Talk:Angels & Demons

CERN on Angels and Demons
CERN has an article on the topic of fact an fiction in Angels and Demons here. Also, from feedback in NewScientist: "According to David McGinnis of Fermilab, the electricity bill for producing 250 mg [of antimatter] would be somewhere around a thousand trillion US dollars" (20 Nov, 2004).203.217.38.83 10:30, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

CERN released a site covering the science behind the story (primarily antimatter and the 'God particle') to coincide with the movie release here: http://angelsanddemons.cern.ch/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thenoyes (talk • contribs) 13:01, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism
An unregistered user was deleting large parts of the article. I've restored large parts of it and have protected the article. -- fdewaele, 11 December 2006, 18:13
 * 155.33.106.142 keeps deleting the Plot Summary. Please don't let this become an edit war. Either state why you want to delete it (copy right violation,...) and discuss it here or refrain from further damaging this article -- fdewaele, 11 December 2006, 18:30
 * Mr. Howard is that you? Just kidding (I hope). Also someone removed the extensive section on inaccuracies, pointing to other articles that don't go into all the details of the elements of those conspiracies and topics addressed in the novel.

Accuracy
I've tried a different approach to this section in the hope of adding some relevant criticism in whilst avoiding the dreaded fact list. The article does need to cover the inaccuracies of the book to be properly encyclopaedic and NPOV (it must be surely POV to sweep criticisms under the carpet) so I was hoping that the more general written discussion might overcome the encyclopaedic list problem.

Spenny 11:10, 14 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Great, that approach seems to have survived. I need to question the citation that all the errors have been corrected which I rate as an implausible assertion. You may note that I softened it to some, but as the citation is Italian I think that it is not sufficient. It may well only apply to the Italian edition. I have two solutions, simply to say that in the earlier editions there were errors and leave a hanging implication, or someone would need to find a morehave tidied up the Wiki Book link as anything goes there!

''In the story, the murdered pope explained his allegence to science through his ability to conceive a child whilst continuing to abstain from intercourse. However, the Roman catholic church is opposed to IVF (see "Religious Objections").''

Spenny 14:16, 28 June 2007 (UTC)


 * If this article went into all the errors in the book, it would be at least ten times the size it is now. The one which leaps out at me in particular is the characterisation of Gunther Glick, the so-called "British" journalist whose speech and thoughts are full of Americanisms, and who likens himself to some American journalist whom nobody in Britain has heard of, instead of one well-known to the British people.  There's also the fact that, by virtue of the way cellphones work, calls cannot be made untraceable, as suggested in this book. -- Korax1214 (talk) 12:56, 15 May 2009 (UTC)


 * There were some errors with regard to the accent marks used in [written] Italian, i.e. using an acute accent (/) instead of a grave accent (\), using an accent-mark where there shouldn't be any, etc. For example:


 * É l'ora instead of È l'ora (Chapter 36)


 * idiòta instead of just idiota (Chapter 36)


 * Diàlogo instead of just Dialogo (Chapter 49)


 * It's perfectly fine to be inaccurate with the content of the storytelling; it is, after all, a work of fiction. But at least let's get the [written] language right. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.49.46.83 (talk) 08:16, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Undue prominence to errors
Further, despite the book's asseratation that major media outlets, such as MSNBC and CNN simply shoot their reporters in front of green screens rather than send them out to do live reports, there is no evidence of this occuring in the real world. Generally when someone is being shot in front of a green-screen on TV the effect is fairly obvious (refer to the "live location reports" done often on The Daily Show).

I removed the above text, not because it is wrong, but because if we had a list of errors in the book it would take up more space than the book itself. There are more important errors than this, and it would be unencyclopedic to list them all. (See above) We are supposed to maintain a neutral point of view and it has been suggested that it is unreasonable to give undue weight to the errors in the book, even if error spotting is the book's only useful entertainment!

The linked Wikibook - see main page - has a useful repository of the errors in the book. There is also a blog with these errors you may wish to circulate these on as linked also on the main page. Spenny 13:11, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

IVF (poss spoiler if you haven't read the book!)
I realise that no timelines are given in the book, but assume it's set in the present day. Given that, isn't there a discrepancy in the birth date of the character conceived by IVF? The first 'test tube baby' was Louise Brown born in 1978 - the character in the book must have been born in the early 60s. Or have I got the wrong end of the stick? --Whoosher 14:37, 7 October 2007 (UTC)


 * That one was niggling at me. What dates for the events can we imply (there are little clues around like car makes) and what ages are established for the characters? Spenny 17:39, 7 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Glad I'm not the only one! The character who's established as having been conceived by IVF is stated to be in his late 30s (maybe even as specifically as being 39, although I wouldn't swear to that). I assumed that the action took place in the present day because of the references to some of the everyday technology: mobiles, etc. The rest has me stumped though! Maybe it's just another item to add to the rather long list of factual inaccuracies.  --Whoosher 17:48, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Biased
This article is very biased and shows quite an opinion. It needs to be updated/rewritten. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.239.120.194 (talk) 16:48, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree! I thought that Wikipedia is an Encyclopedia which provides information. But this article is no better than an amateur blog written by someone who dislikes, or is jealous of the author. I find the article quite annoying, and, although I really support Wikipedia, is ruining the reputation of Wikipedia at a time when it is still trying to establish itself as reliable and scholarly source of information. Would someone please completely rewrite this article and indeed most of the articles about Dan Brown. The article has many mistakes: the obsession with exposing Dan Brown's mistakes is overdone and not always correct: when I reread the book, I am unable to find them - or have they been corrected by Brown since the article was written? Maybe this author should now tackle a few other authors: perhaps check out Shakespeare for his portrayal of Venice, Greece, Rome or elsewhere! Ebrownless (talk) 12:38, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Inaccuracies
As it says in the article: ''Also, this book mentions one Cardinal Ebner from Frankfurt. In truth, there is no cardinal from Frankfurt as there is no Archbishop of Frankfurt. There are only 4 cardinals from Germany: from Mainz, Cologne, Munich, and Berlin.''

This is so far correct as there is no Archbishop of Frankfurt but a Cardinal needs not be an archbishop or even a bishop in the roman catholic church. In truth the pope can create a cardinal out of every roman catholic christian. So there could be a Cardinal from Frankfurt as this man does not need to be a bishop.

Pretty sure that names of characters fall under the category of fiction. Robert Langdon doesnt exist either. thats not considered a factual inaccuracy, thats called a fictional character. --Late Leo (talk) 19:34, 15 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The Pope can create a cardinal out of every #male# Catholic. Jackiespeel (talk) 22:00, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

NEW INACCURACY FOUND: in the book, it is stated that the Pope must speak Italian, Spanish and English in order to be able to be elected, which is completely inaccurate. It's true that the Pope is obliged to speak Italian, Spanish and, obviously Latin, but under no circumstances must the Pope have any command of English as a sine qua non requirement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rgljuarez (talk • contribs) 15:21, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

84.44.129.115 (talk) 20:41, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Shaitan / Satan - More than a language error

Rather in the beginning Langdon narrates the story of the Illuminati and states that "The Vatican denounced the brotherhood as Shaitan" and continues a little later: "Shaitan is the root of an English word ... Satan." I don't know wherefrom Brown got this information. Satan is a true Hebrew word (heb. שָׂטָן), which can be found in the Bible: e.g. Hiob 1,9 and following verses, Psalm 109,6 and Sacharya 3,2. From these Hebrew text passages the word was absorbed 1:1 in many European languages, also in English. The reference to the Arabic Shaitan is absolutely dispensable. The two Semitic languages share the same roots, but that is all. Any pope would refer to the devil as Satan, never as Shaitan. Also the brotherhood of the Illuminati would never be linked to the muslim order of the Assassins (Hassassins) of the period of the crusades (11.-13. century). It seems that Brown choose a muslim Arab to impersonate the dark lusty cruel killer to serve the readers' sensationalism as it was previously often done with the Nazis as the bad guys. By the way: the killer can't even correctly count the Arabic numbers. The 2 would be ithnain. (I had added this text anonymously some minutes ago, unfortunately as new topic. It belongs to this subject) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Regina Berlinghof (talk • contribs) 15:27, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Inaccuracies regarding the antimatter container + the wireless camera
I was wondering: - where the he## the wireless cam was getting it's juice from when set up on the tomb of peter - if it wasn't battery powered (which seemingly is the case), why they couldn't shut off ever smaller sections of the vatican by just throwing the electricity-switches (cut the power by tripping the fuses blockwise, eventually the signal of the wireless cam should have died) - if it was wireless, why they didn't access the other cams (other wireless devices) to turn them off and this way home in on either it's wireless signal or it's electromagnetic signature ... - how a wireless cam was able to broadcast through several meters of granite ... well, I can go on, but basically I was wondering if someone else was irked by this too

77.251.36.79 (talk) 13:24, 20 February 2008 (UTC)rabhin


 * As with all the other errors.... who cares about one specific thing in a book so riddled with factual inaccuracy, contrived plot elements and straight up plot holes that the error list is probably longer than the book? Leushenko (talk) 01:44, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Film production
I tagged the statement that the film adaptation will film exterior shots in Vatican City as needing a citation. Given the Church's general opinion of Mr. Brown's work, I find it hard to believe that someone at the Governorate gave Ron Howard permission to film in the state. None of the sources in the paragraph mention filming in Vatican City itself. Gentgeen (talk) 09:25, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Ron Howard has stated that they filmed parts of Angels and Demons at the same time they were filming The DaVinci Code because he anticipated problems in getting Vatican approval for a second film. 152.133.14.5 (talk) 21:21, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Ancient
I know this is kind of wierd because I have never read this book, but does the author really claim the illuminati is ancient? Because if not, I will remove this from the intro. Ancient has a connotation that applies to history way before the illuminati was created. But if that is just part of the book, I will leave it in. Thanks --DerRichter (talk) 23:42, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

janus
i wikilinked 'janus' due to it's appropriate literary meaning. janus was a god with two faces. IsraelXKV8R (talk) 03:05, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Reception
Have this book got any criticism?--Amore Mio (talk) 15:11, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Historical conflict between science and religion
This may be true for the flat-earthers in America, but as this is specifically about Catholicism I think it's worth pointing out that the Catholic Church has been at pains to distance itself from Intelligent Design. Moreover the illuminati page has no information about a conflict. Dyaimz (talk) 22:53, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, Pope John Paul publicly affirmed evolution as a scientific fact in 1996, though Benedict has contradicted this. However, this is only relevant if it pertains to the article, and if there are reliable sources to support this point, which specifically make the point in relation to the novel. Nightscream (talk) 03:32, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * JP2 didn't decry evolution, but keep your terms straight - it's a scientific **theory**. --Krupo (talk) 05:09, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I've made a change to the sentence, which is hopefully acceptable. Dyaimz (talk) 21:51, 8 May 2009 (UTC)if u r like my and u like this good for u
 * I've added a link to an article on the conflict thesis. Hopefully, this will point those interested in the Church's relationship to scientific inquiry in the right direction. Innocent76 (talk) 21:58, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The persecution of Galileo by the Roman Inquisition is pretty common knowledge. Unfortunately, Brown seems to have confused this with Copernicus. 92.78.104.28 (talk) 13:23, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

STC
Has the film been taking particularly creative or aggressive approaches to prevent online streaming? It doesn't seem to exist on surfthechannel today, nor many of the feeder sites like megavideo.


 * First off, the film is yet to be released, as of this writing.


 * Second, discussion of illegal means of obtaining a view of a movie should not be allowed in article talk. (or anything relating to piracy.)


 * Third, existence of a movie on such channels does not mean it has been released, such as leaked copies

-- KelvinHO Wiknerd ( talk ) 15:37, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Internet vs the Web
Under the inaccuracies heading there's a short paragraph:


 * Another mistake made in the book is the claim that CERN is the organization that invented the Internet. In fact, Tim Berners-Lee and a small team at CERN invented the hypertext transport protocol, which led to the World Wide Web, not the Internet, which was engineered in the United States by DARPA.

Which cited the website | CERN - Spotlight: Angels and Demons. While the website states both that the Web is their invention, and that the Internet is not, I question the accuracy of which it is a mistake present in the book. Within the book it only states that CERN invented the Web, which is true.

Shall I edit it so that it states: "A misleading statement in the book..."?

-- KelvinHO Wiknerd ( talk ) 15:33, 14 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I reread the book last night after seeing the film, and I agree that the claim is only that CERN invented the WWW (which is true). At no point does the book claim that CERN invented the internet.  So there is really no mistake or misleading statement at all, only misinterpretation by some WP editors.  I suggest removing the said paragraph completely. Puffino (talk) 17:35, 14 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Yep. Chapter 2, Page 7. I've added the clarification. Nightscream (talk) 03:37, 15 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Does anybody have access to an original edition of the novel? This could have been corrected in the new addition in which case the original statement on wikipedia was correct. Cubbieco (talk) 20:40, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Latin grammar and other matters
I would like to point out that Illuminati is plural (it means the Enlightened Ones; the singular is Illuminatus) so "Illuminati is" is a grammatical error. It happens several times in the article.

Concerning chronology: the stuff that Brown attributes to CERN (antimatter and that special plane) have not been invented yet, so one might imagine the story taking place several years in the future, solving the problem of the camerlengo's age. Of course this in turn creates problems with DA VINCI CODE, where the recent passage of the millenium was a plot element.

I would also like to say that if people use Brown's novels as a source of information (rather than entertainment), then I feel sorry for them. CharlesTheBold (talk) 19:57, 16 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Where in the article does the phrase "Illuminati is" occur? I can't find it.


 * Both antimatter and the X-33 have been invented. CERN indeed produces antimatter, having first done so in 1995, but it simply cannot be produced to be stable for more than a fraction of a second, or in large quantities, or stored, as in the movie. As for the X-33, it was invented, but the first production model was not completed (a technicality, I know). But how does this pertain to the article? Nightscream (talk) 20:22, 16 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Reply: "the Illuminati has also stolen a canister..." and "The horrible truth is that the Illuminati has put the stolen canister somewhere", both in paragraph 3 of the summary. The verb was "to have" rather than "to be" but the grammatical error is still the same.  As for the chronology, I meant to say that the technology was a few years more advanced than ours and might be considered to be in the future.  I was replying to an earlier comment that the Camerlengo was too old to have been conceived by artificial insemination.

CharlesTheBold (talk) 22:03, 18 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Okay. I corrected the grammar errors. Thanks. :-) Nightscream (talk) 15:37, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Synopsis
I believe there is a mistake in the plot summary, third paragraph, second sentence ...at which point the antimatter will fall, come into contact with the base of the canister... Shouldn't it be at which point the magnetic field will fail, letting the antimatter come in contact with the base of the canister...? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Danielsj (talk • contribs) 19:01, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, it's not so much of a mistake as it is an omission of detail; feel free to add it. And just so you know, a new discussion should have a title heading right over its first post. :-) Nightscream (talk) 22:01, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

There is a mistake in the final sentence of the plot synopsis. Please delete the final sentence —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.116.97.205 (talk) 03:14, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Character Names
Any thought of adding "Pope Luke" to Cardinal Baggia? He does take on that name in the movie. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.241.126.117 (talk) 13:38, 16 July 2009 (UTC)


 * This isn't the article about the movie. It's the article about the novel. Also, new posts and sections go at the bottom. :-) Nightscream (talk) 13:47, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Various questions and additions?

 * "Besides the Angels And Demons and Illuminati designs, the title of the book is also presented as an ambigram on the hardcover book jacket..." - Isn't the Angels And Demons design mentioned in the first half of the sentence the same as the title mentioned in the latter?
 * There is no mention of the fact I apparently find on a few websites (just one example, but there must be a more credible source around.) that West Ponente was not a Bernini work and wasapparently added to the square the 19th century, not bernini's time. Also, there seems to be no rhyme or reason why West Ponente (which isn't so much a title of the work, as simply a cardinal direction (ponente is 'west' in italian) is what everyone thinks of other than the fact that Brown needs a marker that points East (I believe is the way the book says it points). The square has 16 identical markers - one for each compass direction down to the intermediate ones like "east south-east". The book gives no logic or reason why Langdon singles out the West marker (and I see no online evidence of it being alternately known as "Respiro Di Dio" or "breath of god"). TheHYPO (talk) 18:46, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that entire passage wasn't written very well. I fixed it. Thanks for pointing it out. :-) Nightscream (talk) 01:12, 23 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Just a quick edit to be made: The page appropriate to the movie on John Langdon's site now ends in php, not html: http://www.johnlangdon.net/angelsanddemons.php —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.238.26.194 (talk) 04:32, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Story plot isn't right
"With time on the canister running out, the Swiss Guard begins to evacuate the Basilica. As he is exiting the church, the camerlengo apparently goes into a trance and rushes back into the Basilica, claiming that he has received a vision from God revealing the location of the antimatter canister. With Langdon and a few others in pursuit, the camerlengo ventures deep into the catacombs beneath the Basilica and finds the canister sitting atop the tomb of Saint Peter. Langdon and the camerlengo retrieve the antimatter and get in a helicopter with only five minutes to spare. The camerlengo manages to parachute safely onto the roof of St. Peter's just as the canister explodes harmlessly in the sky. Langdon's fate is not immediately known, as there was not a second parachute on board the helicopter. The crowd in St. Peter's Square look in awe as the camerlengo stands triumphantly before them. Because of this "miracle", the papal conclave debate whether exception to Catholic law should be made to elect the camerlengo as the new Pope. Langdon managed to survive the explosion by using a window cover from the chopper as a parachute, and landed in the Tiber River near Tiber Island, which is famous for its reputation as an island blessed with miracles of healing. He is hurt, but not seriously." This is not true: Professor Langdon stays on the ground, and sees the camerlengo taking off in the helicopter (in the movie, you see that from the point of view of the camerlengo). What does happen, is that when the bomb (antimatter) explodes, a shockwave passes through the Vatican, and Langdon is hurt by that shockwave. I won't edit the article as English is not my native tongue, but I ask someone who speaks English a lot better than me, to edit the article accordingly. Thanks. 85.147.175.69 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:41, 1 September 2009 (UTC).
 * This article isn't about the movie. It's about the book. Nightscream (talk) 13:37, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Second, in the book, Langdon goes into the helicopter with the Camerlengo. This is forshadowed very early in the book when they pass the indoor "skydiving" chamber at CERN and Langdon learns that such-and-such amount of fabric will reduce your falling speed by such-and-such amount. The book specifically says something to the effect of "little did he know this information would save him later".  B. Mearns * , KSC 12:33, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Another inaccuracy in the novel.
Perhaps someone with editing permissions can add another example to the inaccuracies section of the article. The brand name Alfa Romeo, a famous Italian automaker, was repeatedly misspelled throughout the first edition of Angels & Demons.

The mistakes, like many others, were corrected in subsequent printings. This article details and shows examples of the mistakes: http://jalfredproofreader.blogspot.com/2009/09/orgy-of-misspellings-in-blockbuster-dan.html Thank you. Andrew, 12.09.09 66.171.178.162 (talk) 22:35, 9 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks, but that blog entry (not an article) would not pass WP:RS. Thanks anyway. Nightscream (talk) 18:16, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

New External Link
I was wondering if it is possible to enter my blog page as a new external link, (http://faissabdul.wordpress.com/2010/02/06/angels-demons-tour/)

It is something which gives a outline of the path of illumination, and I believe people might find useful.

Faissabdul (talk) 00:55, 7 February 2010 (UTC)


 * According to WP:External links, personal blogs are among the types of links to be avoided in the EL section. Sorry. Nice-looking blog, though. Nightscream (talk) 06:16, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Section on foreign language editions
Hello. A complete list of links to all foreign language wiki articles seems a bit over the top. I think a sentence saying the number of foreign language editions released would be sufficient. I can not find any featured article books with a list such as this. The note at the top of the list, referring to wikipedia, also seems odd, in that it seems unusual to talk about the project within an article. Beach drifter (talk) 16:58, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I find it interesting that you refer it to a list of foreign language wiki articles, when it was just today that I added that note at the top of that section stating that that's not what it is, because I foresaw someone confusing it for one. If you read that passage carefully, you'll see it's not a list of foreign wiki versions of the article. As for the wisdom of adding those lists, it was borne of a discussion on the Dan Brown Talk Page here. I also find it ironic that you call this overkill in a discussion you started on the Talk Pages of three different Dan Brown novels simultaneously. . Isn't that a bit overkill? :-) Nightscream (talk) 03:13, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I was looking for input from the community, hence I put a section on the talk page of each article that had such a section. I don't think that is at all overkill, that is what talk pages are for. I know that you do not intend for the section to be a list of articles from other wikis, but that is precisely what you have made it. Even with out the links, however, it seems very unnecessary to list every edition. I spent some time looking and could not find any other examples on the English wiki. I was trying to engage in a discussion about it, not insult you, please relax. Beach drifter (talk) 03:21, 15 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Discussion is what Talk Pages are for in general. That doesn't mean that they're for hosting a discussion in three different places simultaneously in particular. That another editor has posted a response on the Digital Fortress Talk Page, while you and I are discussing this here, right after the discussion was initiated, even though I posted a note directing people to this page as the focus of it, should illustrate to you the problems caused by doing this. What I would suggest for future reference is starting it in one place, and if you fear not enough people will participate, start it on one of the Projects pages, and invite people to participate, making sure to avoid violating WP:CANVAS.


 * Yes, it is a list that contains links to other wikis. But it's not a list of "all" foreign language wikis, as you originally stated. It's merely a list of the foreign language editions of the book, which I created in order to address concerns raised by others in the Dan Brown discussion.


 * Actually, if you want other examples on the English wiki, here's an entire article on such a list.


 * I never said nor implied that you insulted me, nor do I know what you're referring to with this remark. Nightscream (talk) 09:53, 15 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Like I said, I was looking for input. I'm not canvassing at all. Comments like that is why I thought you were insulted, along with an entire paragraph attacking my messages instead of talking about the article. Beach drifter (talk) 18:24, 15 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Maybe we should create an article on Dan Brown in translation? That would address my concern perfectly, by removing long unsightly lists from the articles. Beach drifter (talk) 18:24, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I never said you were canvassing. If you read that policy page, you'll see it has nothing to do with starting three identical discussions on three different pages. I was simply offering you a better avenue to pursue issues like this, and cautioning you to keep that particular policy in mind, in case you decided to pursue it.

An article on Dan Brown in translation would be a great idea! We could then summarize the lists I created more succinctly, and direct readers to that main Translation article via a "See this article..." note. Go for it. Let me know if you need any assistance with it. :-)

And please do not break up my posts with your responses. Thanks. :-) Nightscream (talk) 20:56, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Antimatter volitility
ok, so theres a reference on the page about the "angels and demons decoded" tv show, and it talks about the guy from CERN claiming that 10 billionths of a gram of antimatter has the explosive power roughly equivalent to that of a frecracker, which is supposed to show that they would have needed way more than what they had in the book. however, it says in the book, and i quote, "a ten milligram sample--the volume of a grain of sand--is hypothesized to hold as much energy as about two hundred metric tons of conventional rocket fuel." 10 milligrams is 1,000,000 times that of what the guy on the show was talking about. also, the sample used by the assassin to try to destroy the vatican was .25 g, which is 25,000,000x. i dont know about anyone else, but that seems like alot of firecrackers. --Late Leo (talk) 19:49, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

10 ng of antimatter would be equivalent to 430 micro-tons of TNT, 10 mg would be 430 tons of TNT, and 250 mg, as in the film, would be equivalent to about 5.4 kT. Since a firecracker is about 500 J (or 120 nT of TNT) this should yield 3,600 firecrackers, 3.6 billion firecrackers, and 45 billion firecrackers, respectively. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.99.184.50 (talk) 16:49, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't know if you Fiction novel lovers know this but you should all realize that it is far more efficient to use your antimatter in a different manner than is presented in the book-from what I have read about the book the antimatter is in the form of Positrons- Well  this does not rule out Antimatters (mainly antiprotons) potential use in small amounts to function as a seed in a nuclear fission weapon of sub critical mass Antimatter catalyzed nuclear pulse propulsion Boundarylayer (talk) 19:04, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * This article is about how Dan Brown wrote the book, not how he should have written it. — 188.29.220.239 (talk) 09:27, 21 March 2012 (UTC)


 * This article is about the book itself, and should include relevant material found in secondary sources. In a similar vein, article talk pages are solely for discussing ways to improve the article, and are not forums for general discussion of the article's topic. The first three messages in this section seem to violate this. Nightscream (talk) 14:40, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Inaccuracies section
Is there actually any need for this section?? Lots of books invent alternative histories and events, Clive Cussler's Dirk Pitt series (excluding the first 3 of the series) for example, and yet none of them have inaccuracies sections. I think most people would be aware that the book is a fictional story. douts (talk) 23:26, 3 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Cussler's novels have not generated controversy over their inaccuracies by virtue of the Notes he places in the beginning of his books, or the the religious content of his novels that some in the public have taken issue with. Brown has indeed generated such controversy with the Note page he includes in the beginning of each of his books asserting that a number of elements in the books are "true", and for the way in which his claims prompt the ire of a number of theists, which goes far beyond merely presenting an alternate history. Because of the ensuing controversies and Brown's reputation, these issues are more easily found in secondary sources, which is one of the main criterion for inclusion. But if the same sources covered such issues generated by Cussler's books, then his article would include such material as well. Nightscream (talk) 18:13, 4 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, there is a need for an inaccuracies section. Dan Brown's books have been very popular (as have the movie versions of them) and many people have been misled into thinking they are more factual than they really are.  For someone coming to Wikipedia for information, such a section would be very helpful. 152.133.14.5 (talk) 21:29, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

That phrase
What phrase use Langdon to tell how symbols change their meanings?

הראש (talk) 11:42, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on Angels & Demons. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131102133534/http://www.johnlangdon.net/angelsanddemons.php to http://www.johnlangdon.net/angelsanddemons.php
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060516220255/http://www.danbrown.com:80/secrets/bizarre_facts/angels_demons.html to http://www.danbrown.com/secrets/bizarre_facts/angels_demons.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 01:13, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Antogonist
Who might be primary and secondary antogonist of the novel ? B947116 (talk) 06:08, 20 July 2021 (UTC)