Difference between revisions of "Talk:Da vinci code"
| 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) | ||
Revision as of 06:25, March 7, 2007
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
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? 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.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. JoshuaZ 01:25, 7 March 2007 (EST)