Talk:The Da Vinci Code

Could someone help me understand this text?

I removed this text from the section on historical inaccuracies:

The Da Vinci Code also portrays the Council of Nicaea's decision to recognize the fully human and divine aspects of Christ as being a close vote, but O'Neill says this is not reflected in any of the sources.(ref)Jonathon Madrid. "Planet Envoy!". Envoymagazine.com. Retrieved 2011-01-04.(/ref)(ref)Hughes, Philip. The Church in Crisis: A History of the General Councils, 325–1870. 1964(/ref)

Sorry, but I can't make heads or tails of the sourcing here. O'Neill is a historian mentioned elsewhere in the article. In the other places where he is mentioned, references to him are sourced to his website on historical inaccuracies in The Da Vinci Code. Thus, one would expect that that website would be the source here. Not so. Neither of the sources are even written by O'Neil. Moreover, one is a broken link and the other is a print book, so I can't check either of them to see whether it mentions O'Neil. What happened here? What exactly do the two current sources support? Do they support the claim that O'Neil says so-and-so? Do they support the claim that, contra The Da Vinci Code, there's no evidence that there was a close vote at the Council of Nicea? I can't tell. --Phatius McBluff (talk) 07:20, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Overly Biased on the Reviews

There were several major publications that sang the praises of this book. Pretending like it was roundly panned is absurd. I can't believe this page. Yes, there are historical inaccuracies. But as a work of fiction, it received major kudos. I don't know if I have it in me to include all of them, but good GRIEF this is overly negative!Jasonnewyork (talk) 02:01, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

OK, I added some - gasp - positive reviews. This page should probably be semi-protected. I mean, no positive reviews were on here - for one of the best selling books of all time. Really surprising.Jasonnewyork (talk) 02:14, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Sales Section

One single line? Doesn't that look weird? DC outsold the fifth harry potter book by at least 2:1, who cares about picking a single year 2004. DC came out in 2003. This single line makes it sound like it really wasn't as big of success as it really is. It says above that it sold 80M copies by 2009 and that was 4 years ago. Darrellx (talk) 03:45, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

New discussions go at the bottom of the page, not the top, Darrellx. As for the section content, why not add more yourself? See WP:BOLD. :-) Nightscream (talk) 21:04, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Can someone explain?

According to this book, Mary Magdalene and her daughter lived and died in southern France, and their descendents include the early French royalty. Then how did Mary Magdalene's body, and other crucial documents, end up buried in a temple in Jerusalem, where they were dug out during the Crusades? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.212.197.155 (talk) 10:47, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Scientific implausibility section looks like original research

"Scientific implausibility of blood line theory" amounts to one sentence that appears to be a footnoted factoid that Europeans share ancestors which the editor then interprets as "the blood line theory is scientifically implausible." If there is any serious work discussing this, let that work be summarized in more than a single sentence to justify the it being a section. Otherwise, scrap it.

And please, PLEASE consider the recommendation made elsewhere that this page be semi-protected. There are too many butt-hurt zealots trying to defend Jesus's divinity with their personal highly-flawed reasoning. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.189.74.208 (talk) 00:15, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

I really do not get the relevance of the source quoted. The article says nothing about descent from antiquity. It says: "Whether they are a Serb and a Swiss, or a Finn and a Frenchman, any two Europeans are likely to have many common ancestors who lived around 1,000 years ago. A genomic survey of 2,257 people from 40 populations finds that people of European ancestry are more closely related to one another than previously thought, and could help to bring about new insights into European history."

So currently living Europeans share some ancestors who lived in the 11th century. Not that much of a surprise. What does that have to do with 1st-century ancestors? I am going to remove the source as irrelevant to the topic. Dimadick (talk) 21:39, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Sloppy grammar or sloppy biology

"Jesus Christ married Mary Magdalene and bore children". Reproduction doesn't work this way. It's the female that bears children. 2001:558:6011:1:E592:162A:3D0B:1B42 (talk) 02:12, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 May 2020

Change

The book also refers to The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail (1982) though Dan Brown has stated that it was not used as research material.

To

The book also refers to The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail (1982) by Michael Baigent and Richard Leigh. Dan Brown has stated that it was not used as research material but this is open to question since Brown incorporated a character by the name of Leigh Teabing (an anagram of “Leigh” and “Baigent”) in his book. John Rapson (talk) 19:58, 24 May 2020 (UTC)]

 Not done per WP:NOR. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 23:26, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

"TDVC" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect TDVC has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 April 11 § TDVC until a consensus is reached. Steel1943 (talk) 03:18, 11 April 2024 (UTC)