Talk:Rose Line

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Older

"The line was popularised in the fictional work, The Da Vinci Code, where it was supposed to also run under Rosslyn Chapel, even though the Scottish site is some 6 degrees West from the Paris Meridian."

Why does that sound wrong? If the line popularized in TDVC was the roseline, then what does it matter that the Paris Meridian is 6 degrees west of Rosslyn Chapel? It's already stated the two lines are different. Those two sentences should be rewritten to avoid the implied error. If nobody else changes it in the next week's time, I'll change it myself. 97.84.203.211 (talk) 16:43, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Popular term for Paris Meridian

This is now true, possibly due to Dan Brown. The latter fact has not been cited, however. The fact that Rose Line is now used as a popular term for the Paris Meridian has been cited and should remain. It's obviously true, it's all over the internet. The statement does not say it is an old or traditional term, simply that it is a popular term. Do you really dispute this? Wednesday Next (talk) 23:25, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

This is only agreed upon by the fans of The Da Vinci Code and conspiracy theory authors - it is universally rejected by informed researchers and even by believers in the occult who respect historical facts, dare I say. Wfgh66 (talk) 23:38, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
You aren't getting. It is now a popular term. Popular terms are quite frequently wrong, but being wrong doesn't mean they are not a popular term. In any case, if Brown coined it, he gets to say what it means, right? So please provide a citation that he did indeed coin it. Wednesday Next (talk) 23:41, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
The "Rose Line" is a popular name for the Paris Meridian amongst the followers of the novel by Dan Brown entitled The Da Vinci Code. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wfgh66 (talk • contribs) 00:24, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Sure, but you haven't provided a citation to that effect. Surely finding a citation for that should be simple for you? Wednesday Next (talk) 00:28, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
In actuality, you will find the while it was recently coined, it was not coined by Brown. He simply popularized it. Do you research and add the correct facts. With citation. You are so sure that Brown coined it, but he didn't. Try Holy Blood Holy Grail or one of his other sources. You will find that it was used by Brown's sources, so you need to find the origin. Wednesday Next (talk) 00:35, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
I am genuinely interested if the Meridian was known as "The Roseline" before The Da Vinci Code and would appreciate being provided with references to that effect. But I know that even those people sympathetic with themes put forward in Dan Brown's novel can't find a reference to "The Roseline outside the context of The Da Vinci Code. Wfgh66 (talk) 00:51, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Citation required

While it may (or may not) be true that this term is only used by fans (not followers, fans) of Dan Brown, you can't say that this is the case unless you can provide a citation. Please don't return a "fact" that you don't even know for sure is true without a citation. Wednesday Next (talk) 01:15, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

If you admit that "Roseline" was used as a name for the Meridian only in The Da Vinci Code then there is nothing wrong with the statement "The Rose Line is a popular name for the Paris Meridian amongst the followers of the novel by Dan Brown entitled The Da Vinci Code". Wfgh66 (talk) 01:32, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes, there is. Neither you nor I can be a source. It has to be cited to a third party. Get it? Wednesday Next (talk) 01:34, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
In point of fact, I don't know that it is only used by "followers" (sic) of Dan Brown. I mean, he's a fiction writer, not a religious leader. He doesn't have "followers", he has fans.
And you don't know for sure that it is only used by Dan Brown's fans, because you can't provide a source that says that. You clearly believe that it's true. I acknowledge only that it might be true. You haven't proven it. Just do so. Cite somebody, and there must be plenty of people you could cite, that makes the statement you are trying to add. It's not that difficult. Wednesday Next (talk) 01:38, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
You cannot find a single reference book on the Paris Meridian that refers to it as a "Roseline"Wfgh66 (talk) 01:40, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
I don't have to. You have to prove what you are trying to add. You have not proven by citing a source who says that it is only in Dan Brown. You have not read every book in the world, neither have I and neither have the readers of the article. You need to cite an expert who conclusively says that only Dan Brown used the term. You can't prove a negative, you have to cite a positive statement. We can't take your word for it, you have to provide a citation for the fact you are trying to add. Just provide one. Wednesday Next (talk) 01:55, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
You're obviously a nutcase who seriously believes in the bloodline of Jesus Christ. Discussion with you is futile. Wfgh66 (talk) 02:30, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, I'm not a "true believer" at all. I just want you to cite your effing facts like anyone else. Or are you too "special" for that. Wednesday Next (talk) 02:49, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Philip Coppens is a self-published source - Adventure Books is his self-printing company - and his "research" belongs to Fringe Community category - he is a romantic who promotes fakes and fakers like Andre Douzet and Patrice Chaplin in relation to the pseudo-history of Rennes-le-Chateau, a bogus "mystery", and he writes for Nexus magazine - go check out Nexus. You can never accuse me of doing any of those kind of things. Your source is Fringe material and a self publisher. Wfgh66 (talk) 05:41, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] popular

There seems to be a misconception here that if a source says something then that makes it true. We use sources in order to explain where information comes from and thus how seriously it should be taken. Reliable sources are preferred, and reliability usually means that a form of oversight (peer review) is used to determine status. See the guidelines in WP:Verifiability. A source that has no peer review and no academic credibility is not reliable. That applies here, since the publisher is the creator of conspiracy theory books that are not reviewed by scholars. Indeed, the press was set up as a self-publishing venture. Even the most reliable sources however, do not make any statement made by that source into a fact, especially statement of judgement. If the famous literature expert Professor Bloggs says that Dickens is the greatest English novelist that is a judgement. We can't then present is as a fact that "Charles Dickens is the greatest English novelist"[1] At most we can say that Professor Bloggs thinks this. The source provided here woefully fails the reliability test. That does not mean it can't be used at all, but that its assertions should not be presented as fact, certainly not where there is any element of judgement involved. It is best to simply say that ithe term is used by Brown, since that is undisputed by anyone. Paul B (talk) 16:51, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

It is clearly now a popular term, with over 80,000 Google hits. So you don't think the person cited as making this obvious observation is reliable. They are in this particular case, aren't they? Wednesday Next (talk) 16:56, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
There is no doubt whatever that the source is not reliable. It doesn't even begin to satisfy the criteria. The hits all derive from the popularity of the Da Vinci Code, as you well, know, so it makes sense to put that fact first. As it is currently phrased the article creates the mistaken impression that it is a popular term that Brown happened to use, rather than a term that was made popular by Brown. The version I wrote simply avoids that confusion and potential misinformation. I can see no reason why you would insist on keeping a single word that tells us nothing of value, but which is potentially deeply misleading. Paul B (talk) 17:10, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Because it is accurate in the present tense. Find another way to say what you want to say without changing something that is both obviously true and also cited. Wednesday Next (talk) 17:41, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't have to find another way, because my version does not contain any disputed information whatever. There is no reason to include misleading information sourced to an unreliable source. Being cited to a text which has no status whatever means nothing. You may as well have cited a blog. To do so is contrary to policy and is unacceptable. It also may consitute OR by virtue of synthesis because of the fact that the phrasing leads to a misleading conclusion. You are now being stubborn for no good reason. It is also important to note that google tests of the kind you propose mean nothing. "Paris Hilton" and "whore" produces 1,980,000 hits. That does not justify the statement "Whore is a popular term for Paris Hilton". Paul B (talk) 23:00, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Reliable sources

Are there any? I don't see any of the sources currently being used on Rose Line as being authoritative. I would suggest that the page be redirected to Paris Meridian and any salvageable content from this page be included in the "esoteric interpretations" section there. Sam Korn (smoddy) 00:04, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree Wednesday Next is repeatedly using sources in a misleading way to imply that "the Rose line" is in some sense the proper term for this line. Paul B (talk) 11:23, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
May I suggest a new Wikipedia article entitled: The effects of The Da Vinci Code? Wfgh66 (talk) 15:34, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
That might be a slight overreaction. Sam Korn (smoddy) 15:44, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
All he is saying is that it is a "popular" term. I agree that this is unsourced. Nowhere does he suggest it is the correct term. Would anyone like to address the suggestion that the article be pruned of fluff (i.e. quite a lot of the page) and merged with either Paris Meridian or The Da Vinci Code? Sam Korn (smoddy) 15:44, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
No, he doesn't say it, but the way the sentences are written seem to be designed to suggest more widespead acceptance of the term than really exists. It only "exists" in the context o the DVC and the spin-off literature surrounding it. The article could be merged with either of the ones you mention, though I think it's more likely to fit with Criticisms of the Da Vinci Code than the main DVC article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paul Barlow (talk • contribs) 15:59, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
That's a good suggestion -- indeed, most of the content already exists at Criticisms_of_the_Da_Vinci_Code#Paris. Sam Korn (smoddy) 16:01, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] References

The second reference link was removed because it is not an independent reference. It clearly cites the original reference given as its source, so it is redundant and only gives the illusion of being an independent supporting reference.

The addition of the quote was apparently worked out between Wfgh66 and Sam Korn. I support it's inclusion.

And could you please stop messing with the references. In particular, your continual moving of the punctuation in the third paragraph to after the ref tags is revolting and annoying. There is a clear standard on Wikipedia that ref tags follow punctuation with no intervening space. Please work forward from the current state of the article without making reverts which make more changes than you intended. Wednesday Next (talk) 02:58, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Ah could you please stop messing with the references?
And, if you post here, please address my comment above - or do not comment at all - or create a separate section. I am doing this for you now. Str1977 (talk) 08:49, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Just to make it clear, the discussion was entirely about what language the source could support. The discussion is at User_talk:Sam_Korn#User:Wfgh66. I have no opinion about its value for the article. Sam Korn (smoddy) 23:00, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Comment

From what I can remember from the times when I read pseudoscholarly books like HBHG, the "Rose Line" is not an invention of Dan Brown but existed before that (that was years before Dan Brown arrived on the scene). I dimly remember reading something about in Schellenberger's Tomb of God. Also, the name suggests that it has something to do with Rosslyn Chapel. Hence, it is simplistic and inaccurate if we now portray it as if the Rose Line is the gnomon or the Paris Meridian or both. The identification is made by Dan Brown, yes, but that's not all there is to it.

As I said, I only dimly remember, don't have the books to hand and furthermore have no intention to revisit them.

Could one of you look into the matter? Str1977 (talk) 23:18, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I've done a bit of googleing and found the following sites:

Sure most are crap but they are evidence that the current article is simplistic, misleading and therefore inaccurate. Hence I am tagging the article. Str1977 (talk) 09:14, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

There's an awful lot of modern-day invented fantasies in those links, "traditions" and "histories" that are recent inventions. Wfgh66 (talk) 09:21, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Sure, if I discover any other reference to Roseline outside the context of, and predating, and possibly even contradicting Dan Brown, I'll add it to the article. Wfgh66 (talk) 09:36, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Sure, the whole topic is nonsense. But there is an article on the Loch Ness monster even if it doesn't exist. The Rose Line doesn't exist but it is used by authors and should be discribed in an accurate manner. Dan Brown is only one of them. Str1977 (talk) 00:30, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Have a look at http://www.holysmoke.org/sdhok/tomb.htm, especially:

Table of Contents
Foreword
Introduction
1. The Parchments
2. The Cipher Code
3. The Guardian Spirit
4. Ancient Signs and Secrets
5. The Priest and the Paintings
6. 'X Marks the Spot'
7. Mount Cardou
8. Three Errant Priests
9. The Poussin Enigma
10. Through the Parchments and Beyond
11. Fresh Clues and Further Confirmation
12. The Grave on the Rose Line
13. The Knights Templar and the Place of the Skull
14. Et in Arcadia Ego
15. One Errant Academic
16. The Secret and its Guardians
17. The Bones of the Prophet
18. In the Name of Jesus
19. The Rose Cross: its Rebirth and Benefactors
20. The Ultimate Hiding-Place
Afterword
Acknowledgements
Chronology
Appendices
Notes
Bibliography
Index

Str1977 (talk) 01:29, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I overlooked a couple of references to "Roseline" and the Paris Meridian made within the context of the Priory of Sion that predates Dan Brown. This reference to "Roseline" and the Meridian within the Priory of Sion mythology differs slightly to what Dan Brown wrote in The Da Vinci Code and has a history of research relating to it in France owing to what was claimed way back in the 1970s. Wfgh66 (talk) 09:07, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

My idea how the article should look like is (please excuse the crudeness of the wording):
  • General statement: Rose line is a special line considered important on various pseudo-scholarly/esoterical works. It was popularized by Dan Brown's novel Da Vinci Code.
  • Usage of various books (with critical treatment)
  • Usage by Dan Brown (with critical treatment)

Str1977 (talk) 12:25, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

To elaborate: The article should start with a clear, introductory definition of what the Rose Line is. BTW, to say it is a term is not helpful at all, since every lemma could be considered a term. We do not start an article saying "Charlemagne" is a term for a great Frankish King and Roman Emperor.
The article should explain what this or that author made of the RL. Does Beaucéan already equate it with the Meridian? Was there anything else to it? To my knowledge, the RL was also linked to Rennes, Rosslyn and other places. Rennes or rather Pech Cardou fairs prominently in "Tomb of God". Str1977 (talk) 12:51, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
It was Dan Brown who first linked the Roseliine/Meridian with Rosslyn Chapel, as well as with the Jesus Christ Bloodline. Yes, I can go into what Beaucan and Plantard commented about calling the Meridian the RoseLine, but this would substantially lengthen the content of the article and go into previously unpublished-into-English material, being unknown to non-specialist non-French visitors to the article.Wfgh66 (talk) 13:03, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
There's nothing wrong with using material published in French. Go ahead. Str1977 (talk) 13:11, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Dan Brown, the old Paris Meridian and Le Serpent Rouge

It seems that Dan Brown used unreliable and inaccurate content found within the Priory Document "Le Serpent Rouge" (1967), that contains several maps of Paris and a diagram of the plan of the church of St Sulpice, insinuating that the old Paris Meridian went through St Germain-le-Pres and the gnomon in the church of St Sulpice. The author/authors of "Le Serpent Rouge" do not call this line the "Rose Line". The term is not found in "Le Serpent Rouge" (or in any other of the Priory Documents, for that matter), even though the author/authors of the "Le Serpent Rouge" document say exactly the same thing that Dan Brown wrote in his 2003 The Da Vinci Code. In the plan of the church of St Sulpice the author/authors have placed the words "prae cum" at the head of the arrow of the line that signified the ray of light passing from the stained-glass window and landing on the gnomon to determine the time of the equinoxes, with the letters "MC" at the other end of the line standing for the Latin words "Midi Coeli" (Mid Heaven = Noon). The Priory Document "Le Serpent Rouge" has been published several times in France, by authors like Franck Marie and Pierre Jarnac. Wfgh66 (talk) 11:30, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Date is important

The date of January 17 is important - it is the determining factor for choosing Saint Roseline by Plantard and De Cherisey, who mistakenly believed that the Meridian went through the church of St Sulpice - the feast date of St Sulpice was January 17, as it is of St Anthony the Hermit, and it was the date that Marie de Negri d'Ables died in 1781. Plantard and de Cherisey attempted to collect all the data they could relating to the date of 17 January as part of their mystification of the PoS and RLC. 12:50, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

If so, this should be explained in the text. Str1977 (talk) 12:54, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
One more try: I know about the importance Plantard & consorts placed in January 17th but do we have a source stating that they chose the name "Rose line" because of Saint Roseline's feast day? Str1977 (talk) 11:48, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
The fact that Plantard stated the feast day of the saint whilst mentioning her name is reason enough. The Meridian the PoS believed went to St Sulpice the saint's feast day being January 17. Besides, by adding the feast day into the article it is consolidating the fact that it is Roseline the saint and not some other Roseline (= "the Meridian"). Wfgh66 (talk) 12:10, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
But that's not what our current material is saying. We merely have a Saint Roseline with her feast day mentioned alongside of a meridian called Rose Line. Str1977 (talk) 12:23, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Critical Treatment

Wouldn't this constitute Original Research and break Wikipedia Rules? Wfgh66 (talk) 13:11, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Only if we go out there and research it for ourselves. Str1977 (talk) 11:19, 2 March 2008 (UTC)