Talk:Da vinci code - Revision history

Muchodelcrazy at 04:00, March 8, 2007

2007-03-08T04:00:52Z

GuyLeb: /* This article is unfair and unbalanced */

2007-03-08T00:26:21Z

This article is unfair and unbalanced

JoshuaZ: /* This article is unfair and unbalanced */ reply

2007-03-07T14:04:47Z

This article is unfair and unbalanced: reply

GuyLeb: /* This article is unfair and unbalanced */

2007-03-07T12:41:39Z

This article is unfair and unbalanced

JoshuaZ: /* This article is unfair and unbalanced */ reply

2007-03-07T06:25:38Z

This article is unfair and unbalanced: reply

GuyLeb: /* This article is unfair and unbalanced */

2007-03-07T06:24:22Z

This article is unfair and unbalanced

GuyLeb: This article is unfair and unbalanced

2007-03-07T06:22:37Z

This article is unfair and unbalanced

JoshuaZ: Do we need an article this long?

2007-03-01T19:50:39Z

Do we need an article this long?

Snark at 01:34, February 23, 2007

2007-02-23T01:34:27Z

Snark at 01:32, February 23, 2007

2007-02-23T01:32:32Z

New page

The Da Vinci code article needed a LOT of work. I believe that the original author or authors have something of a misapprehension of the nature of an encyclopedia, which is really an objective source of basic information, rather than a source of editorial commentary. Specifically, the detailed refutation of the Da Vinci code's narrative has no place in a encyclopedic work; it'd be a fine blog or magazine article or something of the sort, but it's really got no place in a work of general reference. I did my best to clean up a lot of very subjective, biased language, but if anybody else cares to do more, there's more that can be done.

← Older revision		Revision as of 04:00, March 8, 2007
Line 20:		Line 20:
	::: (I should first say that don't agree with all the criticism in this article, but some is accurate). Stupidty is a subjective notion yes, to the question of whether they are less clever than I am, for a fraction of them the answer is likely yes. And as to your comment that "This novel did not create the legends and the distortions: there were already there in plain sight, well published, accessible to anybody, so the book is not uninformed" actually is is pretty badly informed about even its own matters. The book confuses some of the actual scholarly arguments with conspiracy paranoia (that is, there are things which Langdon is surprised to learn which in real life are taken for granted by the vast majority of Biblical scholards regarding canonization of texts and related issues, Langdon takes for granted certain material that would be dismissed by any real scholar in the area). Brown fails to get basic dates and what happened at them correct. Now, whether or not the book is a "statement" is not relevant in that people treat it as one and it has confused a large number of uninformed or stupid people. To be blunt, if someone wants to read a well-written, well-researched conspiracy novel about much of the same material they should pick up Umberto Eco's Foucault's Pendulum. [[User:JoshuaZ\|JoshuaZ]] 09:04, 7 March 2007 (EST)		::: (I should first say that don't agree with all the criticism in this article, but some is accurate). Stupidty is a subjective notion yes, to the question of whether they are less clever than I am, for a fraction of them the answer is likely yes. And as to your comment that "This novel did not create the legends and the distortions: there were already there in plain sight, well published, accessible to anybody, so the book is not uninformed" actually is is pretty badly informed about even its own matters. The book confuses some of the actual scholarly arguments with conspiracy paranoia (that is, there are things which Langdon is surprised to learn which in real life are taken for granted by the vast majority of Biblical scholards regarding canonization of texts and related issues, Langdon takes for granted certain material that would be dismissed by any real scholar in the area). Brown fails to get basic dates and what happened at them correct. Now, whether or not the book is a "statement" is not relevant in that people treat it as one and it has confused a large number of uninformed or stupid people. To be blunt, if someone wants to read a well-written, well-researched conspiracy novel about much of the same material they should pick up Umberto Eco's Foucault's Pendulum. [[User:JoshuaZ\|JoshuaZ]] 09:04, 7 March 2007 (EST)
	:::: I guess we could talk uselessly for days without reaching any agreement. So I won’t try to convince you that Longdon is a villain but a character only, and than Don brown is nothing but a lucky novel writer, not the best, but not the worst, who does not deserve a scholar award because his book that was not a scholar work. I can’t share also the idea that reading this novel and asking questions is a proof of stupidity, and hope you will continue monitoring this site without holding up the stick of the anathema. [[User:GuyLeb\|GuyLeb]] 19:26, 7 March 2007 (EST)		:::: I guess we could talk uselessly for days without reaching any agreement. So I won’t try to convince you that Longdon is a villain but a character only, and than Don brown is nothing but a lucky novel writer, not the best, but not the worst, who does not deserve a scholar award because his book that was not a scholar work. I can’t share also the idea that reading this novel and asking questions is a proof of stupidity, and hope you will continue monitoring this site without holding up the stick of the anathema. [[User:GuyLeb\|GuyLeb]] 19:26, 7 March 2007 (EST)
		+
		+	== Srsly ==
		+
		+	PROTIP: Don't try to disprove fictional novels.[http://www.randomhouse.com/catalog/display.pperl?isbn=9780385504201]
		+
		+	FICTION, people. Just because it encorporates some history and is (me'h)well-written, that does not make it real or even attempting to be real. [http://www.danbrown.com/novels/davinci_code/faqs.html]
		+
		+	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.[[User:Muchodelcrazy\|Muchodelcrazy]]

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:26, March 8, 2007
Line 19:		Line 19:
	::Joshua, stupidity is often a very subjective and dangerous notion. Many Christian have enjoyed this book. Are they then less clever than you? This novel did not create the legends and the distortions: there were already there in plain sight, well published, accessible to anybody, so the book is not uninformed. It’s good to remember that, once, woman was equal to man in the church, and that was a revolution. But this book is not a statement, nothing but a different kind of Indiana Jones. And I agree, definitely not a piece of literature. [[User:GuyLeb\|GuyLeb]] 07:41, 7 March 2007 (EST)		::Joshua, stupidity is often a very subjective and dangerous notion. Many Christian have enjoyed this book. Are they then less clever than you? This novel did not create the legends and the distortions: there were already there in plain sight, well published, accessible to anybody, so the book is not uninformed. It’s good to remember that, once, woman was equal to man in the church, and that was a revolution. But this book is not a statement, nothing but a different kind of Indiana Jones. And I agree, definitely not a piece of literature. [[User:GuyLeb\|GuyLeb]] 07:41, 7 March 2007 (EST)
	::: (I should first say that don't agree with all the criticism in this article, but some is accurate). Stupidty is a subjective notion yes, to the question of whether they are less clever than I am, for a fraction of them the answer is likely yes. And as to your comment that "This novel did not create the legends and the distortions: there were already there in plain sight, well published, accessible to anybody, so the book is not uninformed" actually is is pretty badly informed about even its own matters. The book confuses some of the actual scholarly arguments with conspiracy paranoia (that is, there are things which Langdon is surprised to learn which in real life are taken for granted by the vast majority of Biblical scholards regarding canonization of texts and related issues, Langdon takes for granted certain material that would be dismissed by any real scholar in the area). Brown fails to get basic dates and what happened at them correct. Now, whether or not the book is a "statement" is not relevant in that people treat it as one and it has confused a large number of uninformed or stupid people. To be blunt, if someone wants to read a well-written, well-researched conspiracy novel about much of the same material they should pick up Umberto Eco's Foucault's Pendulum. [[User:JoshuaZ\|JoshuaZ]] 09:04, 7 March 2007 (EST)		::: (I should first say that don't agree with all the criticism in this article, but some is accurate). Stupidty is a subjective notion yes, to the question of whether they are less clever than I am, for a fraction of them the answer is likely yes. And as to your comment that "This novel did not create the legends and the distortions: there were already there in plain sight, well published, accessible to anybody, so the book is not uninformed" actually is is pretty badly informed about even its own matters. The book confuses some of the actual scholarly arguments with conspiracy paranoia (that is, there are things which Langdon is surprised to learn which in real life are taken for granted by the vast majority of Biblical scholards regarding canonization of texts and related issues, Langdon takes for granted certain material that would be dismissed by any real scholar in the area). Brown fails to get basic dates and what happened at them correct. Now, whether or not the book is a "statement" is not relevant in that people treat it as one and it has confused a large number of uninformed or stupid people. To be blunt, if someone wants to read a well-written, well-researched conspiracy novel about much of the same material they should pick up Umberto Eco's Foucault's Pendulum. [[User:JoshuaZ\|JoshuaZ]] 09:04, 7 March 2007 (EST)
		+	:::: I guess we could talk uselessly for days without reaching any agreement. So I won’t try to convince you that Longdon is a villain but a character only, and than Don brown is nothing but a lucky novel writer, not the best, but not the worst, who does not deserve a scholar award because his book that was not a scholar work. I can’t share also the idea that reading this novel and asking questions is a proof of stupidity, and hope you will continue monitoring this site without holding up the stick of the anathema. [[User:GuyLeb\|GuyLeb]] 19:26, 7 March 2007 (EST)

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:04, March 7, 2007
Line 18:		Line 18:

	::Joshua, stupidity is often a very subjective and dangerous notion. Many Christian have enjoyed this book. Are they then less clever than you? This novel did not create the legends and the distortions: there were already there in plain sight, well published, accessible to anybody, so the book is not uninformed. It’s good to remember that, once, woman was equal to man in the church, and that was a revolution. But this book is not a statement, nothing but a different kind of Indiana Jones. And I agree, definitely not a piece of literature. [[User:GuyLeb\|GuyLeb]] 07:41, 7 March 2007 (EST)		::Joshua, stupidity is often a very subjective and dangerous notion. Many Christian have enjoyed this book. Are they then less clever than you? This novel did not create the legends and the distortions: there were already there in plain sight, well published, accessible to anybody, so the book is not uninformed. It’s good to remember that, once, woman was equal to man in the church, and that was a revolution. But this book is not a statement, nothing but a different kind of Indiana Jones. And I agree, definitely not a piece of literature. [[User:GuyLeb\|GuyLeb]] 07:41, 7 March 2007 (EST)
		+	::: (I should first say that don't agree with all the criticism in this article, but some is accurate). Stupidty is a subjective notion yes, to the question of whether they are less clever than I am, for a fraction of them the answer is likely yes. And as to your comment that "This novel did not create the legends and the distortions: there were already there in plain sight, well published, accessible to anybody, so the book is not uninformed" actually is is pretty badly informed about even its own matters. The book confuses some of the actual scholarly arguments with conspiracy paranoia (that is, there are things which Langdon is surprised to learn which in real life are taken for granted by the vast majority of Biblical scholards regarding canonization of texts and related issues, Langdon takes for granted certain material that would be dismissed by any real scholar in the area). Brown fails to get basic dates and what happened at them correct. Now, whether or not the book is a "statement" is not relevant in that people treat it as one and it has confused a large number of uninformed or stupid people. To be blunt, if someone wants to read a well-written, well-researched conspiracy novel about much of the same material they should pick up Umberto Eco's Foucault's Pendulum. [[User:JoshuaZ\|JoshuaZ]] 09:04, 7 March 2007 (EST)

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:41, March 7, 2007
Line 16:		Line 16:

	: You don't need to eb Christian to see this book as stupid, uninformed, spreading all sorts of ignorance and not terribly well-written either. That said, I do agree that this article is way too long. A few short examples of the myriad problems with the book would be more than enough. [[User:JoshuaZ\|JoshuaZ]] 01:25, 7 March 2007 (EST)		: You don't need to eb Christian to see this book as stupid, uninformed, spreading all sorts of ignorance and not terribly well-written either. That said, I do agree that this article is way too long. A few short examples of the myriad problems with the book would be more than enough. [[User:JoshuaZ\|JoshuaZ]] 01:25, 7 March 2007 (EST)
		+
		+	::Joshua, stupidity is often a very subjective and dangerous notion. Many Christian have enjoyed this book. Are they then less clever than you? This novel did not create the legends and the distortions: there were already there in plain sight, well published, accessible to anybody, so the book is not uninformed. It’s good to remember that, once, woman was equal to man in the church, and that was a revolution. But this book is not a statement, nothing but a different kind of Indiana Jones. And I agree, definitely not a piece of literature. [[User:GuyLeb\|GuyLeb]] 07:41, 7 March 2007 (EST)

← Older revision		Revision as of 06:25, March 7, 2007
Line 14:		Line 14:

	Does this group still alive today? If you think that a mere novel is a treat, the problem is not the Da Vincy Code.[[User:GuyLeb\|GuyLeb]] 01:24, 7 March 2007 (EST)		Does this group still alive today? If you think that a mere novel is a treat, the problem is not the Da Vincy Code.[[User:GuyLeb\|GuyLeb]] 01:24, 7 March 2007 (EST)
		+
		+	: You don't need to eb Christian to see this book as stupid, uninformed, spreading all sorts of ignorance and not terribly well-written either. That said, I do agree that this article is way too long. A few short examples of the myriad problems with the book would be more than enough. [[User:JoshuaZ\|JoshuaZ]] 01:25, 7 March 2007 (EST)

← Older revision		Revision as of 06:24, March 7, 2007
Line 13:		Line 13:
	Stop the finger pointing game. Don Brown is not “responsible for feeding millions of pack reader with lies…”. Its novel is in fact an unhoped-for chance: millions of people have reopened their history books. A good opportunity to remember that 2000 years ago, one could say about Christians “See as they love one another”.		Stop the finger pointing game. Don Brown is not “responsible for feeding millions of pack reader with lies…”. Its novel is in fact an unhoped-for chance: millions of people have reopened their history books. A good opportunity to remember that 2000 years ago, one could say about Christians “See as they love one another”.

−	Does this group still alive today? If you think that a mere novel is a treat, the problem is not the Da Vincy Code.	+	Does this group still alive today? If you think that a mere novel is a treat, the problem is not the Da Vincy Code.[[User:GuyLeb\|GuyLeb]] 01:24, 7 March 2007 (EST)

← Older revision		Revision as of 06:22, March 7, 2007
Line 6:		Line 6:

	I mean ok, so Dan Brown is an idiot whose idea of research seems to be googling and then taking whatever the top few websites say. Anyone with half a brain knows this. Do we really need to spend 3 pages debunking him? [[User:JoshuaZ\|JoshuaZ]] 14:50, 1 March 2007 (EST)		I mean ok, so Dan Brown is an idiot whose idea of research seems to be googling and then taking whatever the top few websites say. Anyone with half a brain knows this. Do we really need to spend 3 pages debunking him? [[User:JoshuaZ\|JoshuaZ]] 14:50, 1 March 2007 (EST)
		+
		+	== This article is unfair and unbalanced ==
		+
		+	Should be shortened (a lot). This article is not only a long one-sided monologue, it's also a dishonest one: no mention of the objections of Langdon to the Teabing’s theories for example. Do you really think that Dan Brown want you to believe that there is a secret sarcophagi under a small pyramid in the Louvre museum?
		+
		+	Stop the finger pointing game. Don Brown is not “responsible for feeding millions of pack reader with lies…”. Its novel is in fact an unhoped-for chance: millions of people have reopened their history books. A good opportunity to remember that 2000 years ago, one could say about Christians “See as they love one another”.
		+
		+	Does this group still alive today? If you think that a mere novel is a treat, the problem is not the Da Vincy Code.

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:50, March 1, 2007
Line 2:		Line 2:

	-- Snark		-- Snark
		+
		+	== Do we need an article this long? ==
		+
		+	I mean ok, so Dan Brown is an idiot whose idea of research seems to be googling and then taking whatever the top few websites say. Anyone with half a brain knows this. Do we really need to spend 3 pages debunking him? [[User:JoshuaZ\|JoshuaZ]] 14:50, 1 March 2007 (EST)

← Older revision		Revision as of 01:34, February 23, 2007
Line 1:		Line 1:
	The Da Vinci code article needed a LOT of work. I believe that the original author or authors have something of a misapprehension of the nature of an encyclopedia, which is really an objective source of basic information, rather than a source of editorial commentary. Specifically, the detailed refutation of the Da Vinci code's narrative has no place in a encyclopedic work; it'd be a fine blog or magazine article or something of the sort, but it's really got no place in a work of general reference. I did my best to clean up a lot of very subjective, biased language, but if anybody else cares to do more, there's more that can be done.		The Da Vinci code article needed a LOT of work. I believe that the original author or authors have something of a misapprehension of the nature of an encyclopedia, which is really an objective source of basic information, rather than a source of editorial commentary. Specifically, the detailed refutation of the Da Vinci code's narrative has no place in a encyclopedic work; it'd be a fine blog or magazine article or something of the sort, but it's really got no place in a work of general reference. I did my best to clean up a lot of very subjective, biased language, but if anybody else cares to do more, there's more that can be done.
		+
		+	-- Snark