books 04:55, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  A novel can contain any or all of 1) true assertions about the real world, and 2) things that people believe are true assertions about the real world, but may or may not actually be true and 3) things that are made up. The sentence you quote looks fine to me. — Matt Crypto 12:56, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

text: No. The judgemental statements were added only yesterday by 65.94.198.33 and Thx2005. Paul B 09:41, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Introductory paragraph? 

message: " The catholic personal prelature Opus Dei is fighting back. Their leaders ... "
As no source was mentioned, is there any proof for this claim by Uzawaung? Túrelio 07:42, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sp sure about the 'fighting back' terminology, but it's essentially true. The BBC did a report on this some while ago, and were given access to Opus Dei members as part of this positive-publicity campaign. Paul B 11:20, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Other fighting back

message: The process of weaving lies and myth, as can be observed in "the De Vinci Code," to sell a product, is not a new phenomena. The use of controversy and propaganda to capture the public's imagination, is hardly original.
What is ironic, is that the Vatican and Catholicism - has used the same method - of myth making and relic production for centuries in order to promote the "Universal Church." What the Vatican is really unhappy about, is that myth of the De Vinci Code undermines its own mythical status. The Vatican itself, is founded on the myth that Jesus Christ wanted a Universal Church - with Saint Peter being the first Pope! 
After all is said, the Vatican has promoted Mary as the Mother of God, Jesus as God himself..... a blatant myth and a false doctrine! If the Da Vinci Code did not so much create a non-Vatican sanctioned myth - the Vatican would only be too happy to support it!
For centuries, the Vatican and the various churches of Christendom have been merrily creating myths and relics, all bogus, for the benefit of its coffers. Mystifying its parishioners, creating fear and encouraging superstition. One example of a fraudulent myth is the doctrine of Purgatory, a mythical halfway house to heaven, which allows the Churches to fleece its congregations of revenue. 
The Vatican has been the best selling, money making, myth-producing institute the world has ever seen: the ILM of World Religions! Only now, it is under competition from a modern-day myth-making colossus, the Entertainment Industry. In an increasingly secular global-society, it is not difficult to predict who will win.  
The issue is not whether or not the Da Vinci Code is true or false, we let science clarify that matter, it is whether or not the Churches can maintain their already shaky “monopoly” on belief. If the mythology of the Da Vinci Code provides a more convincing argument against the legitimacy of the Churches, then it shows how weak the Churches claims are.
Observers should not allow themselves to be swayed by the Churches apparent “defensive” stance on this matter. That somehow, they are the injured party needing support. It is not in defence of the “Faith” that the Church leaders pout and glower. It is in defence of the Myth - that they are making sanctimony. 
For in truth, the drastic claims of the Da Vinci Code that Jesus Christ was married and produced children, pale as - tactless banter - when compared to the doctoring, this gentle-horror that masquerades as an institution for the good of mankind – has made to the tenets of Christianity.
:*I appreciate your initial comments about the storyline of the book and how it relates to the Roman Catholic Church. However, somehow you went off track and ended up trashing the Vatican and the Church (if not Christianity itself) instead. This barrage of anti-Catholic and apparently anti-Christian talk does not belong here. Physicq210 21:27, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Myth Making - ''The Da Vinci Code''

message: Shekinah was mentioned in the book as the principle of the divine feminine, the counterpart of the male God Yahweh.  But if you apply the Atbash cipher method to "Shekinah" you can produce "Ba'alat," a pagan goddess.  Thoughts?
69.194.120.28 05:14, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Shekinah, as well as having an article all of its own, is also discussed in the Criticisms of the Da Vinci Code article. Paul B 09:33, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

text: It's a god job wikipedia is not a discussion board, eh? Mushintalk 19:33, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Atbash of "Shekinah" 

message: The Da Vinci Code is currently the number one listed favorite book on student profiles on Facebook.
I don't think Facebook is a very relevant source of information. This also strikes me as too time sensitive. So, I moved it here. DAF 17:17, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Facebook 

message: The project has undertaken the task of improving this article, which is currently in a very poor state, to FA or near-FA quality. We shall be utilising the guidelines formulated through consensus at the project to give this article a complete overhaul. Discussions geared specifically to this major overhaul should be directed to the temporary special sub page /project_talk. Editors who are not members of the project are also welcome to help. Loom91 07:32, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels]] 

message: Hi.  I just wanted to clarify that, despite the tag that was on it, this article was never semi-protected.  Anons and new users are able to edit the article normally.  If anyone believes that the article should be protected, please post a request with evidence (diffs, brief explanation of the situation) at WP:RfPP.  Thanks, Redux 02:35, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have protected this page due to spamming from IP addresses.  Please notice that: 1) Protection is not endorsement of the current version; 2) This is a temporary measure, and the page will not stay protected forever. This action has been automatically logged and registered by me here.  If you have any objection to the temporary protection of this article, however, please elaborate your point on this talk page.  I would also like to encourage the parties involved in the issue that led to this protection to work out their differences on this page.  Please remember to be civil, polite and thorough in your comments.  Remember: the sooner the issue is resolved, the sooner the protection can be lifted.  Thank you. Redux 16:25, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the lastest protection has now been on for five days. Isn't that long enough? Could we try unprotecting to see whether this gets spammed (or whatever) again? The protection tag just looks so ugly and itself disrupts the article. --A bit iffy 20:57, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protection and tagging 

message: :I can't believe how you people run this place. What the heck is wrong with you? There were 5 different linked sites that provided help on the Da Vinci Code webquests - 2 were for the original webquest and those links had been here on Wikipedia for several years without issue and were the most well-used resources for the webquests on the internet, and then 3 more links were recently added for help with the NEW Google webquests that just started this month. NOTE that these new Google webquests are not related to the older original webquests at all, and do NOT superced them in any manner. ONE person comes along who has created a new site that provides help ONLY for the NEW Google webquests (and no help whatsoever with the older original webquests), and this prat deletes ALL the links and information to ALL the webquest help sites both old and new, and replaces them with his own link, and when several site owners try to put their information back up, this clown repeatedly deletes it ..and then you mods back him up??? WTF is up with that??? PLEASE EXPLAIN YOUR ACTIONS??? Your page now provides absolutely no links to help with the original webquests, and only one link for help with the new webquest, which is all thanks to this one selfish prat from googlefact.blogspot.com. Oh wait, there's one more link too, and that's to his mirror site at davinciquest.blogspot.com. How can you justify your actions? The owner of googlefact.blogspot.com also posted on the site of one of the links he removed (student-rant.blogspot.com), to laugh at everyone and thank us all for the traffic and the ad-impression revenue it is generating for him. AND THIS IS WHAT YOU PEOPLE SEEM TO CONDONE???? If you could give some reason for your actions then perhaps all of us site owners who were deleted could understand, but we do not see that there is any justification for what you have done, nor has anyone offered any. The ONLY message we're getting here is that it pays to manipulate Wikipedia for personal gain and delete everyone else's links but your own. WE HUMBLY REQUEST YOU RECTIFY THIS MATTER AND THEN LOCK THE PAGE TO STOP THE PERSON WHO STARTED ALL THIS FROM DOING IT AGAIN - which happens to be the one link you have left on the page. At a bare minimum, restore the help links to the original webquests so people looking for help with them can actually get some. I still can't believe how unjustly you mods have administered this matter so far.
----------------------
I am the webmaster of the website http://student-rant.blogspot.com. My blog was the first to start providing discussions of the latest webquests sponsored by Google. Infact as you can see with the links coming in to my site, various other blogs picked it up and referred to my site for further discussions. This stayed that way until day 3 or day 4 of the google webquests, the owner of googlefact contacts me asking me to link up. I did not acknowledge his request as I wanted my visitors to have fun solving the quests themselves. I frequently edit the comments section in my blog to remove any direct references to answers to the webquests. I did not even observe that the link to my blog was removed until one day i received a whole bunch of emails from my visitors telling me that my link has been removed along with everyone else's and the only reference is that of googlefact. I have no complaints against how googlefact runs his blog, but I believe that the general public must be given access to sites providing different points of view. So, I request the wikipedia webmaster(s)/police to do a fair trial and restore the original links and punish the offending party.
Thanks!
Student
----------------------
I have to say, http://student-rant.blogspot.com was the first and best for the latest webquest, for me. I've checked the current links and there are now three... However it looks as though it IS possible to get your link back on that page. You now have to contact the wiki admins as they have temporarily disabled editing. Actually it says "
As a result of recent vandalism, or to stop banned editors from editing, editing of this page by new or unregistered users is temporarily disabled. Changes can be discussed on the talk page, or you can request unprotection."Good luck Student and others! Laurel Papworth 04:07, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: re webquest help links removed

message: I'm wondering what happened to the female from the first Langdon book. Can anyone tell me? Rockhound 17:31, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: What happened to Vittoria?

message: I was looking at the Christian response section. Recently in the news I heard that the Catholic Church was urging people to actually boycott the film. I noticed that this piece of information is missing. Should it not be added as part of their response?Giovanni33 05:37, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is treated at The Da Vinci Code (film) - since the boycott is mainly aimed at the movie, that probably suffices. Kuru talk 23:16, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Christian response section