Talk:The Da Vinci Code

Criticism about bees and phi

This article was obviosly partisan and took many liberties with its presentation. It has been revised accordingly.

I don't have time to include this in the article, but the straight dope had some very good observations about this: http://www.straightdope.com/columns/040618.html. maybe someone could go through and pick out what's relevant. -- comrade009

The criticism about bees and phi is quite off the mark. The book isn't suggesting the ratio in nature is exactly phi, it is suggesting it is generally very close to phi, or perhaps that it approaches phi as the number of bees increases. --rem120

Yes that is quite misguided as a criticism. Whoever included it does not understand the concept of mathematical limits. There are certainly many things you can say against the book, but that is not one of them. -- Decumanus 15:19, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The book doesn't suggest it is approximate, it suggests a full match. Mathematically, this is impossible. "Correct. And did you know that if you divide the number of female bees by the number of male bees in any beehive in the world, you always get the same number?" "You do?" "Yup. PHI."

even assuming it's approximate, so what? φ isn't all that far from 1, and there's a tremendous variety in sex ratios; hunt around enough species and you're sure to find one whose ratio comes close. An honest symbologist would acknowledge that sometimes a cigar is just a cigar... Similar comment applies to his shells. Kwantus 15:36, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

But this isn't just something that Brown made up - it is scientific fact. It comes about because phi is the limit of the ratio of consecutive terms of the Fibonacci sequence, and the Fibonacci sequence appears in nature all over the place because of the way organisms subdivide and replicate. So, if anything, it isn't phi that is everywhere in nature - rather, it is the Fibonacci sequence that is everywhere. Phi is not naturally present - it arises only when a human being does the division. — Paul G

Okay. But why whould the sex ratio in bees in particular have more to do with "the way organisms subdivide and replicate" than that of other species? Something to do with part of the hive splitting off to form a new colony? Brown doesn't explain and without some sort of explanation for why this should be so the sex ratio of bees being close to 1.6, even if true, is quite uninteresting. Haukurth 20:20, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I agree! He should have used bunnies (after reading this, only 15 guys got the joke, and only 4 thought it was funny). Seriously though, it is true, it has to do with how bees reproduce. The explanation is that if you look at the pedigree of a single male bee the number of people in each generation are consequtive fibonacci-numbers. Fibonacci numbers occur everywhere in nature like sunflowers and tree branches, etc. But I agree, it is quite uninteresting. Gkhan 13:05, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)

Thank you but I still don't get it. I'm perfectly comfortable with Fibonacci numbers and their use to count bunnies etc. but I don't see the bee connection here. Why isn't the sex ration in bunnies 1.6? What's special about bees? Haukurth 20:59, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

I know the term symbologist is used in the book (so it's okay to use the word), but isn't the correct field of study semiotics not symbology. I read somthing somewhere, don't quote me on this, that symbologist was a word coined by Brown toa void explaining what semiotics is. If no one disputes this, should this be mentioned in the article? (Note: Symbology has no page in wikipedia)

BrokenSegue 00:10, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC) [The French expression for the Holy Grail, San gréal, actually is a play on words for Sang réal, which literally means "royal blood".] -> The french expression is 'Saint Graal' (litterally Holy Grail) ans it is not a play on words for 'Sang Royal' (royal blood). 'gréal', 'réal' and 'san' are not even french words. FoeNyx 17:33, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Tell that to Montréal. Those may not be the words now. What were they a thousand years ago, when spelling was much less consistent (and in oral transmission, nonexistent) and there were dozens of tongues in that part of the world. 142.177.125.221 15:01, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

not npov

although well written and nicely formatted i believe that this article has not been written with a neutral point of view. there seems to bee too much focus on the negative opinions of others concerning the truth/untruth the novel brings to light. keep in mind it is fiction, however i think there should be a balance in the article between the positive/negative aspects of the book and the way it was affected the thinking of others which it obviously has. --Larsie 16:37, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Being NPOV generally means including both positive and negative points of view. I can't see why you say there is "too much focus" on negative viewpoints; only about 10% of the article covers this, tucked away entirely at the tail end of a long article. Given that it has been controversial enough to stimulate someone to write a rebuttal - a rather unusual thing for a novel - it could be argued that there is far too little space devoted to this. And "keep in mind it is fiction" - parts of it claim to be non-fiction, and it is those parts which have been criticised for inaccuracy. But I suppose there probably should be literary criticism, too. Securiger 13:44, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I also just noticed (on Lewis Perdue's website about the lawsuit) that Random House is claiming the similarities are scenes à faire on the basis of being carefully historically researched. That being the case, the question of whether or not DVC is historically accurate (and it isn't, IMHO) is likely to be examined in court. Securiger 16:34, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Neutral Point Of View. An NPOV (neutral, unbiased) article is an article that has been written without showing a stand on the issue at hand. When reading the article the da vinci code the reader is generally left w/ a negative feeling toward the novel. this can not be disputed as there is nothing in the article focusing on anything in the novel as being historically accurate as opposed to inaccurate. the impression given by the author of the article is that they themselves portary a negative veiw on the novel and the issues it raises. that is not a neutral point of view. --Larsie 16:25, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Larsie, how do you suggest we improve this? personally, I don't see it as being POV but if we are to improve this article then we need some suggestions on how to improve it. Do you have a solution towards "fixing" this article? - Ta bu shi da yu 03:04, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

There is nothing about NPOVness that says the reader has to walk away without an opinion; just that the information has to be conveyed without bias. For example, we could not say "Pol Pot was an evil fiend", but it's perfectly OK to say "The casualty list ... is disputed... Amnesty International estimated 1.4 million", and if people decide that Pol Pot was an evil fiend, as they are likely to do, that's their business. Now the fact is that the preface to DVC rather unusually claimed that certain parts of the book are factual, but a number of historians have strongly disagreed (to the very unusual extent of writing a rebuttal to a novel), and furthermore the issue might soon be raised in court (in relation to the plagiarism lawsuit). Clearly these are significant facts and should be included. Personally, I found these arguments quite convincing; that doesn't mean that including them is POV. To be NPOV, we need to include any response made by Dan Brown. To this end, I just went and scoured his website. However, he seems to have chosen to make no response to his critics at this time. Securiger 15:03, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I wouldn't say this article is to negative, quite the opposite. I think it is to kind to an author who has stolen the entire plot of his book.

too bad mr. brown has no comment, but i don't think we necessarily need anything from him. what would be good is idea if we could get some info from historians or others who do support the accuracy of the novel of which i'm sure there are.

I you find some such references, it would be appropriate to include them. However I have looked, and not found any. Brown's ideas (or rather, Baigent and Leigh's ideas) do not seem to be much supported among professional historians.

to convey the fact that that not one person can support any historical accuracy would be silly.

I don't understand what you meant there, sorry.

mr brown must have got some of his ideas from somewhere. if i remember correctly was the not a bibliography included?

He seems to have principally used Holy Blood, Holy Grail. This is already referenced in the article, and we have an article on that book.

(edit: Also Laurence Gardner has written about this theme (Bloodline of the Holy Grail etc.)

i realise that a number of historians strongly disagree, however i am sure a number of them happen to agree or can at least support his claims.

Find some such references and we will certainly include them.

it just seems that the only people we hear from are those who are disgruntled at the fact that someone is contradicting everything that they've been taught.

Huh. Sure you don't have a little POV yourself? As I remarked above, far from being "the only people we hear from", very little of the article addresses the book's historical claims, despite them being one of the three most notable features (the others being the puzzles, and the plagiarism lawsuit). And calling people "disgruntled" because they object to historical inaccuracies is rather pejorative.

on another topic: it is unfortunate that i do not have access to the www from home otherwise i could research this a little, however i only have access at work and am only able to access .org sites.--Larsie 21:14, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Perhaps you could try an internet café, or a library (many now provide free internet access). Of course, you can also do off-line research at the library, and that is often of a higher quality than what you find on the net. Just a few suggestions. Securiger 02:35, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

• sorry you misunderstood, what i meant by "the only people we hear from" is the general public just any person you discuss topics with or read discussions on forums or even verbally communicating, not professionals. in most cases people only hear or see what they want and if you try and suggest them otherwise they will not listen. it would be interesting to see what types of comments others have on the topic, not that the book itself is important but the issues it raises are as religion is such a big part of a lot of peoples lives.--Larsie 16:28, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• as for improving this page a heading for accuracy or supported facts or something along those lines in order to counter the critiscizms heading would help to give a balance in the article and allow people "both sides" that would defineately balance the article--Larsie 16:47, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I'm a little afraid the article would get extremely silly extremely quickly if you tried to list all true historical details from the book. "As Brown indicates, there were military orders during the Crusades. He further correctly identifies the Pope as the head of the Roman Catholic Church. Etc." The point is that the historical and factual deviations are significant to the article, the specific things that are correct are not interesting (unless someone can show that some surprising or outlandish claim is true, of course.)

The article doesn't mention that the Pope who Brown reports as having disposed of people in the Tiber (sorry I don't have the precise details at my fingertips), was actually an Avignon Pope and never once set foot in Rome as Pope. So the article is not going out of its way to find points to dispute. Mpolo 16:56, Oct 5, 2004 (UTC)

• that would be a perfect point to address mpolo these are the types of things that sould be added, also per the paragraph above if there is a "true claim" then there is no reason for it to be outlandish.--Larsie 18:16, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

If I can just make a suggestion, open a new paragraph about "Facts", describing the broadly accepted information given by the Da Vinci Code. This balances the "Criticisms" paragraph. --MaxB 19:45, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I was looking at the character list and thought that the Leutinant should be added, but I dont know his name. Will someone do that?

• It was stated that describing the bible as a subjective source was POV. As the content of the bible is selected by a small number of highly influencial people, and they have selected the content from a broader number of documents, I am afraid that the bible by definition is subjective. This is even strenghtened by the fact that the "books" are the personal views of individual people, like Paul and John. With this statement I do not say anything about my personal feelings if the Bible reflexes the actual historical situation. I do not know. --MaxB 14:47, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

This book is extremely controversial, and the main reason for this is that every single claim in it is made in form of revelation of fact. It really works if one is not familiar with the real facts, and if he is, the result is often frustration and anger. For instance, the author isn't very familiar with Vatican semantics, for instance he claims that Pope made Opus Dei "his personal prelature" while in fact he made it "a personal prelature". To an insider, this reveals the author's ignorance, but an outsider would just swallow it whole without questioning. I guess that explains why millions of people think this book is the key to christianity, while historians generally have negative opinions. I'm not a historian, but I'm somewhat familiar with the history of Church and Christian theology, and I found a solid amount of terrible blunders in this book. There are a few good points but they are not documented with good sources (and yes, I found very solid arguments about Mary of Magdala elsewhere). It is very difficult to maintain a neutral PoV when you see that the author got practically everything wrong, has a very low regard for the facts, and has lots of naive people blowing his horn all over the place. Let's face it, if one lies and distorts, neutral facts just can't display him in neutral or positive light. --Danijel

Dan brown never says any of the history is true. The "fact page" discusses art, architecture, documents, and secret rituals, but never says anything about history (though it's claim about the priory of scion is debateble.) I noted this in the introductory paragraph to the criticisms section. It's a fictional novel for god's sake. Xunflash 04:28, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Point form

How can we rewrite this article to remove the point form? I'm thinking of placing this on peer review to see what people think. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:54, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I don't have any great ideas, but the point form is quite distracting ;-) — Matt Crypto 12:56, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Quick question...

Does calling it a novel make it immediately and indisputably clear that it is fictional? I've run into a few people that asked about the book, "is it real?" Because of that, I'd lean toward explicitly saying it is fiction, unless there's some overwhelming reason not to. Bantman 05:56, Jan 9, 2005 (UTC)

According to the wiki article on novel, it is quite clear that a novel is a work of fiction. I have thus added links to both of these topics within the Da Vinci Code article itself, so that people who don't have a clear understanding of this can check it out themselves. And while I don't believe it is really necessary to state blatently that novel = fiction within this article, I am not opposed to it being done, if necessary. The problem IMHO is wild interpretation of, as the article states: "the novel's claim to contain elements of historical truth within its fictional framework"; so what is the truth, and what is not. Of course, everyone will have an opinion on this, especially as it strikes close to personally held truths. Sfdan 11:05, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The opening claim in the book states that the descriptions of artwork, architecture, documents, and secret rituals are accurate, not the theory behind Mary Magdalene that is presented in the book. Dan Brown intended the book to be fiction, which he himself has stated[1]. People should not regard the theories in the book as true, and likewise, the book shouldn't be criticized for presenting those theories as true. Xunflash 4 July 2005 21:11 (UTC)

Criticism?

I don't follow this criticism.

Mary Magdalene is said to have been labelled a whore; in fact, there is no Biblical correlation between the whore that Christ saves from being stoned to death and Magdalene whatsoever. This common misunderstanding is initiated by Pope Gregory I, who proclamed this based on a false analysis of Luke 7 and 8. He "integrated" three different women into one

The novel claims that Mary Magdalene was deliberately smeared as being a whore. Here we learn that Pope Gregory I did the smearing. This seems to support what Brown wrote. So what's the criticism? Sleeper 9-Feb-2005

Sleeper, I believe the criticism is that the novel states that Mary Magdalene was officially considered by the church (as a whole) to be a whore up to present day as part of their suppression of the sacred feminine. But, that is not the case. I am not a historian and can't corroborate this, but it's implied in the criticism here that Pope Gregory I's views were not shared by others or, at least, were not endorsed by the church up to present day. KD: March 22, 2005

The criticism here implies that the novel says the bible labelled Mary Magdalene as a whore, which is not what the novel claims. Until 1969, the Catholic Church actually did consider Mary Magdalene as the whore who washed Jesus's feet. Movies like [The Passion of the Christ] still follow that tradition, so the novel was right in saying the Catholic Church "smeared" Mary Magdalene. Anonymous 6-19-05

The Passion of the Christ was not produced by the Catholic Church; you can't cite it as proof of Church teaching. It has been a widely believed tradition (lower-case "t") that Mary Magdalene was a prostitute; however, at no point was it part of Catholic dogma. Furthermore, to say that the Catholic Church sought to smear Mary Magdalene is a gross mischaracterization. Even those who believe that she was also the sinful woman in the Bible revere her as a woman who reformed her life and became a devoted follower of Jesus. I don't know if this is really worth putting in the article, but it is worth noting here that there was never a "smear" campaign against Mary Magadalene. JVB 6-22-05

Exactly for that matter, while Pope Gregory I did botch his interpretation of those two passages from Luke, it was quickly dropped by the Catholic Church, and is not Catholica Dogma. The Catholic Church did not consider Mary Magdalene as the whore who washed Jesus's feet. While this was still a popular thought, it was not held as necessarily true by the Catholic Church. Furthermore, even considering this interpretation of Mary Magdalene as the whore, do we not have a woman who met Christ, was cleansed of her sins and forgiven by Christ, and become a devout follower? She was not only not the victim of a smear campaign, but a shining example to those who had fallen from grace. -LOL 7-4-05

Basic Premise

The basic premise of this "novel" is that there were descendants of Jesus that come down to ONE person today, the heroine in the book.

That is genetically an extreme silly proposition...

From the time of Jesus (and his children) to today is (2000 years from time of Jesus or approx 1950 years from time of his children divided by 25 years per generation = 1950/25 = 78 generations (or 2000/25 = 80 generations) Such a massive number of generations simply means that today the descendants then of Jesus would blanket Europe.

And clearly NOT be one person.

And that is the case ... see books delineating some of those descendants.

Considering the limited number of birth/death/marriage records, and high mortality rates for much of history since the first century AD, it would be rather difficult to keep track of Jesus' descendents if any. (He might have had some or siblings had children of course).

Applying Occam's Razor - there are too many disparate components involved - and there are no obvious other links between them.

A few points on what is written above:

• That was not the main premise of the book. If that section was removed from the book then the plot would remain exactly as it currently is.
• The heroine also had a brother.
• The book did not state that the heroine was the sole descendant, only that both her parents were from the strongest bloodline.
• Why have you quoted the word "novel". Are you implying that it isn't?
• What in the world does any of this have to do with Occam's Razor? Please elaborate.

I liked the novel, it wasn't fantastic but was entertaining. Obviously some people take these things a little too personally.

--13:51, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Has this got anything to do with the article? Remember, Wikipedia is not a discussion forum... — Matt Crypto 14:04, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Number of copies in print

The article currently says there are over "44 million copies sold." A recent Associated Press article claims there are 25 million copies in print (in 44 languages). [2] Given that even the AP gets it wrong once in a while, does anyone have a source for the 44 million figure? - Walkiped 03:24, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Plenty of sources give the lower figure. The higher was added by an anon and never changed. DJ Clayworth 19:24, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

36 million copies in print as of August 2005, according to Dan Brown's agent, Heide Lange, quoted in the NYT [3] --Lucien 00:21, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Three ex-BBC started this whole mess 30 years ago

Added info about the book "The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail" (ISBN-0-09-968241-9) written by three british ex-BBC. (http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0099682419/202-6416673-8852619). the da vinci code is 100% copycat and two of the authors of the "The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail" faux documentary book have actually started to sue Mr. Brown last autumn.

I've tidied the English, and placed this anon's paragraph in the 'criticism' section. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 12:03, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Being at legal risk

Dear "Mel Etitis",

What I wrote about da vinci being copycat of the 1982 faux doc book is not criticism it is fact. Please be aware that the three original authors are already sueing Mr. Brown for plagiarism. I happen to know that that the university of bordeaux computer linguistic lab has just completed a comparative machine analyis of the two books and found overwhelming statistical correlation (i.e. plagiarism is thus Q.E.D.) This will be sumbitted as evidence in the pending plagiarism lawsuit.

Please note that I allege you intentionally hide factual info at the bottom (criticism part) of the da vinci code wiki article and thus you violate NPOV. What I wrote is not opinion, I provided rock solid facts. I reserve the right to call the wikipedia council's attention to the situation. Finally I may even threat Google with press (Google gives money, money runs wikipedia). Put the info back where it belongs, at the front, because the "origins" section belongs to the front.

Otherwise, please note that in some jurisdictions someone who has been ruled in favour of in plagiarism lawsuit may go after those who republish or make money of the book. That is libraries who host the da vinci code book may be sued in civil damages court, after the court has ruled in favour of those three ex-BBC guys. Then libraries will say they were no aware of plagiarism because Mel Eititis at wikipedia edited out the revelant part and they will cite you to court.

Are you kidding? Threats and "warnings" like this are not the way Wikipedia works. Until a court rules that the book is a work of plagiarism those accusations should appear in the criticism section, otherwise stating such as fact would be worse. violet/riga (t) 12:22, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

(after edit conflict) Anon:

1. The implication that criticisms aren't fact is peculiar; are you saying that all criticisms are false?
2. Your allegations are silly. I haven't read the book, it doesn't interest me, I find the hysteria with which some people regard it as embarrassing — but I take Wikipedia seriously, and what you added needed to be significantly edited for its English and placed in the appropriate place (which is not decided by what you find important, but by the logical structure of the article).
3. Your last paragraph, in so far as I can decipher it, is even sillier than the previous one, and not worth a response. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 12:25, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

(many months later...) And this is precisely why we don't want Google to have full control of the purse strings. Anonymous editor, your assertions are ridiculous. If you have facts, source them. Otherwise, don't bring original research into this article. - Ta bu shi da yu 3 July 2005 06:28 (UTC)

Ridiculous => Criticisms include: the fact

"Criticisms include:

   * The fact"

Maybe you realize fact cannot be criticism, because it is opinion. Everbody is entitled to his/her opinion, but not to his/her own facts, as you know very well. Thus I put facts about the origin back where they belong, right at the front. Because all things start with the origin, that is the law of nature.

Sincerely: Tamas Feher from Hungary <etomcat@freemail.hu>

In English, at least, a statement of fact counts as a criticism when it's presented in order to count against a position, person, or (as in this case) a book. read the other criticisms (I suspect that you haven't actually read the article; you're only interested in one specific point).

All things don't start with the origin; many narratives start in the middle or even at the end. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 12:37, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I've reworked it into the most logical section - I hope this can please both sides. violet/riga (t) 12:43, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

That's fine with me; I'd originally been torn between putting it there and in the criticisms section. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 12:45, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Now that both books have their own page the situation is more balanced. Great pity people are so gullibe as to still read old recycled junk.

Just curious

How did Davinci knew so much about Jesus if he lived several centuries after Jesus did? Couldn't Davinci just be concocting his own theories about the biography of a historical Jesus just like many of us do in the XXIst century? And is Jesus more important for His biography or for His teachings according to this book?

It's a novel. DJ Clayworth 19:21, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Bah, if you think that then you're clearly one of them :) -- John Fader (talk | contribs) 20:09, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Sales figures

I've just discovered that we've been carrying the wrong sales figures on this page for over a month. They were overestimated by a factor of more than two. For those who like to keep track of how accurate Wikipedia is, the change was made by an anon on 17th March and never changed again. See [4] [5] DJ Clayworth 19:21, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Mr. vs Dr.

Someone just removed the appelation "Dr" from Langdon's name. I wasn't sure if they were correct in asserting he's a Mr rather than a Dr, but a check through Angels and Demons shows him being called "Mr Langdon" by several people, including Kohler (p28, 29,35,36 of my paperback edition). I can't see any mention of his being called Dr or of having a Ph.D. -- John Fader (talk | contribs) 20:07, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

@page 3: "You're a professor of religious iconology…"

Professors usually have a Ph.D. See the Professor article for details. Shinobu 17:31, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

I think usually is the operative word there. I know of atleast one Professor who doesn't have a Ph.D.

In The Da Vinci Code, Chapter 1, Langdon is described on a flyer as "Professor", then introduced by the hostess firstly as "Mr" and then "Professor" so this was (by her and the author) presumably deliberate. It is strange that Brown took this line but he possibly wanted to avoid confusion with a medical doctor. In Chapter 54, Teabing's first words to Langdon are "Sir Robert" but I think this is intended as a joke. Thincat 09:11, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Jonas Faukman

Robert Langdon's New York editior(Jonas Faukman)'s name is an anagram for Jason Kaufman, Dan Brown's real New York editor. Also, in the internet scavenger hunt, participants, at one point, actually call Jonas Faukman, whose answering machine points out that is publishing company is called Doubleknight (play on Doubleday, Jason Kaufman's company).

I really think this should be noted.

P.S. One of the names in the acknowledgements is Andre Vernet, matching the Depository Bank of Zurich head's name. Does anyone know what that means?

Apparently one of Brown's teachers had this name [6]. I doubt it is worth mentioning his in the article. Thincat 11:45, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Da-Vinci-Code.com Website, www.da-vinci-code.com, Dedicated to Da Vinci Code Launched

Da-Vinci-Code.com Website, www.da-vinci-code.com, covers articles, information, news, press releases, images, blogs, RSS feeds and more, all related to Da Vinci Code.

(PRWEB) June 12, 2005 -- Da Vinci Code related website, Da Vinci Code covers articles, information, news, reviews, press releases, FAQs, images, blogs, RSS feeds and more, all related to Da Vinci Code.

Da-Vinci-Code.com website will be multilingual, starting with French, then Spanish, German,and Italian.

Da Vinci Code is a best seller by Dan Brown

The plot as outlined on Dan Brown's website:

"While in Paris on business, Harvard symbologist Robert Langdon receives an urgent late-night phone call: the elderly curator of the Louvre has been murdered inside the museum. Near the body, police have found a baffling cipher. Solving the enigmatic riddle, Langdon is stunned to discover it leads to a trail of clues hidden in the works of Da Vinci…clues visible for all to see…and yet ingeniously disguised by the painter.

Langdon joins forces with a gifted French cryptologist, Sophie Neveu, and learns the late curator was involved in the Priory of Sion—an actual secret society whose members included Sir Isaac Newton, Botticelli, Victor Hugo, and Da Vinci, among others. The Louvre curator has sacrificed his life to protect the Priory's most sacred trust: the location of a vastly important religious relic, hidden for centuries.

In a breathless race through Paris, London, and beyond, Langdon and Neveu match wits with a faceless powerbroker who appears to work for Opus Dei—a clandestine, Vatican-sanctioned Catholic sect believed to have long plotted to seize the Priory's secret. Unless Langdon and Neveu can decipher the labyrinthine puzzle in time, the Priory's secret—and a stunning historical truth—will be lost forever.

In an exhilarating blend of relentless adventure, scholarly intrigue, and cutting wit, symbologist Robert Langdon (first introduced in Dan Brown's bestselling Angels & Demons) is the most original character to appear in years. The Da Vinci Code heralds the arrival of a new breed of lightening-paced, intelligent thriller…surprising at every twist, absorbing at every turn, and in the end, utterly unpredictable…right up to its astonishing conclusion."

Teabing/Baigent

Why say that "Leigh Teabing" appears to be an anagram of the surnames Baigent and Leigh? It is! I understand that "appears" is probably there for legal reasons, but an anagram is an anagram and nothing changes that. What is doubtful is whether this transposition is intentional, and that is what the article should reflect. — 193.203.81.129 28 June 2005 13:25 (UTC) (Wikipedia won't keep me logged in - this is User:Paul G)

Few points on the status of embassies

In the DVC, the French media and Police are depicted frustrated at the "fact" that US citizens committing crimes in France are tried in the US. On a few points, there seems to be an idea that the US embassy would be empowered to extradite its citizens back to the US. On a third point, the US embassy is depicted as a potential safe-haven for the fugitive US citizen Langdon. I find these topics somewhat confusing. Is there an extraterritoriality agreement between France and the US? To my knowledge, only diplomats, their families and NATO military personnel have extraterritoriality . This should apply as well to the US citizens as to the citizens of other countries in France and in most other European countries. Of course after having returned back to the US, the case will be handled by US courts as no country is willing to extradite its citizens, but if caught in France, a US citizen would be most likely tried there.

Embassies do not typically give asylum to their citizens who are fleeing the local police. Criminals are usually turned in to the police with little delay. This is especially true in a Western country like France. Acting otherwise would be a gross breach of protocol. In a non-democratic country undergoing political unrest, the situation might be wholly different. I wonder if US embassies are an exemption to this quite common international custom.

The idea of extradition seems somewhat hazed in the DVC. In the very beginning, Langdon, jokingly, warns that he might ask the embassy to extradite a person back to the US. Similar wordings seem to have been used in a few other places. It should be noted that the embassy does not extradite a person. The country where a person resides does so after receiving a request for it. The procedure is quite long and used only with a likely proof of serious crimes. Without such crimes, committed in the home country, an embassy should not be able to do anything to restrict a citizen's movement abroad. Most Western countries consider the right to leave the country to be a basic human right. The governments of such countries do not have a legal power to prevent a citizen from traveling to and in any foreign country if the country in question permits it and there is no state of war between the countries. Is this the case with the US?

If the points addressed above have validity, they might be worth adding to the Criticism section. --81.197.79.13 5 July 2005 21:07 (UTC)

Film adaptation

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

Jesus and Mary Magdalene

"The controversial thriller is the story of a Vatican conspiracy to suppress the supposed marriage of Jesus and Mary Magdalene." [7]

Is the above quotation a good summary of the book? Uncle Ed 21:07, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

No, it's a very poor summary. The plot of the book does not involve a modern Vatican conspiracy at all. The shadowy pope in the novel is a reformist liberal, and the apparent Opus Dei conspiracy turns out to have been orchestrated by an anti-Catholic. The novel refers to supposed RC attempts to suppress "the truth" about Jesus and Mary in the past. It's not always clear whether the medieval church is supposed to know that the marriage occured or whether they genuinely believe it's a lie. Paul B 21:30 16 Aug 2005 (UTC)

recent anon edits

Can someone with knowledge about the book take a look at recent 12.203.22.146 (talk · contribs) edits - he's been spewing horrible POVvishness on science articles with some self-promotion thrown in, doesn't understand POV, but theology baffles me so I'll leave it to the experts. Dunc|☺ 19:23, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes, 12.203.22.146 (talk · contribs) edits are more than a little problematic. Given Brown's clearly sketchy grasp of even the basics of Catholic theology it's very unlikely that he has read John Paul IIs rather obscure pronouncements on the theology of the body. The notion the Brown 'paganises' these ideas seems very unlikely, especially as JPII was himself responding to the kind of accusations about RC denigration of sexuality that the novel repeats. Paul B 21:44 21 Aug 2005 (UTC)

I've removed the following passage added by 12.203.22.146: "as has been pointed out (Kellmeyer, 2004) if she [Mary Magdalene] was of the tribe of Benjamin, she could not have married Jesus, a member of the tribe of Judah, since intermarriage between tribes was prohibited by Hebrew law." I've not been able to find evidence that such a law was in existence at this time, and the statement is contradicted by other information on Judaism of this era (e.g. Israelites). However, if anyone has clear info on this please restore. Paul B 22:55 22 Aug 2005 (UTC)

The law against tribal intermarriage is in Numbers 36:6-9. It is commonly acknowledged that both Pharisees and Sadducees existed during Mary Magdelene's lifetime. Both parties adhered to the letter of the Mosaic Law, although the Sadducees permitted more laxness wherever the law was not explicit. On the issue of intermarriage, the Law is explicit, so the two parties would be in agreement on enforcing it. The only way to argue the law was not being enforced is to argue that the tribes no longer existed. But if the tribes no longer existed, then Dan Brown can't say Mary Magdelene was of the tribe of Benjamin. The argument presented by Kellmeyer grants Dan Brown's basic assertion and plays devil's advocate, "If Mary Magdelene is of the tribe of Benjamin (although there is zero evidence of this anywhere, but let's grant it for the sake of argument), then the Mosaic law would apply. She could not marry Jesus, who is attested to have been of the tribe of Judah."

You can't have it both ways. The argument grants Brown all the rope Brown specified and then hangs Brown with it. It isn't POV, it's simple examination of Brown's facts and logical consideration of them.

As for Duncharris' admission above, he knows "nothing about religion," so he isn't really qualified to edit either the DVC article *OR* the Intelligent Design article. After all, he argues that ID is essentially religious nonsense. If it is, then he should keep his hands off the ID articles because he knows nothing about ID - he has an incredibly biased POV because he only claims to know science. But if he edits the ID article or reverts someone who does, then he admits that ID *IS* science. Similarly, he claims I edited a "science" article. But the edits he chastised me for making were in an ID article. So, is ID science or religion? Apparently, the nature of the ID article changes depending on what Duncharris had for breakfast.