Talk:The Da Vinci Code

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 WikiProject Religion
Religion Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
This article falls within the scope of the Interfaith work group. If you are interested in Interfaith-related topics, please visit the project page to see how you can help. If you have any comments regarding the appropriateness or positioning of this template, please let us know at our talk page.


↓    Skip to table of contents    ↓

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the The Da Vinci Code article.
Article policies
Archives: 1, 2, 3
Novels
Literature Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Novels, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to narrative novels, novellas, novelettes and short stories on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit one of the articles mentioned below, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.
B This article has been rated as B-Class.
High This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.
This article is supported by the Crime task force. (with unknown importance)
Assessment comments
This is a controversial topic that may be under dispute. Please read this page and discuss substantial changes here before making them.
Make sure to supply full citations when adding information and consider tagging or removing uncited/unciteable information.
Peer review The Da Vinci Code has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.
Other languages WikiProject Echo has identified The Da Vinci Code as a foreign language featured article. You may be able to improve this article with information from the Bosnian language Wikipedia.
This article is a former featured article candidate. Please view its sub-page to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.
Archive
Archives
  1. August 2004 – August 2005
  2. August 2005 – April 2006
  3. April 2006 – Feburary 2007

Contents

[edit] Opening paragraph

Why does the article open with an uncited paragraph, claiming that "scholars" see the claims made in the Da Vinci Code as baseless? They may be baseless, but is that really the way to open a neutral article about the book? NIGGA PLEASE!!! What happened to references? It's hardly fair and NPOV to commence to article by immediately claiming it to be entirely factually baseless.

Some readers maintain that, though it may make enjoyable reading, the premise that there is a conspiracy within the Roman Catholic Church to cover up the true story of Jesus is not merely controversial but baseless.

The claim that Mary Magdalene had a child, a daughter named Sarah, with Jesus, and had a bloodline that descended into the Merovingian bloodline, this is in fact a baseless claim. The Dossiers Secrets, a collection of documents discovered by Pierre Plantard, in 1975, in the Bibliothèque Nationale in Paris. The collection includes many pages of alleged genealogies of the Merovingian bloodline and other documents related to a supposed secret society, the Priory of Sion, such as a list of alleged Grand Masters of the Priory, dating back to the 1100s. The list contained names such as Isaac Newton, Leonardo da Vinci, and Victor Hugo. In the 1990s, the collection was proven that they were forgeries, created as part of the Priory of Sion hoax, by Pierre Plantard and Philippe de Cherisey, as an attempt to show Plantard was descended from French royalty. Under oath, Plantard admitted that he had fabricated everything, and that he planted the documents in the Bibliothèque Nationale in the 1960s. The Gnostic Gospels mentioned in the book, the Gospel of Philip and the Gospel of Mary Magdalene, are in fact substantial. A single manuscript of the Gospel of Philip, in Coptic, was found in the Nag Hammadi library, a cache of documents that was secreted in a jar and buried in the Egyptian desert at the end of the fourth century. The Gospel of Mary Magdalene recovered in 1896 in the Akhmim Codex, acquired by Dr. Carl Rheinhardt in Cairo. At the end of the fourth century, Gnostic writings were being burned by the Roman Catholic Church, and this is evident, when Athanasius, the bishop of Alexandria, in 367 AD, urge Christians to "cleanse the church from every defilement" and to reject "the hidden books." With evidence of the Roman Catholic Church burning Gnostic writings, to "cleanse the church from every defilement," and to reject "the hidden books" does support the substantial claim that the Roman Catholic Church, at the end of the fourth century, did try to conceal the evidence about the life of Jesus which are associated with the early Gnostic Christianity. They are not accepted by mainstream Christianity as authentic, and are therefore declared heresy and not included in the standard Biblical canon. -- Greg - 10:58 PM 01 April 2007

I can't say I will lose any sleep over it whatsoever Paul210 12:11, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

The book is fiction, but all I'm saying is that not all the historical claims are baseless. -- Greg - 3:15PM - 03 April 2007 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 202.175.224.123 (talk) 07:14, 3 April 2007 (UTC).
There's probably a better way to word that, but adding a lengthy analysis to the opening paragraph is not necessary. If there's a deft, concise, way to word the point in the lead, please do. But I'd hate to more of the 'debate' creep back in from the criticisms article. Kuru talk 12:36, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Some readers maintain that, though it may make enjoyable reading, the premise that there is a conspiracy within the Roman Catholic Church to cover up the true story of Jesus is not merely controversial but baseless.

Remove or edit this opening paragraph then, it's very misleading, uncited, and biased, and it's saying that all the claims in the book are baseless, if you read my "lengthy analysis to the opening paragraph" you know what I'm talking about. To those who might answer me like this, "The Da Vinci Code is fiction, and should be treated as such, or shouldn't be taken seriously," yes, I know it's fiction, I'm not stupid or crazy, but if you look at it in it's historical context, you'll be most surprised, the Jesus bloodline theory, baseless. A conspiracy within the Roman Catholic Church to cover up the true story of Jesus, not entirely baseless, as the Roman Catholic Church burned Gnostic writings, declared Gnostics as heretics, "cleanse the church from every defilement," and reject "the hidden books" does support the substantial claim that the Roman Catholic Church, at the end of the fourth century, tried to conceal the evidence about the life of Jesus which are associated with the early Gnostic Christianity. -- Greg - 10:39AM - 03 April 2007

I actually agree, and I have removed both from the current version of the lead. It would probably make sense to mention the 'controversy' in the introduction - but I'd like to see something a little less weasel-worded. Would love to hear suggestions here before simply re-adding. Kuru talk 01:34, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Thank you... and I would like to point out that I'm Roman Catholic, at birth and at death, I love our religion, and I truly believe that Jesus Christ is my saviour, I believe in possibilities, why couldn't Jesus had a family, a wife and child, and still do the amazing things he did? Shouldn't we take comfort from the fact that Jesus knew what it was like to have a family, to love and be human? Could having a family destroy Christ's message to a path to a better life or his divinity? As we venture more into the 21st century, there will be new discoveries, just this year, The Lost Tomb of Jesus or the Talpiot Tomb, discovered in the 1980s, got into the public spotlight, are we to reject these new discoveries, all because they contradict Catholic doctrine or what the Bible says? I do not believe that faith and belief should be fixed, I believe that faith and belief should have room for possibilities. -- Greg - 1:56PM - 04 April 2007 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.167.67.101 (talk) 05:56, 4 April 2007 (UTC).
The fact that the RCC burned Gnostic writings has nothing to do with the discussion at hand. If the idea of Jesus' bloodline with Mary Magdalene has true historical merit, I would like to see some sources by reputable historians, as opposed to a a couple on the fringe. Guldenat 18:38, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
I suggest you read the book "The Woman with the Alabaster Jar", written by Margaret Starbird who is a Roman Catholic scholar. This well-researched book provides much evidence to support the theory that Jesus and Mary were married and had children. By the way, "reputable historian" is often just a euphemism for a historian who regurgitates the version of history that is generally accepted at the time. It often takes a very brave person to challenge accepted history. Logicman1966 06:45, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
The fact that the Roman Catholic Church burning Gnostic writings has everything to do with the discussion at hand, because the idea of Jesus having a relationship with Mary Magdalene and marrying her comes from Gnostic writings, here are passages from the Gospel of Philip:
There were three who always walked with the Lord: Mary, his mother, and her sister, and Magdalene, the one who was called his companion. His sister and his mother and his companion were each a Mary.
And the companion of the [...] Mary Magdalene. [...] loved her more than all the disciples, and used to kiss her often on her mouth. The rest of the disciples [...]. They said to him "Why do you love her more than all of us?" The Savior answered and said to them,"Why do I not love you like her? When a blind man and one who sees are both together in darkness, they are no different from one another. When the light comes, then he who sees will see the light, and he who is blind will remain in darkness."
Then a passage from the Gospel of Mary Magdalene:
He questioned them about the Savior: "Did He really speak privately with a woman and not openly to us? Are we to turn about and all listen to her? Did He prefer her to us?" Then Mary wept and said to Peter, "My brother Peter, what do you think? Do you think that I have thought this up myself in my heart, or that I am lying about the Savior?" Levi answered and said to Peter, "Peter you have always been hot tempered. Now I see you contending against the woman like the adversaries. But if the Savior made her worthy, who are you indeed to reject her? Surely the Savior knows her very well. That is why He loved her more than us. Rather let us be ashamed and put on the perfect Man, and separate as He commanded us and preach the gospel, not laying down any other rule or other law beyond what the Savior said." And when they heard this they began to go forth to proclaim and to preach.
These kinds of passages, and many other passages, is the reason why the Roman Catholic Church burned Gnostic writings, to conseal the other side of the Christ story... 122.53.81.250 06:40, 16 November 2007 (UTC)Joshua

[edit] Article check and review

Concerning the discussion titled "Opening paragraph," yes, I agree that the opening paragraph, that states, "is not merely controversial but baseless," is biased, thank you for clearing that up, but I think the whole article should be checked and reviewed, for biases. And concerning that article called "Criticisms of the Da Vinci Code" I think an article about the "Supporting Views of the Da Vinci Code" should be created, Greg's lengthy analysis to the opening paragraph is a great example. - Steve

[edit] Leonardo vs Da Vinci

Although it is of course understood that Dan Brown named his novel 'The Da Vinci Code' I believe the correct abreviation for Leonardo Da Vinci is to use the first name only (ie 'Leonardo') - of course the 'Da Vinci' part does not refer to his name so much as where he was born.

If this is correct (as per my understanding and as per the Wikipedia article on Leonardo Da Vinci - and I would value other opinions) we cannot expect Dan Brown to alter his book for our benefit - but other references to Leonardo Da Vinci made in this article should not follow Dan Brown's error (if it is accepted to be such) but should use the correct abreviation. RogMcDog 15:35, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I understand that Da Vinci is a reference to where he was from, but are you certain that it was not used as his last name as well? I am legitimately curious because many people's names, even today, when translated are merely just indications of where their ancestors come from. Or even in the case of irish names like 'Fitzpatrick', which literally translated means 'Bastard son of Patrick'. Once again, I am not familiar with when using last names became common, so perhaps you are correct, but I just want to be sure. Guldenat 18:26, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree, from checking the Leonardo da Vinci rticle, i have discovered that... "Leonardo had no surname in the modern sense, "da Vinci" simply meaning "of Vinci": his full birth name was "Leonardo di ser Piero da Vinci", meaning "Leonardo, son of (Mes)ser Piero from Vinci." "84.13.229.51 16:33, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Plantard's fraud and arrest

How could Plantard be arrested in 1953 for the Priory hoax, when according to the article he created the society in 1956?

I understood that he was arrested in 1953 for other frauds, but did the Priory hoax (which may or may not have been illegal in the same way as the 1953 charges) later, in 1956. But the wording in the article does not make that clear, and should probably be fixed. Mlouns 19:58, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dubious

It says sales rival that of Harry Potter. I find this highly dubious. The first HP book alone has sold over 107 million copies versus less than 70 million. Now to me, that alone makes the statement highly dubious. But then, the article says the Harry Potter series. The total series sales (per List of best-selling books) are over 500 million. Would someone like to explain how 70 rivals 107, or even 500+ million? Or does it refer to sales in 2004 alone? Because if it does, it should really be phrased a bit more clearly I think. - EstoyAquí(t • c • e) 12:57, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Edited. Referring to the actual text in the source, it stated that only Harry Potter outsold it, which is not the same as saying it rivalled Harry Potter. I've made the claim match the source. Spenny 22:42, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] bloodline of jesus?

On The Da Vinci Code page about the book on this website, it says that Mary Magdalene had a child after the crucifixion of jesus and it was a daughter named Sarah. However, on the same page later on in the article it says there are three children attributed to Jesus, one of them Josephes of which the da vinci code is basing it's bloodline theory. I don't understand this can someone please explain? thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.141.242.5 (talk) 12:06, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Literary and historical criticism section is biased i thought wikipedia is supposed to have a third person view or whatever the hell thats called. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.83.182.12 (talk) 03:09, 23 September 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Novel?

sorry, bit drunk as i write this, so i may be wrong, but i didnt really see anything the article saying that the book is a work of fiction. some people dont seem to realise this?

thought it was important61.69.207.222 10:58, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

If I had a beer for every time someone said "IT'S ONLY A WORK OF FICTION!!!!!", I'd be very, very drunk :)
There is plenty of discussion in the article, it is after all introduced as a novel, but some people might not understand that it means fiction (not meaning to be condescending, some people may simply think that novel means book).
The point of the discussions are:
  • even if no claims were made, the book talks about real subjects that interest people. Therefore those points raised are worthy of discussion here.
  • but, Dan Brown uses some weasel words in the book to suggest that, although it is a work of fiction, he suggests it really can be taken as sort of fact: well it's all speculation, but it could have happened, and if it could have happened it probably did because otherwise we wouldn't have had the cover-up, which didn't happen, or did it?

I hope that helps. Spenny 12:10, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

The book is fiction with facts in it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.83.164.145 (talk) 00:44, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

...but when the facts are wrong, are they fiction? Spenny 11:38, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Fictional" in opening sentence

I figured I would bring this to the talkpage since it deals with the article's opening sentence. I'm going to remove the word "fictional" from that sentence. The fact that The Da Vinci Code is a work of fiction is already covered by the term "novel"—I'm sensitive to the concern raised above that some people might not know a novel is by definition fiction, but as "fictional novel" is not the way to go about fixing that. As it stands, the sentence is immediately jarring because it can only be read in one of two ways: either it's redundant, or it's saying that The Da Vinci Code is itself fictional (like Starfleet is fictional), in which case it's outright wrong. Binabik80 18:31, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] page 217

on page 217 in the edition that says some wierd code or somthing on the top of the page where "the da vinci code" should be any one knoe the meaning of this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.126.43.103 (talk) 03:21, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] LINKS TO THE NAME PIERRE

There's many links to the name Pierre, they are all factual and if searched can be proved, there are some that keep deleting this post! Why? IanMSpencer and Fishhook, WHY? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.209.3.27 (talk) 12:04, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

1. Because the writing is not encyclopaedic.
2. Because you have not given proper references.
3. Because it has been given undue weight.
4. Because it appears to be original research.

While you are welcome to edit, Wikipedia has policies to govern what is allowed and so you can expect people to delete information that does not appear to match the policies. Spenny 13:17, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

So are you guys saying that I cannot put this info here when I'm putting it in article ;Criticisms of The Da Vinci Code? and its not original, dan obviously did this deliberatly. All of it down to the copyright holder of blade and chalice(guide lines) to show images that is copyrighted by a person that is also called Pierre can all be checked! IanMSpencer or Spenny you delete the whole article, check each one and delete the one you think is not linked to this book, like Pierre de Coubertin! you might think that it is not in TDVC but if you do some actual checking and not spend all day deleting everyones edits you might understand why it's linked to his book! and you call your deletion fair because other than check this information you call it vandalism? or nonsense? whos the vandal here? If you can't find the link just ask and I will put it here for you to read and evaluate so you can see why its here for in Criticisms of The Da Vinci Code, I'm doing excactly what this article was opened for. ThankYou —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.209.3.27 (talk) 07:28, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Please stop. In addition to being original research, what you are saying about the name Pierre is so poorly written as to be almost incomprehensible. Find some sources, cite them, and summarize the information in a clear, concise, encyclopedic style. thx1138 07:46, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Please check each one first! how simple is it to understand in this book it clearly links to PIERRE in heaps of pages? I cannot make it any more simple! GET IT?! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.209.3.27 (talk) 07:51, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Even if true, it's completely irrelevant. You have not cited any sources explaining what, if anything, these instances of the name Pierre has to do with criticism or analysis of the novel. You haven't even cleaned up the writing - your paragraph starts with a sentence fragment and you didn't capitalize "Dan Brown". thx1138 08:15, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Even if true? and it's completely irrelevant? Read this page in whole and not just my comments, you will then understand why it's here for. As for my paragraph starts with a sentence fragment, I don't know? and I am showing my disrespect by not capitalizing "Dan Brown". Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Special:Contributions/121.209.3.27|121.209.3.27]] (talk) 08:43, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not here for the purpose of you, or anyone else, expressing their disrespect for someone. thx1138 09:05, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Please don't take this the wrong way 121.209.3.27 (talk · contribs) but besides the informational content of your edit, which I have no vested interest in whatsoever, your prose is barely English. Just the fact that you don't capitalise the first letter of the given and family name of the author suggests you haven't as yet grasped the basics of English grammar. In fact as you read through the section more of the language falls apart. Please if you are going to contribute please take more care; otherwise you "will" be reverted. If you have some piece of useful evidence to add to an encyclopedic article about this novel then do contribute it. However it needs to be encyclopedic in character, referenced (i.e. verifiable) and well written. If you cannot keep to these, please don't waste your time or ours. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 09:25, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes I agree! and I only answered why and just told the truth! and I am not disrespecting anyone personally with my comments. Wikipedia is here so if you want to edit,edit! and if you want to fix errors, fix them! Most of you give advice and is welcoming but our account is for editing after all and not just for deleting.

I at last have a contribution to The Da Vinci Code article in Wikipedia, there are now three plagiarism lawsuits against him and not two! because synopsis was already linking to many Pierre's, and this was before he read HBHG? As he told Judge in court(which means he lied.) L.Teabings limp, one of many but also not a coincidence. So thanks for removing my edits, about 1/2 the Pierre's I had to list, I won't continue to bug anyone of you guys again because SOMEONE would delete it anyway, but thanks...

This one will probably be a criminal lawsuit thats directed at his publisher aswell and it is by www.apperlate.com's(This page is called PI, and one owner is called Pierre)owners, they also made the file pi.exe, which is from connect.to/pyramids, available to reference or to verify, and it was used to claim for the million dollars at another sceptic's page www.randi.org, as dan brown has confirmed also by saying"I'm more of a skeptic." Finally, Pierre says "My Copyrights are all identical to what is in this sceptics book The Da Vinci Code!" and thinks *Why didn't anyone take action against dan until after Easter 2005 when he first wrote to randomhouse screaming "plagiarists"?*

I was blocked from editing for 24 hours for to many undo's which is fair, otherwise I would have answered a little quicker. Donate to Wikipedia! I'm going to. ThankYou. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.209.3.27 (talk) 09:14, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

121.209.3.27, I have no doubt you are sincere in believing you have an interesting and important point to make. As you have been told several times, your writing is not in good English, you have not provided good quality sources. With your explanation, you raise further concerns as you seem to be saying that this information is to do with a criminal action against a living person. In such cases, Wikipedia policy is strongly applied as there is the potential for Wikipedia being seen as responsible for spreading defamatory comments.
Be aware that the 3 revert rule is not an allowance and where you are being intransigent, you can be banned without going that far. Spenny 09:54, 8 November 2007 (UTC)


121.209.3.27, I'd like to add my voice to those who point out that your English is barely comprehensible and it would be better if you stopped writing like this. Ironman1104 (talk) 10:53, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Parodies

"The Asti Spumante Code" and the "VaDinci Cod" have appeared. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.41.51.240 (talk) 13:40, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Novel

I can not imagine why any one is taking a stupid novel seriously. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.4.21 (talk) 10:36, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] redirect from "oh lame saint"

Since that article did not exist, I turned Oh lame saint into a redirect to The Da Vinci Code. I felt it would be uncontroversial. -- Thinboy00 talk/contribs @99, i.e. 01:22, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Book's premise in relation to the Vatican

This line in the top section bothers me:

According to the premise of the novel, the Vatican knows it is perpetuating a lie about Jesus' bloodline and the role of women in church, but continues to do so to keep itself in power.

My problem is with the word "knows". The book not only fails to state in any explicit way that the Vatican is aware of the "lie", but Langdon's character specifically says that they propagate their doctrine out of genuine belief, but nevertheless are intent on covering up the Sangreal documents in order that laypeople are less likely to question it.

Also, on a more pedantic note, it should really be "the role of women in the early church". Robin S (talk) 05:02, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Author is not copyright holder of blade and chalice

These copyrights are owned by www.apperlate.com [1] and this artistic expression was copyrighted early 2002 in a file that is available at www.connect.to/pyramids [2] (a word play for connect two pyramids) In this file it also clearly states to merge images together to create a star of David to show hidden pictures or codes. The real author of these copyrights is speculating that the Da Vinci code's author or his researcher(s) had mistaken him for priory of sion's Pierre (Plantard) as his name is also Pierre, while he applied for the one million dollars which was/is offered by the famous skeptic James Randi at www.randi.org while using this code as e.s.p, as the claim must also include a supernatural ability. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Neights (talk • contribs) 11:22, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

What kind of crack are you smoking, man? (85.145.139.80 (talk) 21:58, 30 April 2008 (UTC))

[edit] Characters and their involvement in The Da Vinci Code

What's the deal with this section? Why is it a bunch of bulleted factoids? Laziest writing I've seen in some time. Much as I hate excessive plot synopses, it seems like that's what they're going for here, and it would be preferable. Anyone keen to fix it? -R. fiend (talk) 03:20, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Why only criticisms?

Was there no praise for the book? Shouldn't a reception section be added? -000 (talk) 16:55, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

If someone wants to read up on a book using an encyclopaedia, they're probably going to want to hear more about criticism than praise. Granted the book was a worldwide success but that is pretty much it in the praise department. —— Ryan (t)•(c) 17:36, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
I don't think there was any prase for it ...Nearly famous writer (talk) 07:37, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Be one of the best selling books in the hisotry says enough about it. The only criticisms came from Christians, not from book reviewers. Speaker1978 (talk) 21:17, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "The Revelation" (2001 film)

What really surprised me about the reception of this book is that a large number of seemingly respectable news outlets acted as if this were the first major public portrayal of the whole Mary Magdalene Holy Grail thing. But besides more obscure mentions, there was even a 2001 film with extremely similar ideas.[3] In the film "Revelation", what you might call an alchemical couple are presented who are tasked with delivering the true bloodline of Jesus, after following a long series of silly clues with a look and feel very reminiscent of Dan Brown's novel. It has Isaac Newton, it has a creepy organization in the Vatican and so on. (I wonder if this constellation is a genre by now, like primitive men hiding from dinosaurs in caves near a volcano) I'm not sure if this film is derived from one of the other books listed in the article - it doesn't seem to be mentioned right now. The way the media sources were acting, maybe there isn't a source for it! In art, music, literature, ethics - good is whatever the PR people say good is. Wnt (talk) 19:37, 29 May 2008 (UTC)