Talk:Inaccuracies in The Da Vinci Code/Archive 1

Name
Shouldn't this be Criticisms of The Da Vinci Code? RMoloney (talk) 17:21, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Status of Women
The page is generally good but I saw it : "A few ancient societies, like the Egyptians, did permit women a relatively high status." This wasn't true, normally. Ex. : The queen-mother Hatshepsout was obligated to disguise herself in the male god Osiris to become Pharaoh and her son was the legal Pharaoh, herself being just an "usurper" according to egyptian culture and law. Source : "Hatshepsout" in Britannica (etc.)70.82.28.82

Pagan conspiracy
The Da Vinci Code is said to be the first indication that there is a larger conspiracy to return the "Romans" back into worshipping Goddesses and the Sun, and the "Arabs" to worshipping the Moon. Superman Returns with open suggestions of Polyandry and Sun Worship.

Wrong Hyperlink
Shouldn't the link to Vensus under the Sacred Feminine section send you to the goddess vensus not the planet? I went ahead and changed it.New Order 22:45, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Different Criticisms
Hasn't there been some review sometime or somwhere that has forsaken the controversies and just criticised it for being horribly written? Can we talk about that in the article? I mean, isn't it also criticism? Joe 05:09, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

NPOV?
How can anything on this page be considered NPOV? Most of the criticisms aren't based on facts, but rather counter-assertions. Where are the sources for "a Templar presence in the area"? Why is this in an encyclopedia?? Jburt1 19:59, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Aren't counter assertions counted as criticism? Anywya, this looks like it was taken from the main article. - Ta bu shi da yu 23:20, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, but certainly there are rebuttals on record from Brown or supporters of Brown that could be included here. Ned Scotland 23:30, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
 * For sure, please feel free to include them. Actually, I'd like to see this article reorganised. It's basically a bunch of bullet points at the moment. - Ta bu shi da yu 23:37, 23 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree. This article is mostly POV, from the opening sentence on.  And what isn't POV is just a bulleted list.  This article needs some extensive clean-up. --Chancemichaels 19:13, 30 March 2006 (UTC)Chancemichaels


 * I think that it is impossible to have criticisms without POV. However, I also think that some of the 'facts' that the criticisms show should be posted as the quotee's OPINION, not a fact that the book goes against.

Ilikefood 23:15, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

THis article is a mess and un-encyclopediac, but its one of my favorites. It needs a lot of clean-up, but all of the assertions are more or less accurate. As it is an article entirely devoted to criticism, it cannot help being biased.

Caesar 02:38, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Jburt1
I’ve found some discrepancies with this page. One quote reads:

“Brown mistakenly calls Godfrey of Bouillon a king of France. Godfrey was a nobleman from Boulogne. At the time of the First Crusade, Philip I was the king of France. Godfrey was a successful commander and eventually became the first western ruler of Jerusalem, taking the title Advocatus Sancti Sepulchri, defender of the Holy Sepulchre. “ Criticisms of The Da Vinci Code However, the book reads:

“‘The Priory of Sion,’ he began, ‘was founded in Jerusalem in 1099 by a French king named Godefroi [Godfrey] de Bouillon, immediately after he had conquered the city.’” (Da Vinci Code, Chapter 37, page 167)

The excerpt from the book clearly says “a French king,” meaning the first "French" King of Jerusalem, and not “a king of France,” as in the actual King of France like the aforementioned paragraph states. Although Godfrey of Bouillon took the official title of “Defender of the Holy Sepulchre” he is till considered, even by the article Kings of Jerusalem, to be the 1st "French" King of Jerusalem!

Granted, Dan Brown should have explained the situation regarding the Duke better, but the person who posted that page should have done their homework before making claims like this.


 * Hardly. The use of the phrase "French king" for someone other than a "King of France" without further explanation is a mistake. - Nunh-huh 04:39, 6 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I disagree and agree with you. If the reader has heard of Duke Godfrey of Bouillon, and his background (he was the first "French" King of Jerusalem), before reading the book, then it isn't a mistake, but if they haven't, then it's a mistake only because they are unaware of Jerusalem's line of European Kings. [I originally wrote "I agree with Jburt1"]


 * I agree, if a person is ignorant of Jerusalem's line of european king's than it is their mistake, not the books. (!Mi nombre es amoladora de la carne y traigo el dolor! 10:11, 9 May 2006 (UTC))

It's fiction
Get over it. —Keenan Pepper 05:12, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

It's fiction? Then tell this guy that:

"Interviewer: This is a novel ... If you were writing it as a non-fiction book, would it have been different?

Dan Brown: I don't think it would have. I began the research for The Da Vinci Code as a skeptic. I entirely expected, as I researched the book to disprove this (Jesus/Mary Magdalene/Grail) theory. And after numerous trips to Europe and about two years of research I really became a believer. I decided this theory makes more sense to me than what I learnt as a child."
 * That is not telling it is not fiction. He just says he believed in stuff he "discovered". Of course, what he has discovered may not be The Truth, but it's what he belives in anyway. Note also how he refers to this as a theory. Please find a better quote from him if you intend to tell he didn't think he was writing fiction. ;-) -- Northgrove 00:50, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Try these ones then:
 * ''Martin Savidge: When we talk about da Vinci and your book, how much is true and how much is fabricated in your storyline?


 * Dan Brown: 99 percent of it is true. All of the architecture, the art, the secret rituals, the history, all of that is true, the Gnostic gospels. All of that is … all that is fiction, of course, is that there's a Harvard symbologist named Robert Langdon, and all of his action is fictionalized. But the background is all true.''
 * (CNN interview, May 25, 2003)


 * ''Matt Lauer: How much of this is based on reality in terms of things that actually occurred?


 * Dan Brown: Absolutely all of it.''
 * (Today Show, June 9, 2003)


 * Before he became too shy to do interviews anymore, Brown made it quite clear that, while Langdon, Sophie and the action etc are all clearly fictional, the background is 'all true'.


 * Clear enough for you? Thiudareiks 01:20, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree. The story would loose all purpose if the backround wasn't true. That's why its lame. Not to be a killjoy, however, but I don't think we're supposed to be arguing about the literary qualities of the book, but instead about the article. Caesar 02:42, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree that this book is fiction. People are making a big stink about the controversial elements of "DaVinci Code" when they know it is fiction. What about "The Omen"? I don't remember people bombarding that story. Probably because Satan is part of Christian belief. But, when they look at "DaVinci Code" they butcher it because it contains material that isn't part of Christian belief. It's unfair. It's not like Brown is out there totally assaulting Christianity. For some reason, whenever Christian belief is contradicted, too many people make too big a deal out of it. Wolfranger 20:35, 7 February 2007 (UTC)


 * The thing with all this is that The Da Vinci Code is read and reviewed by so many people who don't know a thing about literature, don't normally read novels, and don't know how to respond to literary fiction. The author and his publishers obviously use this for all it's worth as a marketing trick. Looking at Brown's earlier career, it's obvious that he was not only a lousy writer (which he certainly still is), but a commercial failure that wouldn't get any more books published unless something drastically was done. Foreign publishers that was offered the novel before the debate started, refused it. It wouldn't surprise me if copies were sent to prospective opponents to start the debate. As for Brown's claims: It's quite normal for an author of fiction to, ironically, refer to his works as if it was "real life". A "preface" telling that the following story is true or based on actual events is an age-old part of fictious narratives. Whether the author, by now, is trapped by his own scheme, or act as the ironic writer of fiction mocking his dumb-witted "critics", I could not say. Anyhow most "critics" of the novel and opponents of its claims do little but revealing their ignorance of literature. Discussing the "truths" and "lies" of The Da Vinci Code the way it's been done for years is about as relevant as discussing whether a small girl like Pippi Longstockings could really lift a horse... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 217.14.8.228 (talk) 17:36, 2 May 2007 (UTC).


 * I've added quotes and references to Brown's claims that the so-called history presented in his fiction is "99% true" and that "absolutely all of it" happened. This assertions were what began the controversy about the novel and need to be included, otherwise these objections that the author never intended anything in the novel to be considered to be anything but "fiction" are valid.  If Brown hadn't made these claims of a factual basis for "99%" of the information in his fiction, this whole page would be little more than the nitpicking some claim it to be.  But he did make these assertions and many of his readers took him at his word. Thiudareiks 01:22, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Heh heh those crazy wimmen!!
I changed an inappropriate reference to "rational, male thinking" in the part about the left brain. Although some simplistic explanations of left brain - right brain differences call the left brain "rational" and the right brain not, the real difference is in how the hemispheres contribute to rational thought, not that rationality comes from one side of the brain. As for the "male" comment, I'm assuming that was either the product of someone who doesn't realize he's a misogynist or it was deliberately meant to inflame.

As for "get over it", that would be useful if kids weren't actually being taught some of the fictions in the Da Vinci code as if they were factual. A relative's teacher brought up a fallacy from the book as fact. Students can use the information in this page to find hard evidence to refute such poppycock. I don't want my relative getting a lower grade in class just because his teacher thinks Brown's story is based in irrefutable fact. --Charlene.vickers 05:26, 26 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Good point. I guess Wikipedia should point out certain things even if they seem obvious to some people, because others will hopelessly confuse reality and fantasy. —Keenan Pepper 05:46, 26 December 2005 (UTC)


 * The "male" comment has nothing to do with misogyny, but rather with the novel's own assertions about supposed denigration of the "feminine", which is the context of Brown's comment about left and right brain activity. Paul B 21:51, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

The book is “historical” fiction.
It's fiction    Get over it. —Keenan Pepper 05:12, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

In response to Keenan Pepper's remark "Get over it," I hold multiple PhD’s in Middle Eastern and European histories. My only intent on correcting one of the page’s numerous historical mistakes (which were based on “assertions,” as Jburt1 put it) was to enlighten the more less-read or immature readers on the book’s true historical background. Whether the book’s religious-toned plot is real or not does not concern me, only the history. I see from your user page that you are a youngster in school striving for a major in physics and computer science. I’m sure if you discovered a published physics dissertation with incorrect math or a computer program with a bug that you would try to correct the problem, would you not? I hope once you graduate from college and experience the “real world” that you will understand the passion that working professionals, such as I, have for their trade.


 * Thanks for correcting a mistake, though as you are posting anonymously, it's not possible to tell which it was. If there are "multiple" mistakes, please tell us what they are. Paul B 21:59, 7 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry about that Paul B, please refer to the heading "I agree with Jburt1," which is #2 on the content box.

lol "The real world" - what kind of arrogant prick are you?


 * The kind of prick that knows what he's talking about! Wikipedia isn't a soapbox. If you have a problem, go cry to your buddies on an actual chat forum.

No really - any academic who has opinions like this and so many doctorates really can be so condescending - if you lecture in your subject then god help your students because if you really believe that you live "in the real world" then you are sadly mistaken.


 * Believe me when I say I'm not just a book worm who keeps his nose in a novel. I earned my college money in the military. How many people can honestly say that they shed blood, sweat, and tears to actually go to college? I've experienced the atrocities of the "real world" first hand. I'm not some 19 year kid who lives with his mom and dad and thinks he knows everything, when he has yet to experience the world beyond college! My original comment on "The book is “historical” fiction" was left for User:Keenan Pepper, the 19 year old in question. Again, I'm just interested in the history, not the religious tone of this book. This talk page should be used for the betterment of this article, not calling someone a "prick" or "condescending".


 * haha, live by your own words then, buddy.


 * sigh*. By the way, whose was the last comment? Also, I agree that the book is fiction, not historical fiction. Thank you, and sorry if I antagonized anyone. -- Drahcir  my talk  04:00, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Literary criticism?
I for one see any literary criticism based on religious values after about AD1650 to be inherently trivial. Where are criticisms from authors, critics, etc? Otherwise change the name of the article to "Catholics whining about the Da Vinci Code." --Tothebarricades 09:48, 10 January 2006 (UTC)


 * There isn't much "literary criticism" as such. And why is "lierary criticism based on religious values" (whatever that means) inherently trivial after 1650? Paul B 10:59, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I mean, judging a book because your priest told you it's bad or whatever. Like the people who think J.K. Rowling is a Satanist. --Tothebarricades 18:28, 10 January 2006 (UTC)


 * That's not what this article is about. It's about the connection between the assertion in the novel about history and actual history. No-one thinks there is a real Hogwarts or platform 9 3/4 in King's Cross station. Paul B 18:29, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

One question I have concerning this page is that I have always read that the vote on the First Council of Nicaea had been very close, however in this piece it states 316 to 2. Since there is no citation, where did this figure come from? thin air Or maybe brown was there in person lol Ukbn2 17:28, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

POV fork
I think that this is a POV fork. -- nyenyec &#9742; 15:31, 28 January 2006 (UTC)


 * No, ironically it was created by someone who wanted to exclude critical material from the main page. See Talk:The Da Vinci Code. Paul B 15:37, 28 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Yop, it was me, see discussion on main article. Onomatopoeia 15:24, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Organizing the criticism
I've sort of begun organizing the criticism into threads that focus on religion and those that focus on other things. Some threads belong in both, and I'm sure someone can organize them all into smaller categories. Please don't be upset at me. Orville Eastland 03:25, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Huh?
Under the Paris heading: "The protagonist is apparently capable of leaping from the Louvre onto a passing truck at a point where the Paris sidewalk is 10 metres wide."

Um... what? They threw a GPS dot that they lodged in a bar of soap out the window onto the stopped truck. A lucky shot, no doubt, but no one jumped out the window. (Comment left by User:JoW 11:00, February 22, 2006)


 * yes, but this does remind me of a detail that I found annoying, which is the fact that GPS is not accurate enough to allow anyone to determine which room a person is in (or even if they're still in the building, in the case of someone who is at a window), as GPS signals in practice can "drift" meters from an actual position, giving one the impression that a target is several meters from where they actually are. I heard this from someone who tried to use GPS in a public art context; their intended effect was spoiled because of this "drift". However, I have no verifiable source and I can't be bothered to find one, so this will stay here on the discussion page! -Fennel 06:21, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Civilian GPS-recievers are less accurate than military ones. Proper systems can easily identify a difference of 1 metre. Andrimner (talk) 15:37, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

This is true, an article has even been written on it which can be found here.

Academic Integrity
I'm no scholar but someone should cover the fact that most of Brown's references were actually Apocryphal, i.e. not written by who they are said to be written by. These books weren't included in the Christian Canon and with good reason to: no rational person would consider them an authoritative source. Alan Trick 01:38, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
 * That's not what Apocrypha means. Merriam-Webster: "Medieval Latin, from Late Latin, neuter plural of apocryphus secret, not canonical, from Greek apokryphos obscure, from apokryptein to hide away", refers also to "books included in the Septuagint and Vulgate but excluded from the Jewish and Protestant canons of the Old Testament" or " early Christian writings not included in the New Testament".  In fact, look up in your trusty Encyclopaedia Britannica if you don't trust Wiki sources, but most scholars both secular and sectarian are agreed that many of the canonical books of the bible (those that were included) were not "written by who they are said to be written by".  It was common practise in those times to ascribe your own writings to another, more famous person to give them more weight.  And "good reason?"  Within the canon Jesus himself quotes several scriptures which, strangely enough, the compilers of the bible did not include.  Were they not to be considered authoritative?  In any case, the existence of apocrypha in the Nag Hammadi library and the Dead Sea scrolls gives them a pedigree on equal footing with any of the canons.  --TouchGnome 06:19, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Removal of some arguments.
I'm removing three of the arguments on this page, for reasons that I'm listing below. All three are under "Implausible Plot Elements". All pages quoted are from the Australian Paperback edition of the novel.


 * A flaw in the entire premise of the story: that Saunière appears desperate to leave clues for his granddaughter Sophie, in the hope that she will discover the truth. His character is represented as believing, "If I die, the truth will be lost for ever." Yet, at the end of the book we are told that his estranged wife lives in Scotland with their grand-son, and that both are perfectly aware of the secret.

Well, 1) Sophie's grandmother isn't aware of the actual location of the Grail. From chapter 105, page 585: I have never officially been privy to the present location of the Grail. She guesses where it is, but that's only after reading the clue which Sophie brought her. The clue which would have been lost forever, in fact. Even if she had been aware, Saunière would have had no guarantee of this. 2) It could also be argued that the "truth" that Saunière wanted to share was the fact that Sophie's grandmother was still alive. If he hadn't left the final message, she would never have found the rest of her family. In either case, I think that this argument is erroneous, and I'm deleting it from the page.


 * When Teabing, Langdon, Sophie, Remy and the captured Silas land at Biggin Hill in Kent, they evade the British police waiting for them by taxiing Teabing's jet straight to Teabing's private hangar, where Sophie and Langdon exit quickly with Silas and conceal themselves behind Teabing's waiting limousine. It is difficult to believe the British police are sufficiently inept to search both the inside of the limousine and the plane, but not to search the remainder of the hangar!

Actually, what happened was that the Jet stopped momentarily, Sophie, Langdon and Silas exited and hid behind the limousine, and then the Jet started up again. (chapter 81, page 443) When the police pulled up, it appeared that the jet hadn't stopped at all, and was just finishing its turning maneouvre. They would have no reason to think that the jet had stopped and people had exited, and thus they wouldn't search the rest of the hangar. Also, at no point does anyone search the inside of the limousine.


 * Moreover, we are not told who parked the limousine there to wait for Teabing, or how a limousine left unused there for (presumably) weeks at a time is nonetheless perfectly prepared for Teabing's use.

From the beginning of Chapter 81, on page 437: ''Teabing liked things just so. The custom-built Jaguar stretch limousine that he kept in his hangar was to be fully tanked, polished and the day's Times laid out on the back seat.''

When he rang ahead to get his jet "Elizabeth" prepared (Chapter 67, page 379) it can be assumed that his pilot also rang ahead to England to warn that he'd be arriving.

If you think that my arguments are faulty, feel free to restore the orginal counter-arguments to the page. The Zaniak 13:58, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Silas
I removed a bit of the paragraph about inconsistencies in Sila´s history, because modern quality of lixe indexes are of little relevance when you take into account the book talks about Spain in the past, not nowadays. Althought it´s true that the book doesn´t depict Oviedo accurately, the author of that paragraph seemed particularly irritated at it and didn´t contribute on a NPOV level.


 * Oh, yeah, in the past... but what past? When was the last time that Spain received missionaries? III or IV century a.C.?

Friday the 13th
In the section about the Knights Templar, this article matter-of-factly states "the superstition of Friday the 13th did not start until the early 1900s." However, on Wikipedia's own page for Friday the 13th, it says about its origins that "it probably originated in medieval times." Obviously, both can't be correct, so a little clean up or clarification is in order for that section.


 * Well this page is more accurate. No evidence has been found for pre-Victorian supersitions concerning Friday 13th. Paul B 23:28, 18 March 2006 (UTC)


 * The Friday the 13th page now reads that it started with the Templers. The place to argue this point is on The Friday the 13th Page, get it changed here, then this criticism can be added.  Right now, it makes Wikipedia look unneccesarily inconsistent. Thom Denick 21:52, 5 December 2006 (UTC)


 * We can't all monitor all pages to make them consistent with eachother. Just because someone writes nonsense on another page, it doesn't justify repeating it here. Paul B 23:06, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Inaccuracies, noticed by me

 * The novel was written when it was obvious that the pope John Paul II would die in a few years' time. The author believed that his successor would be a liberal who would limit the power of Opus Dei. Now it's obvious, it will not happen under Benedict XVI.
 * At one point when Teabing, Langdon, Neveu and Silas are about to flee from France tu the UK, Teabing remembers how he had to bribe British customs to bring some French food to the UK. Khhm, AFAIK both France and UK are members of the European Union so there are no customs checks when traveling among Union's states.

Nirvaan.Wiki:umm...FYI, UK hasnt, till date OFFICIALLY...read...OFFICIALLY joined the EU. Ne site on the EU will tell u that theyre still unsure abt joining the EU.... wy els do u think they stillhv the pound..... hehehe....


 * But while France is a member of the Schengen Agreement, UK (together with Ireland) isn't, so everyone traveling between the two countries should identify himself with a passport or ID (EU citizens). As Langdon is a US citizen (and thus not an EU citizen) he should have also to fill in an immigration card. As Schengen rules are strict, how could the group simply leave France (and thus the Schengen zone) without going through passport control first?? In the UK the police were waiting for them but only because they suspected something. On the other hand, who in the UK does actually check passports at borders, police or some special immigration service? Knowing that the British authorities are almost as paranoid as American, can every small countryside airport indeed serve as an entry point to the country?
 * And the most important one. The previously mentioned group manages to escape from France and illegally enter the UK. But that doesn't stop Bezu Fache to continue to chase them around London?!? And I believed that the French police is only authorized to operate in France and only British police is allowed to operate in the UK. If the group escaped France, Fache could only inform the Interpol that certain people are wanted. OTOH the British police should do their best to find the group. Not because they are suspected of a murder but because they entered UK illegally. When they are arrested, the ministry of justice should start a lengthy process to decide if and whom to hand over to the French police... --Fpga 21:33, 25 March 2006 (UTC)


 * The possibility of customs checks when entering the UK via a flight from another EU state still exists for mainstream airports (there's a special 'channel', usually referred to as the 'blue channel' - as opposed to the green 'nothing to declare' and red 'something to own up to' channels - to go through which will normally not involve even speaking to a customs official, but they can still stop you and inspect your luggage etc. A similar system exists at major ports, where customs do definitely take a particular interest in vehicles that have come from certain destinations). Ghod knows what happens at smaller airports like Biggin Hill, but having customs ask at least a couple of questions is likely.


 * It's the Immigration Service of the Home Office who do the checks, and yes, I'd expect them to be at Biggin Hill asking questions.


 * Yes, there are several problems with the UK police procedure bits. Lovingboth 20:17, 12 April 2006 (UTC) (been through customs and immigration today...)


 * If I remember correctly there are rules about "hot pursuit" that allows policemen within the Schengen area to operate outside their countries. But in the book does the french police actually operate in the UK or are they just there to assist the UK local police? // Liftarn 14:07, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Side note - the UK was not privy to Schengen. We didn't sign it. Ukbn2 17:28, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

"Criticisms" or inconsistencies?
Parts of this read like one of those websites that catalogues inconsistencies in films rather than actual criticisms of the book. I'm not entirely convinced that an article by this title is needed at all, to be honest. This is marketed as a work of fiction; as such, who cares whether the reality in the novel differs from historical reality? Isn't it to be expected? Exploding Boy 20:39, 3 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Lots of people care about the important matters concerning history, because the novel creates the impression it's conveying facts. As for the stuff about bad French and plot-implausibilities - I'd gladly be rid of it, but if peole add it we can't really just dump it all without a consensus. Paul B 06:49, 4 May 2006 (UTC)


 * People may care, but is it encyclopaedic? Once again, this is akin to those movie websites: "in the murder scene, if you look carefully, you'll notice that the hero's watch switches from his right wrist to his left several times during the scene."  This is a work of fiction; it contains references to historical people or facts, but it is still fiction.  Are we to comb every fictional novel for such references and explain how they differ from reality?


 * Is having an article on The Da Vinci Code encyclopedic? Probably not, if you read a paper based one. But the main article is here, so here this article on criticism stays! - Ta bu shi da yu 06:24, 8 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I would agree with a similar article if it limited itself to descriptions of fictional things in the novel that people believe are true, with appropriate references and citations. But this article is just a mishmash that is already a little out of control, and could easily get much worse.  Exploding Boy 15:59, 4 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I think that much of it is useful and appropriate, though there is some paring down that is occasionally needed. The key deciding factor for me on whether or not something is appropriate to include, is whether or not it is an issue that is being covered in other sources.  Many of the book's "facts" are routinely the subject of documentaries and investigative reports, and as such, meet the Wikipedia guidelines for notability.  In other words, if the History Channel, National Geographic Channel, Discovery Channel, and several other books have all gone to the trouble of refuting certain points in the book, it makes sense to include a summary of the debate here.  If, however, an item on this list is just one person's opinion about a misspelled word or inconsistency, then yes, it's probably removeable.  --Elonka 16:41, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I would agree with this discussion if all criticisms where in fact in the Davinci Code's main article, because it could deviate from the article's main purpose. However, by having a separate article about the Criticisms of The Davinci Code means a user would access this article if he/she is clearly interested in knowing the general criticisms about the novel. It doesn't matter that the novel is a fiction. The author wants the readers to believe that the fiction is based on historical facts, but many "facts" are wrong, unfounded or simply misleading. Let me make a clear analogy: The movie Titanic, is a fiction, based on a historical fact. Nevertheless, is fiction. Now, what if in the movie, instead of a boat hiting an iceberg, the boat what hit by an comet? I think that one of the big points that critics of the Da Vinci Code tend to make is that it is very easy (not to say "amateurish") to write a "historical fiction" novel and when inconsistencies come to attention, to say "hey it's just fiction". --Pinnecco 14:13, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

100 km per 1 liter
Volkswagen actually developed an automobile that could travel 100 km on one liter of diesel fuel. It apparently was never put into production because of its high cost. Too Old 22:40, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Eh? That is the strangest criticism I've heard yet of the Da Vinci Code. - Ta bu shi da yu 06:24, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Ah, then we have another criticism. VW does not make Smart and it's 3.4 L/100 km for the diesel version of Smart Fortwo // Liftarn

We are actually debating non existent cars? Da[m]n Brown....Ukbn2 17:28, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup
Somebody needs to go through and find sources for all the things claimed in this article. Rather than saying "it is claimed" or "the claim that," we need to be saying "in Chapter X, character Y says Z." It needs to be made clear that what we're talking about is a work of fiction, and that the "claims" made, if they can even be called that, are made by fictional characters in a novel. Similarly, we need to provide sources for more of the claims in opposition as well. Exploding Boy 05:15, 7 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I disagree, and feel that if we were to reformat the article in that way, it would be a violation of WP:NOR. The Wikipedia guidelines state that information on Wikipedia should reflect what is being written in other third party sources.  To my knowledge, when there are refutations in other books and television documentaries, the information is presented in a general form, not in a "In Chapter X, Character Y says Z" form.  There are also plenty of references listed in the article, so saying that we need to "find sources for all the things claimed" seems excessive.  If there are particular statements in dispute, then yes, they should of course be challenged or removed, but including additional citations just to have them, when a particular statement is not in dispute, and the source is already listed elsewhere on the page, is unnecessary. --Elonka 08:44, 7 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Currently, large portions of the article suggest that Dan Brown is making certain claims. This isn't true at all.  This is a work of fiction; what we're discussing in this article is things that occur in that fictional world, and things claimed by fictional characters in that world.  "It is claimed" and "the claim that" obscure this important distinction.  Once again, I'm not even convinced that we need an article like this at all.  Frankly, it's akin to saying, in the Harry Potter article, "while it is claimed in the book that there is a Platform 9 3/4 at King's Cross Station, this is in fact not true.  While there is a Platform 9, and a Platform 10, there has never been a Platform 9 3/4."  Exploding Boy 23:34, 7 May 2006 (UTC)


 * If you bother to read the discussions above, you will see that the platform 9 3/4 analogy has already been made. And no, points about the use of history in the Da Vinci Code are completely different.Paul B 08:52, 8 May 2006 (UTC)


 * How? Why?  Harry Potter is an extreme example, I'll agree, but nonetheless, it is also a work of fiction that makes use of certain real things.  What I've been arguing all along is that we should be focusing not on what things in this fictional work differ from the reality of those things, but what things have been believed by people which are actually fictional.  Exploding Boy 17:12, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, if there were multiple books and television documentaries about the Platform issue, then yes, I think it would be appropriate to discuss the point on Wikipedia. The key here is notability -- If there are many books written about a particular subject, then the subject is deserving of its own Wikipedia article. The "fact and fiction" debate is even becoming a routine school assignment for children.

As for the difference between "Brown states" and "the book states", it is probably appropriate in some cases to change the wording to make it clear that the language is coming from the book, and not directly from Brown. However, there are indeed many cases where Brown himself has made some of these claims, both in person and via his website  So in those cases, saying "Brown claims" is still appropriate. --Elonka 07:12, 8 May 2006 (UTC)


 * In which case, we should be saying so, and providing links and citations. Exploding Boy 17:12, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Not to mention the case where a character in the book makes a claim... Like that the Smart can do 100 km per 1 liter. It's a character in the book that claims that. A minor criticism is by the way that a french person would probably not say something like that but instead say that it uses only 0.1 litres per 10 km. // Liftarn
 * French people would rather say that the car uses only 'un litre au cent' that is one liter per hundred [kilometers implied]Chris CII

Get rid of it.
This article is absurd and just feeds the da vinci code, and the sort of people looking for a hidden star at Rosslyn and Diana getting married at westminster abbey - both claims are absolute horlicks - but Brown cites them in the book.

Browns book feeds the conspiracy theories, a page basically debunking them simply introduces another platform. Ukbn2 06:55, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Making this page is like going on a quest for the real truth. 222.126.74.23 01:06, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

"Light of the world" a title of Jesus?
The phrase "Light of the world" does not refer to Jesus but the disciples! "You are the light of the world; you are the salt of the earth.". From Matthew, I believe. 222.126.74.23 01:06, 16 May 2006 (UTC)


 * The sentence said that characters in the novel say that the title came from Mithraism. Characters in the novel say a lot of things that are utter tosh, that's the point of the article. We say what the characters say, then comment on it. However in this case see John 8:12, "Then spake Jesus again unto them, saying, I am the light of the world: he that followeth me shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life." (KJV) The use of the phrase "Light of the World" as a title for Jesus is most common the in 19th century, following the popularity of Holman Hunt's allegorical painting The Light of the World, and the hymn with the repeated line "the light of the world is Jesus". Paul B 08:34, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I do agree with the "utter tosh" part, however I'm not sure that Wikipedia is the place to refute every factual inaccuracy in the book (it would make for a very very very long Wikipedia article). Instead, I think that our readers would be better served by a Wikipedia article which focuses on the notable errors -- in other words, errors in the book which have been covered and debunked in other press, books, or documentaries, otherwise we're straying into Original Research territory.  Has this particular point been brought up elsewhere yet? --Elonka 23:41, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree with you. I think it should really only cover the religious history, art and other matters of historical record. That's what the controversy is about. That's what the numerous books and tv shows commenting on the novel have been about. No-one presents a TV show on such issues of whether there are any bars of soap in the Louvre toilets, or whether you turn left or right at the Rue de Whatever. Paul B 07:15, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Agreement is good. :)  I think we can start removing (or at least flagging) other elements of the page which seem to be original research elements.  As regards the "mapping" inaccuracies, that's covered in Burstein's 2004 book "Secrets of the Code", but I'm not aware of anyone writing about the soap issue.  How about the left/right "sinister" paragraph? I agree that the information in the Wikipedia article is correct, and that the novel has it wrong, but has that particular issue been addressed in any of the "debunking" reports anywhere? --Elonka 17:08, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I deleted the soap point almost as soon as it was added. Apparently they have liguid soap in the Louvre toilets. I don't know whether the "sinister" thing is addressed in particular debunking texts, but it's part of the claims against Catholicism. Paul B 14:06, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

This page is sickening.
A whole page of criticims? I don't think so. Half of the stuff in here is just knit-picky stuff anyway that any author could make the mistake of, like the Characters' names section and the French language section. I think someone definitely needs to look at this and remove all unneeded and useless criticisms from this page; I'll probably work of it eventually. → &ensp; J @  red &ensp; 23:11, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Please be sure to read the rest of the talk page first, where this issue has already been discussed. --Elonka 00:54, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

This page is sickening, but should be kept
The Da Vinci Code does have many errancies, and they should be proven false. This is not saying that every book with errancies should be proven false in a whole separate page, but this is a special case. This book has created so much controversy and uprisings from the church that if many books are written in objection to the Da Vinci Code, proving it false, I believe that a page should be here on such an issue... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattqatsi (talk • contribs) 21:59, May 21, 2006


 * I understand that his page should be kept, and I know there is a lot of controversy. Much of it, should and will be kept on this page. Other things, though, are downright knitpicky, and it is going past the point of controversial criticism. I think that it the stuff that should be reworded, deleted, or just listed at the bottom under a heading called "Minor criticisms." If no one is opposed to this, I will get a start on weeding through and finding the stuff that I don't think belongs. There is only a little of it, but it sure makes the page look bad. → &ensp; J  @  red &ensp; 19:04, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Priory of Sion
The page has several references to the Priory as a hoax: "The Priory of Sion has been proven to be a hoax which was started in France in 1956..." under Knights Templar and "actual 'Priory of Sion' was a club founded in 1956 by Pierre Plantard and Andre Bonhomme, not 1099 as claimed in the book..." This might not actually be entirely true. While I have no web link stating this, the History channel has been running a special that does claim a group calling themselves the Priory of Sion did exist during the reign of the Knights Templar, but had no connection to the Knights Templar. This is supposedly based on discussion in Holy Blood, Holy Grail. Obviously not having a source, I didn't place this on the actual article, but someone might want to check that part out to verify whether or not it's true. 12.47.208.34 17:06, 22 May 2006 (UTC)anonymous12.47.208.34 17:06, 22 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I've never heard of the "Priory of Scion". Are you sure you are not referring to the Abbey of Sion? Paul B 17:29, 22 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry I spelled Scion wrong. It's supposed to be Sion.  Corrected. 12.47.208.34 21:06, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree, I too remember seeing something on the History Channel about an early Priory of Sion. As I remember it, they said that it was a coincidental name of an order of monks in medieval times.  The early Priory never really did anything notable though, and eventually they ran out of donations, couldn't pay the rent, and last anyone heard of them, their building was taken over by some other monastic order.  Then when Pierre Plantard's "Priory of Sion" was created in the 20th century, it used the same name, but was otherwise unrelated to the medieval version.  Does that sound right?  --Elonka 00:08, 23 May 2006 (UTC)


 * The "Abbey of Sion" (medieval organization, defunct for centuries) had nothing to do with the "Priory of Sion" (a modern organization started by Pierre Plantard). An Abbey and a Priory are not even the same thing.

French language mess
This paragraph about numbers in French is screwed up: "The operator of a taxi company calls the "voiture cinq-six-trois" ("car five-six-three"). The French language does not split numbers like this. It would have been more correct to write voiture cinq cents vingt-trois ("car five hundreds and twenty-six")."

If the number is 563, how can it be "more correct" to write "cinq cents vingt-trois," which means 523? And then that is translated parenthetically as 526!! I don't want to edit it because I don't know which number is actually in the book, but 563 would be "cinq cents soixante-trois." emw 16:03, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Moreover it is in fact common to split numbers thus over radio for sake of clarity and brevity : 'voiture cinq-six-trois' would be easier to copy than 'voiture cinq cent soixante trois'. Much as in english you hear 'cab five-six-three' rather than 'cab five hundred and sixty three'. Chris CII

Literary criticism
This page most definitely needs a section on literary criticism. Amongst others, Salman Rushdie has, rather famously, made fun of the book, which he apparently regards as badly written. Should we set that up as a separate top-level section? I think it's odd that a page called "Criticisms of" and the title of a book contains only criticisms of factual errors in a work of fiction, and nothing whatsoever on literary criticism, the most common meaning of "criticism" in the context of a work of literature. JZ 02:00, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Salman Rushdie said it was badly written? Wow... it must be bad. DanCrowter 17:29, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Direct observations of notable critics only, please
Please remember the official policy on critical reviews of art in Wikipedia: critical analysis of art is welcome, if grounded in direct observations of outside parties. I see a significant amount of personal criticisms by WP editors citing the novel, instead of citing a primary source or notable literary critic. Maybe it seems unfair to you, but as an encyclopedia, this can't be a collection of original criticism from non-notable critics. --Ds13 00:47, 2 June 2006 (UTC)


 * The very stubby Literary Criticism section was recently added by me following the comments above yours and a comment on the the Da Vinci Code talk page (in fact I merely cut n pasted it from an earlier version). It is wholly dependent on what "notrable literary critic(s)" have said. The other sections are not about literary criticism, but factual content. Facts are sourced separately. Where it's absent, sourcing information would be desirable, but where that information is accessible, it does not constitute original research to point it out. Personally I'd rather not have the trivial complaints about the misuse of "uploading" etc etc, but there is no clear consensus to delete this material. Paul B 01:08, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Moving links from parent article

 * thedavincidialogue dot com - Davinci Code: The Dialogue- TheDaVinciDialogue.com is a website offering informative essays by a broad array of leading Christian scholars, pastors and educators addressing many of the historical and theological issues touched on in The Da Vinci Code. The essay writers represent an eclectic group of experts from Roman Catholic, Orthodox and Protestant traditions. The site was launched on February 9th, 2006
 * hilalplaza dot com/The%20Da%20Vinci%20Code%20-%20Islamic%20Response.htm - The Da Vinci Code - An Islamic Response and Analysis
 * I've moved these links from the main article. If it can be used here, please do. Otherwise, discard. I've removed all external links from the main article to focus on cited content and to minimize link farming. &mdash;Viriditas | Talk 11:10, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

"flamboyant homosexual"
i don't recall the part in book where brown refers to leonardo as a "flamboyant homosexual." in chapter 26 an inmate says "i heard he was a fag" and langdon replies "Historians don't generally put it quite that way, but yes, Da Vinci was homosexual." but other than that...? 24.185.105.170 23:44, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
 * "Da Vinci had always been an awkward subject for historians, especially in the Christian tradition. Despite the visionary's genius, he was a flamboyant homosexual and worshipper of Nature's divine order, both of which placed him in a state of perpetual sin against God." (DVC, Chapter Eight, p. 45). And he was not, of course a 'flamboyant homosexual', since the evidence about his sexuality is totally inconclusive.  Hardly 'flamboyant'. Thiudareiks 06:01, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Nicaea
The book, or at least the movie, claims that the Bible was put together at Nicaea. This is incorrect, the Bible was "voted on" at the Council of Carthage, long after Constantine was dead. Should this be in the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.12.117.12 (talk • contribs) 02:59, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
 * The similarity between the book and the movie is fairly close. You're referring to the scene at Teabing's house with Sophie and Langdon, where Teabing is describing the relationship between the "Grail" and early Christian history.  Looking through the book, I don't see the claim that the "Bible was put together at Nicaea".    Furthermore, this topic is already addressed at First Council of Nicaea, so all you would have to do is link to it. &mdash;Viriditas | Talk 03:29, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Proposal - Shrinking the page
In many cases, in my opinion, the proper place to discuss some of the incorrect statements in the Da Vinci Code are not to lump them all here on one page, but to address them in the individual articles about those subjects. As such, in order to reduce the size of this "Criticisms" page, what I propose is setting up "References in popular culture" sections on other Wikipedia pages that refer to the specific issues. For examples, see what I've done with First Council of Nicaea, Nag Hammadi Library and William of Gellone (though that's more related to HBHG than DVC). In any case, the changes as I've been placing them seem to have been well-received, since they don't interfere with the flow of the normal article, but do address the major DVC issues that have been being discussed in newspapers, books, and television documentaries, and causing other revert wars on those pages. We can move a lot of this info out of the Criticisms page to the individual article pages, and then shorten the Criticism page by including a brief 2-3 line summary on each topic, and then including a ( template (which will put a "For more details, see " marker on the page. How's that sound? --Elonka 16:01, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Etymology of Paganism
In The Da Vinci Code, it the word "Paganism" is attributed to a root meaning "rural", but it probably comes from a root meaning "civilian". See, Fox, R.L. (1986). Pagans And Christians. Harmondsworth: Viking Penguin.ACEO 18:56, 4 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi, new comments should go at the bottom. The association of Pagan with "rural" is the most widely accepted explanation of the word (giving us "paysan", "peasant" etc), but is certainly disputed. Ronald Hutton discusses this in some detail in Triumph of the Moon. However, it's rather tangental to this subject. We could add a footnote. Paul B 23:46, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

What is the foundation of all this criticism?
I personally find it a bit strange to dedicate a huge article to this subject, especially when at least my copy of the thriller has him clearly telling that it's more about facts about e.g. buildings/documents/organizations, not persons/events/relationships/etc. in the book, that were researched. Then I have to wonder why most of the sections in this article is really here, such as the part about Leonardo's biography. That's an aspect of the book where at least my copy doesn't seem to tell that he was telling some form of "established knowledge". Another part is that about Jesus and Mary Magdalene. He doesn't even say this is supposed to be "truth", although he does so in the novel. But that is obviously aspects of the artistic work that this after all is, because he doesn't claim otherwise?

I mean, is it really common practice in Wikipedia to criticize most things claimed in a novel to be truth? The X-Files claim an elobrate alien conspiracy at a government level to be the truth, and I see no Wikipedia article rebutting that? -- Northgrove 01:01, 10 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Besides the somewhat outstanding fact of 60+ million copies sold, many readers don't really take DVC as a completely fictious novel, and Brown took quite well care to "deceive" them. Borrowed from : "Brown ....has stated repeatedly that 'the background is all true'. When asked in an interview if the novel would have been different if he had written it as a non-fiction work, he replied 'I don't think it would have'. From the 'FACT' page that opens the novel to various interviews and statements, he has insisted that the claims he makes in it are '99% true'." --Túrelio 10:24, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Criticism vs Dispute
Terms as "religious criticisms" and "historical criticisms" are ambiguous and possibly misleading. Also, though they technically grammatical, they sound awkward. I am changing the headings to "religious disputes" and "historical disputes." --Ellissound 3:26, 17 July 2006

Day of the Sun
The association of Sunday with the sun is not specific to Germanic languages and is in fact present in Latin. The classical Latin name for Sunday is "dies solis," literally "day of the sun". The Germanic names for days of the week are translations of the Latin ones, replacing Roman deities with Germanic ones. 71.246.235.208 06:18, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Family trees
For the whole heir of the body of Jesus plot to work there would have to be very extensive family trees (branches do die out), and there would be endless possibilities for dispute as to who was the rightful heir (see John Locke's Two Treatises for some of the arguments "in a similar case".

The main question though is - what is the point of keeping an eye on the heirs of Jesus (which could include monitoring the siblings mentioned in the Bible). Unless you intend doing something with them, why not let them disappear into the general population, so eventually "many people" in Europe have something of Jesus in their make up?

Jackiespeel 17:35, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

some pointless criticism
Is all of this really necessary? Much of it is, but some, such as :

"The Beechcraft Baron 58 is referred to as a turboprop. In fact, this aircraft is powered by two 300 hp Continental piston engines. " or "It is stated that the Dead Sea Scrolls were found in "the 1950's", when in fact the initial discovery was made in 1947, with additional documents being located up to 1956."

These are pretty minor errors and don't really contribute anything of substance to the question of how historically (in)accurate this novel was Liamdaly620 02:00, 4 October 2006 (UTC)


 * "Of course a counter-argument used by Brown and his supporters is that if Jesus was not some kind of regular religious leader the chances of him being married were probably in fact higher. No statistics on the rate of marriage among citizens of Gaillee in the time Jesus supposedly lived are available." I thought Brown claims that it was a cultural norm for all Jewish men? No higher or lower chances here if every guy does it, or has to do it. Brown and co. are contradicting themselves. Uthanc 13:55, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Many reviews have called claimed that Dan Brown’s research is impeccable etc The fact he got all these little facts wrong shows otherwise. Moreover, people do remember and believe all these bits of detail, for example a few months ago a friend of mine told me that Hitler was really into the ancient Egyptians and took the swastika from there as the swastika is found on most ancient Egyptian statues. When I asked him where he got this interesting fact from he told me it was from the Da Vinvi Code film.


 * In the film Langdon is giving a lecture about the changing meanings of symbols. As part of his presentation, he shows a swastika used in Nazi rallies; this then dissolves into a close-up of another swastika, which pulls back to reveal that it is part of a statue of the Buddha. Your friend obviously mistook the statue of Buddha for an Egyptian sculpture. The swastika is never discussed in the novel. For an explanation of why Hitler used this Buddhist and Hindu symbol, see swastika. Paul B 13:29, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

To those who say that nitpicking on minor mistakes is beside the point, I beg to differ. Many of those minor details could have been made correct with simple research. The fact that those errors are present, some minor, some glaring to anybody who's got any familiarity with the subject (like the countless geographical descriptions that are wrong) just show that Brown did not do real research before writing stupid things... As in the Parable of Talents, if he can't be trusted in the small things, how will we trust them for greater ones? And for the record, I'm anti christian and do believe that it is likely Jesus was married, but I won't use Brown as a source for anything, and after reading Da Vinci, I sure won't read anything else by him. --Svartalf 17:50, 21 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't think it is at all necessary to list every minor inaccuracy in order to cast doubt on the rest of Brown's research. The main assertions he makes which are actually disputed should be summed up in the article, but I honestly don't really care about whether or not a Beechcraft Baron has a turboprop engine. This article should not be an assessment of his research in general. The fact that his mistakes are glaring to a reader educated in that particular field is besides the point - the central themes are religion and history, and any other niggly points mentioned only serve to make the article appear bloated and unencyclopaedic to the vast majority of readers. If people feel angered by Dan Brown's insignificant mistaken assertions based on bad research, they should write him a letter rather than making this article even worse. Mushintalk 21:55, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

GA Review
Before we begin, let me introduce myself. I am a critic of Dan Brown's Da Vinci Code. I think the piece of work is very poorly researched and of poor quality. It is, IMHO, anti-Catholic. I am also a former Seminarian who spent 4 years working on a degree in Church History/Master of Divinity before dropping out. Having said that, I cannot pass this article as a Good Article. Nor do I believe that it can be salvaged in a weeks time, thus I am failing it. I stopped reading this at this point. Too many issues need to be resolved before this is considered a good article. The footnotes are in need of SERIOUS improvement, the cited references need to be enhanced. This is a controversial subject, as defined by it's title, the references have to be credible. Websites are not that credible. There are numerous historical and theological books out there that deal with the same subjects, but with a lot more authority than a website. This article has to be better documented/cited. It is an article attacking a POS book, but this article looks like it is primarily original research and little substance. ALso, look up some of the books/videos that have been written on the subject. Even a book/DVD written expressedly to attack the Da Vinci Code would be better than some of the websites used. And quote the book... there were times were I was wondering if the author of this entry actually read the book? And if s/he did, did s/he have it available when writing this or was it based on "Oh I remember a passage where some random character said X." Again, I was hoping for more from this entry... a lot more.Balloonman 05:20, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * The introduction needs to be increased. The article is 75KB in length, yet you only have two paragraphs in the intro.  It should be 3-4.
 * When citing the book, cite the book itself, not some website.
 * There are multiple types of notations... you have footnotes, you have in text notes, you have links to other websites. References need to be consistent. Also, when you have a foot note, you need more than  as the foot note.  You need to describe the page people will be taken too Criticisms of the Da Vinci Code
 * By default of the topic, NPOV is almost impossible to achieve. Knowing that NPOV is not possible, you need to cite the hell out of this article.  This article looks like a lot of OR, and since it isn't well documented it looks POV.
 * In the intro of the book there is a quote wherein Brown states that the book is a piece of fiction, but the rituals, descriptions, etc surrounding the Priory of Sion and Opus Dei was 100% factual.
 * The quote demonstrating how the book has been used as a reference is not a reference, it is an accent to tie a concept with something others might have heard about.
 * the Church Fathers, ..., were unanimous in their belief that Jesus was celibate. But non-cannonical sources disputed this.
 * By all accounts False statement...gnostic texts record him as a rabbi.
 * on the logic that he would not have set a standard he himself could not meet. OR?
 * Quote the book when saying what it said.
 * Sources need to be strengthened... for example: EnvoyMagazine.com is not a reliable source. Get a Church history book and validate what you read there.
 * Christians point out that the Catholic and Orthodox Churches so Catholic and Orthodox churches aren't Christian? This is a poorly written sentence or one that conveys a lot of POV.
 * If either of the genealogies of Matthew 1 or Luke 3 is to be believed, Jesus would already have had a claim to the throne of Israel through his ties to the house of David (see Genealogy of Jesus); a marriage with one of the tribe of Benjamin would not have strengthened this claim, as the original Benjamite king, Saul, who, though he left direct heirs through his son Jonathan (1 Chronicles 9:40-44), did not found a monarchy with dynastic claims, nor would these claims pass down to Mary Magdalene, as such claims would pass through the firstborn son.What a sentence... can you make it any longer?
 * Characters in the book who where?
 * Catholic Encyclopedia article Article??? Article??? what article? This is not a proper reference.
 * Surely Sophie Neveu (whose first reaction on hearing her name is "The prostitute?") would know about it. OR???
 * Paragraph begining with "even so" is weak.
 * was canonized 27 years after his death why not talk about the time requirement? Five years.  Or the quickest Saint Ever to be cannonized... hint, it's St Thomas Aquinas, and he did it in 3 years... or the myriad of Saints cannonized in less than 27 years?
 * half the leadership positions... This doesn't tell me much... any of importance?  Are they all low level leadership positions?  Companies were notorious 70/80's to advertise that "half our management positions are women." but upon closer examination, it was discovered that women held only the low level leadership positions.

English language chauvinism
IMHO, this section comes off as POV as a statement by people who think Dan Brown is "ignorant" since it does not have appropriate sources. And unless someone has discussed with Brown personally, how do we know if he was "unaware" or not of the supposed omission, or of the accuracy of the claim made against him? It is severe because it makes claims about another individual with no sources and can be considered slanderous (as in this case). I put the POV template in hopes that we could salvage this section or get sources before having to delete it. --Folksong 00:57, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


 * There is no comparison at all to the Seigenthaler case, since the claims are not in any way libelous nor are any criminal actions alleged. Saying someone appears to be ignorant of certain facts on the basis of inaccuracies in what they wrote is a resonable inference. Furthmore, judge Smith has documented the superficiality of Brown's research and Brown himself has made several claims that the historical material in the novel is true, as documented elsewhere in the article. Paul B 13:15, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

My summary of the appropriateness of this article
I have read through the discussion and I would like to try to sum up what I read, while at the same time offering my own opinion: My personal opinion of the book (spoiler warning) is that it is a fluffy piece of fiction wrapped around one of those brain teaser puzzle books we used to do as kids to keep us busy on long car trips. But the fundamental message is one of faith: at the very end of the book all of the claims made about this supposed holy grail can't be proven either, and the organization that believes in its existence essentially continues to operate on faith alone. If I were a religious leader offended by this book, I would somehow turn it into a parable of faith for my congregation. --DeweyQ 15:42, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
 * This is an article titled "Criticisms of The Da Vinci Code"; it is therefore open to all criticisms
 * Many of those criticisms end up being nit-picking "inconsistencies" or "implausibilities" which are inherent in any fiction
 * Claims made by Dan Brown in interviews show that he asserts his historical background to be true
 * There is room for lots of criticism of these claims, since so many "facts" in the historical background are disputable or clearly erroneous
 * This article should focus on that kind of criticism; not on critiques of the book's literary merit; as such, a title change for the article might be considered
 * The article was branched off from the main Da Vinci Code article to keep that article more NPOV and factual
 * This is a good thing and any suggestion to move the criticisms back into the main article should be strongly analyzed before being acted on

Assorted Notes
Due to the controversial nature of this article, I am not going to make any changes. However, I would like to point a few issues out.

- It would be worth pointing out the "stable under the ruins" is apparently a reference to "Solomon's Stables", a topic with an entry already.

- Until the Moslem conquest, the Temple remains had become a junk heap. Under the Christians the focus of Jerusalem had become the Church of the Holy Sepulcre. If documents had been hidden up in the temple ruins, anyone could have taken them. After the Moslem conquest, there was substantial rebuilding. If documents were there, it is likely they would have been found. Oleg Grabar's Shape of the Holy would be a good reference here.

- Airplanes. Brown talks about illegal diversion of flights. In fact, changes in destination are routine. I am at a loss for a reference because this represents an absence of illegality.

- The manuscript of the Gospel of Philip has a hole where Jesus kissed Mary Magdelene. The assertion that he kissed her on the mouth is just a guess. Reference existing article on the Gospel of Philip.

- It is worth noting that the world is full of non-cannonical gospels (even the recent Gospel of Corax). If one reads the entire document, it is usually clear why these have been excluded from the cannont.

- The Bible as a work in progress had been going on prior to Constantine. A good reference here would be Eusibius's discussion of various book in The History of the Church. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bigjimslade (talk • contribs) 14:57, 24 January 2007 (UTC).

"Virtually ALL art historians"
"The contention that Mary Magdalene is depicted sitting next to Jesus in Leonardo's famous "Last Supper" is disputed by virtually all art historians"

Really? Every single art historian in the world? You got their names? Addresses? Websites-- No scratch that. Email addresses? Books? Quotes from books?

Is it just possible that, the image is "de facto" Apostle John but represents someone else? This entire line of criticism need be either dropped or validated with actual statements from art historians, and not those from Answers.Com.

68.8.4.70 05:05, 2 February 2007 (UTC)XweAponX


 * Don't be childish. Read some books about Leonardo. Paul B 09:01, 8 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree, I do not believe that virtually all art historians disputes that Mary Magdalene is depicted sitting next to Jesus in Leonardo's famous "Last Supper" painting. And besides, if Mary Magdalene is the secret in the painting, why would Da Vinci reveal this secret in his notebooks, it wouldn't be a secret, now would it? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 202.175.231.250 (talk) 11:52, 13 April 2007 (UTC).
 * That makes no sense. If it's so "secret" that there is zero evidence to support this idea then what reason do we have to believe it's true?  The reason given by Brown's novel - that Leonardo was a member of the so-called "Priory of Sion" - is well known to be nonsense.  So where it the evidence that this person is meant to be anyone other John?  The fact that Dan Brown fans would like this to be the case just doesn't cut it.


 * "Virtually all art historians" is an accurate summary of the facts. I've been researching the claims made in The Da Vinci Code for several years now and have yet to come across a single art historian who considers the figure to the right of Jesus to be anyone but John.  Not one.  Perhaps there may be some obscure art historian out there who does - if so "virtually all" covers this.  But considering the only people who seem to believe this figure is someone other than John are not art historians but are unqualified amateurs like the authors of The Templar Revelation (which is where Brown got this idea in the first place), it is quite accurate to note that this idea is not supported by art historians.  If someone has a problem with that then they need to name the art historians who accept this fringe idea and cite where they do so. Until then this entry should stand precisely as it is. Thiudareiks 11:52, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Simple question. IF the figure is Mary Magdalene, where the hell is John then? The thought that Da Vinci might paint a picture of such a significant event for Christians, then include Mary Magdalene in the painting and "lose" one of the Twelve Apostles is utterly ludicrous really. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.31.14.121 (talk) 13:46, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Golden Mean, reference to Nautilus
Hi, all. Haven't read the book/seen the movie/met Dan Brown. Just here for the flamewars, thanks. Anyways: There's a nice bit that mentions the alleged golden ratio proportions of the Nautilus shell, with no link, and the Nautilus entry doesn't mention the non-fact. But the entry on the golden ratio does, so I added a link to that subsection of the Golden Ratio article. Poorly - I linked words, instead of simply adding a link after the relevant sentence. If someone would like to fix the link so that the format is more appropriate, I'm sure that would be useful. HTH, HAND.Eh Nonymous 13:07, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Reorganisation & NPOV
This article is good, but it could do with some reorganisation. Unfortunately it is in danger of degenerating into a jumbled and repetitive list of criticism, but I can't come with a better structure. Also, there are obvious POV probs.--Jack Upland 00:43, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

POV
From the "Historical disputes" section:

The reality of Dan Brown's research is that it is superficial... Mr Brown knew very little about how the historical background was researched. Mr Justice Smith, April 2006

Why does this quote begin the section and why is bolded? Also, who is Mr. Justice Smith and why does his opinion of the book take precedence over any other person's opinion? <3 Clamster 23:06, 20 April 2007 (UTC)


 * If you don't know who Smith is, I suggest that you read the article! Or try his own page Peter Smith (judge). Paul B 08:11, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Phraseology
The language employed by the author(s) of the page Criticisms of The Da Vinci Code is clearly prejudicial and biased. Although the information presented may be true, the tone that typifies the parlance makes the work appear personally motivated rather than an even-handed look at what may be the issues with the novel's historical accuracy. Indeed, plenty of the claims presented by Dan Brown in his novel are still heatedly disputed to this day. However, the author of this work would have it appear as if the disputed theories presented in this novel are ludacris, unfounded (and therefore incredible) or both.

Problems with the article
This article seems to have a lot of original research. That is, there's a lot of incredibly nitpicky "factual inaccuracies" that have no sources and aren't exactly notable either. For example, "It is stated that the Eiffel tower can be seen from the corner of the Rue de Rivoli and rue de Castiglione (coming from the Ritz). It can't. It only becomes visible when you reach the Place de la Concorde." But that whole paragraph was poorly written and unsourced, using "a), b)," inconsistent and incorrect capitalization and second-person pronouns, so I've already removed it.

The biggest problem with listing out every minor detail that Dan Brown got wrong is that I imagine a lot of books have gotten things like this wrong, having not spent much time in every single location their book takes place in. By listing out such minor details as "you can't see the Tour Eiffel from the corner of Rue de Rivoli and Rue de Castiglione" it presents a very strong POV, that Dan Brown is completely uneducated and therefore his "facts" are wrong. While his "facts" may indeed be wrong, it is not Wikipedia's job to say so, even less so for wikipedia to do so by attacking his credibility with rather fallacious implied arguments.

If someone could clean this up or at very least provide a source for all these inaccuracies, it'd be nice. Atropos 05:19, 20 May 2007 (UTC)


 * While his "facts" may indeed be wrong, it is not Wikipedia's job to say so - I strongly disagree. Yes, there are some nit-picks which need judicious pruning. The test should be: "is this useful and correct information properly presented?", "not does this fit my view of what Wikipedia should be for?" At the risk of recycling the issue ad nauseam, DB states both within the book and elsewhere, that this stuff is fact, and that sets the analysis on a different footing. I guess perhaps a good analogy is U-571 (film) which was only a film, but claimed to be history. Is it inappropriate for Wiki to rebut that film too? I also think that there is better cross-referencing than you suggest - but there is always room for improvement. Spenny 08:34, 21 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The important issues are the historical inaccuracies concerning religion and art. The rest it mostly trivia. People keep adding it. Some gets deleted. It grows again. Weeding's a never ending task. Paul B 08:43, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Mary Magdalene
The writer of the end of this part seems to forget that sarcasm isn't allowed on Wikipedia, and that kind of tone is unencyclopedic, i refer sepcifically to this sentence, "(For that matter, Robert Langdon, as an academic, ought to know that Mary had been honoured with colleges at both Oxford and Cambridge Universities.)" This isn't the only instance of sarcasm. I have placed a tag for a clean up of this article in the Mary Magdalene section, if I find more, then I'm placing one on the whole articleC. Pineda 05:44, 26 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I fail to see how this is "sarcasm", but it seems to be irrelevant, since Langdon is not depicted ignorant of MMs significance, unless the passage is intended to prove that the RC culture honoured Mary. Paul B 07:57, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

strange text in Goddess section
I moved two passages from the article. After giving a reference for Asherah, we had: However, the views of these people are not accepted by the majority in their respective field, (the reference here talks about a seemingly unrelated issue) and the worship of Asherah was opposed by biblical prophets and some kings of Judah. What does that last part mean? Obviously someone opposed it, if the practice died out. And? Is this supposed to be an argument from authority? (Generally you can find better ways to criticize Dan Brown.) Would the person who added it please explain the point of this claim?

Then after an unsourced claim about YHVH (a more specific version of one that I've never found a reliable source for) the article said – Quoting Exodus 3:14–15 (King James Version), "And God said unto Moses, "I am that I am [...]". Actually, the phrase in Hebrew is "eh-yeh asher eh-yeh", which in English translation would be "I will be who (or what or that) I will be" as well as "I am who (or what or that) I am." Therefore, The Verb emphasizes God's absolute being. What does "the verb" mean here, and what does it have to do with the topic? How, specifically, does Eheieh (AHIH) relate to YHVH? Possibly the missing source for the claim about YHVH would answer this question. Dan (talk) 08:20, 11 December 2007 (UTC)