Talk:The Da Vinci Code

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search


We seem to have dupliacte articles on this topic, one here and one at Da vinci code. JoshuaZ 18:20, 5 March 2007 (EST)

Which one should be deleted in your opinion: Da vinci code or The Da Vinci Code? The first option is the best title, but the second one has a better setup. The text looks as if it has been copied exactly. I could delete the first one and move the second to its title. Let me know what you think. --<<-David R->> 20:25, 5 March 2007 (EST)

"Da vinci code" is clearly wrong. "The Da Vinci Code" is better. I'm not sure we need such a long article on the topic at all though. JoshuaZ 20:39, 5 March 2007 (EST)

Ok, then would you like me to do the opposite with the two articles: delete the second one and move the first to its title? --<<-David R->> 20:41, 5 March 2007 (EST)

Well-written, well-illustrated article

Wikipedia has a process for nominating "featured articles" (the ones that get featured each day on the main page).... if this were WIkipedia I'd think it was time to start the discussion process for this one. Dpbsmith 08:20, 6 March 2007 (EST)

Are you serious? This is one of the most polarized articles on the entire site, if anything the sections attempted to disprove the book should be deleted. It's hardly encyclopedia material. --JamesLipton 23:12, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
This article on a work of fiction is signifantly larger than the article on Jesus. I don't feel proficient to add to Jesus or reduce this one, but if you're looking for credibility this needs to be addressed one way or the other. Ferret 09:22, 16 May 2007 (EDT)


PROTIP: Don't try to disprove fictional novels.[1]

FICTION, people. Just because it encorporates some history and is well-written, that does not make it real or even attempting to be real. [2]

If you read these links and still take this book seriously, you are probably more concerned with the validity of your religion than Dan Brown himself. Srsly.Muchodelcrazy 22:56, 7 March 2007 (EST)


The author designates the book as fiction with the subtitle "A Novel." Opinions? Adg2011 21:11, 1 April 2008 (EDT)

Opinion on what? That the author does designate it as fiction? Yep, that's pretty clear. Philip J. Rayment 06:12, 2 April 2008 (EDT)

Recent Changes

It's not enough to say that it is an alternate history. That could be Robin Hood set in a historical time period. Going directly against the written record as it exists is noteworthy.

Brown's religious experience is suspect, and, from the article, unclear. Again, what does he mean? Has he come to acknowledge Christ as Lord and Savior who as fully God and fully man died for the sins of the world and for him personally? Or has he merely reinforced ancient pagan fertility rights and decided to call that Christianity? The entire second paragraph is rather odd, and I would like to know its relevance. It explains little, and leaves more questions than it answers. Learn together 01:04, 6 August 2008 (EDT)

The words religious experience "that he says he had" should be changed to "apparent" because "that he says he had" is a phrase loaded against the author. Also, if it's an ALTERNATE history, and according to Microsoft Bookshelf the definition is "serving in place of another," then shouldn't it be redundant that it changes "much of the historical record?" The encyclopedia's job is not to form opinion, anyway. Jhan 6 August 2008
The words you are using have a tendency to dilute meaning. Alternative can be similar or it can be directly conflicting. That it is directly conflicting is noteworthy. Unless we have further information by what Brown means by a religious experience, then his claim is suspect as stated above based upon the strong opposing position he takes to Christian theology. It is not apparent that he had a religious experience, only that he claimed such. Learn together 12:01, 6 August 2008 (EDT)