Talk:Angels & Demons/Archive 1

Antimatter
The article spends a great deal of time poking antimatter balloons and hopefully may get around to things an encyclopedic article about a book sometimes covers, such as: idea of how long author spent writing it, inspiration, difficulty getting it accepted/published, naming the publisher, brief publishing history (hard vs. soft), approx. volumes in print, media type availability, in/out of print, how the book was critically received, impact on culture of the time, etc.  Poppafuze 07:22, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I just did a substantial rewrite, and removed the NPOV tag. If there are any other concerns, please post them here?  Elonka 08:33, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Looks like it was reverted. I'll add an NPOV again, once I figure it out - still "OMG LANGDON SUCKS" stuff here. Mr. Raptor (talk) 01:10, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Copernicus or Giordano Bruno
The section on factual innacuracies (previously) criticised Dan Brown for claiming that Copernicus was "muderdered by the church for revealing scientific truths." I've deleted that point after looking in my book and finding that Brown never mentions Copernicus. He talks about Giordano Bruno, who was executed for being heretical.

But I have reason to believe that various editions differ on this. The book I am refering to is the omnibus edition which includes the Da Vinci Code. It would be great if someone could verify if other editions mention Copernicus. [Kaan] Friday, May, 13, 2005 - 00:03:42 (UTC)


 * I'm assuming you're the same person as "Kankean" who left a comment on my blog about Copernicus. If you look at my response there I've provided proof that Langdon does bring up Copernicus in at least one edition of Angels and Demons.  --DannyScL 11:43, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Referencing Factual Innacuracies
Some of the facutal inaccuracies appear to have been lifted directly from the list I compiled (at least one, in fact, is a nearly verbatim copy). My list is linked, so that's no problem. Directly copying my language, however, is a copyright violation. It's not a huge deal, but I don't appreciate my work being copied without clear attribution. - DannyScL


 * I moved the link to your website to a new references section. I agree that whoever took your work was in the wrong for not getting your permission. You might consider releasing your work under the GNU Free Documentation License which Wikipedia operates under. Otherwise we could sufficiantly alter the text to not copy your work. [jon] 18:54, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * I found two spelling errors in this section. Vapourisation and Vapourised.  While vapour is a word in british english it is not the only spelling from what I saw.  The correct terms are vaporised and vaporisation (with a z for us english but I an Canadian so I use british).  I am not sure if those are the only two errors so if other people want to do a more extensive spellcheck it might be a good idea.  Also I searched the page DannyScL had and it didn't appear so he is not in need of correction.

Do not understand above point about the difference between English and British spelling of Vaporisation. As far as I know "American English" spells it with a z and "British English" spells it with a s.

Accelerating Past Terminal Velocity
Just so you are aware... It is IMPOSSIBLE TO ACCELERATE SOMETHING PAST TERMINAL VELOCITY... acceleration terminates at terminal velocity... not life. Please take a physics course before critiquing physics so you don't come off looking ignorant. I'll correct it for you. -SteveB


 * Ehmm, ofcourse you can accelarate something past terminal velocity. Terminal velocity is just the point where atmospheric drag is equal to gravity so gravity wont accelarate you anymore. But if you strap a rocketpac to your back and dives towards the earth and fire, you are sure as hell gonna accelerate past terminal velocity for humans. Maybe you are thinking of the speed of light, which you cannot go faster than. Also, please don't be rude and use personal attacks, we don't do that here at Wikipedia. Gkhan 13:44, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)


 * I am so very sorry, but you do use that kind of rhetoric, at least against me. Last time you got me so upset by this that I threatened (figuratively) to kill the other party, wytch was interpreted as a DEATH THREAT and I was, off corrs, blocked from editing for a while. To clear the matter (not antimatter) or in other words purify the situation (situation refers to space refers to air) I will try to cite my opponents and my own words. He was telling I am a vandal, moron and insane person. I told him bullies like him ought to be shot in the head, as talking to them will not help. It was an insult. Call? Draw? Pass? Yes, it was an insult. I was insulting back - just like we have matter and antimatter so there is some way to get at that energy stored in that goo we are build of. Supposedly, so not very bright people can grasp the whole relativity idea by such a machness of levels of indirection, that they brains refuse to fail comprehending under duress of annihilation of reason. No, it's not a reason there is antimatter. You, people, are being unreasonable and I am not stupid to waste time on this diatrybe for I enjoy it and would like to say that the final sentence of the article made me laugh my pants off :-) 16:54, 17 September 2006 (UTC)


 * If the accelerating force is removed you will be going faster then terminal velocity. You're the ignorant one.

Actually I wasn't being rude in calling you ignorant and reaffirming your ignorance just makes you come off as petty and incapable of taking criticism. I was just calling a spade a spade. The following is the dictionary definition of Terminal Velocity.

(a) The velocity acquired at the end of a body's motion. (b) The limit toward which the velocity of a body approaches, as of a body falling through the air.

It's just the maximum velocity any object can achieve, where the force driving acceleration is equal to the drag forces applied to the object by the fluid it's moving through. Normally this is the point at which acceleration due to gravity in a free fall is balanced but it's true of any object accelerating through any fluid for any reason... not just due to gravity and air drag.


 * No, it is not. If you take a physics class you would understand.  If I am falling and a large rocket collides with me and pushes me in the same direction as the way I was falling and then, I don't know how but, dissapears the force is no longer equalised.  I am now travelling faster than terminal velocity as there is an unbalanced net force.  I would start slowing down and then achieve a balance once again (assuming that I am falling for long enough of course), that balance is called...  TERMINAL VELOCITY!  It was mentioned that the explosion would push him past terminal velocity, the impulse provided by the explosion would then dissapear and he would then have the net force slowing him.  That is it, plain and simple.  If you don't believe me then I think you should go back to school, I am after all 1 year short of graduating a mechanical engineer and physics is my first love.
 * Also your definition b fits very well with my explaination, the limit towards which the velocity approaches. It does not say from which way, acceleration or deceleration.  I hope that clears it up for you.  I don't mean to be rude either I am completly sure of this.
 * One last thing, I noticed that you refer to a gas as a fluid, yes it is a fluid.. the thing is that I didn't come upon a fluid as a gas until I took fluid mechanics.  If you have had the education I am sure that you can find an old physics text somewhere.  High school or  lower undergrad level should go over it quite well.

Someone keeps removing this line in the article. Either that or my browser is messed up, which I doubt as I have looked in explorer and firefox. I don't know why that person does not step foreward and say why. It has been a week since I explained, in considerable detail, why going faster than terminal veloctiy is possible. Whoever is doing it does not seem to have read it, or is just too conceited to post a reply. I challenge you to give me an explaination why you do this. I hope that we can sort it out.

Sustaining Antimatter
It is impossible to create and sustain the densities of antimatter described in the book.

Is this a fundamental truth, or only with current technology? It was presented as a significant scientific breakthrough in the book. Ubermonkey 19:18, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * I believe with current technology. Also it would be extremly foolish to do so in a team of two people.  This kind of procedure is unethical, and extremly dangerous.  For one thing it is quite probable that large masses, possibly even galaxies, formed of anti-matter exist in other parts of our universe, just quite far from us. So it is not a fundemental truth.  It has to be based on our current level of technology.  Unless someone can find a reputable source stating that we can't do it I suggest that we remove that statement, or alter it.

Related to this, there is currently an item in the inaccuracies list that the containment system would require refrigeration. If the antihydrogen is a liquid, then that it true -- but if it is a liquid, then it would not have the metallic appearance described in the book. Liquid antihydrogen would look exactly like liquid hydrogen, i.e. a clear liquid. There is a state of hydrogen which is metallic, but it is solid and exists only at extremely high pressure. As another inaccuracy, there is no way magnetic containment can work for liquid hydrogen. Magnetic containment can work for a plasma, but in that case the density would be much lower, and instead of looking metallic, it would be glowing brightly, since it would be quite hot. So I suppose the author needed some way to contain his chunk of antimatter, found that nobody had an idea that could work, so he went ahead with an idea that couldn't work. Besides all this, then are no end of things about this container that are patently ridiculous, but that's not the same as a factual inaccuracy, so I'll leave it at that.

Ubermonkey is right, the creation and storage of anti-matter is described as a breakthrough and should be regarded as science fiction. Generally, ridiculous or illogical technologies in sci-fi are not regarded as inaccuracies,. They could, in some mythical future, work. Afn 15:59, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Have you ever made Antimatter?--NoEvidenZ 20:20, 7 October 2005 (UTC)


 * On CERN's fact or fiction page, they say that they cannot create these quantities of antimatter. I take that to mean that their technology has not yet progressed that far.--66.167.56.33 03:21, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

"It is impossible to create and sustain the densities of antimatter described in the book. Similarly, antimatter could never be used as a source of power. Antimatter has to be created since it is found nowhere on Earth naturally. The amount of energy required to operate the particle accelerator would be far greater than (or, ideally, equal to) the energy the antimatter-matter reaction would produce. Of course, it could well be that Leonardo Vetra's supposed breakthroughs in antimatter technology have transcended these boundaries."

According to the E=mc2 equation, it is in fact impossible to have a net gain of energy when you are creating the source of energy itself. In order for antimatter to be used as an energy source, it would have to be naturally harvested from the universe.
 * Actually, that's according to the Laws of Thermodynamics (one of which, at least according to folklore, can be phrased as "You can't get something for nothing"), which long predate Einstein. 217.171.129.71 (talk) 16:34, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Accordign to the Novel ; Vittoria Vetra one of the two people to make the anitmatter disproved sevral of Einsteen formulas thus it is possible to assume in the novel that she may have discovered somthing to provided a solution for this porblem

(I wrote this exerpt) I think the "create and sustain" can be removed since this is sci-fi, and my wording can perhaps be cleared up. Moltovivace 06:55, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Inaccurate?
Someone added "No priest would ever do physical harm to the pope since that would lead to his automatic excommunication. Also, suicide is a serious sin; a faithful priest would most likely not kill himself to evade punishment." as an inaccuracy. Assuming this pertains to the camerlingo, I don't see why this is a factual inaccuracy. The camerlingo isn't a faithful priest, and clearly isn't worried about excommunication. -- John Fader (talk | contribs) 11:52, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

I've deleted that section from the Factual Inaccuracies section:

"* The camerlengo seems to be a junior priest. In reality the camerlango is a cardinal, therefore much senior."

Although the Camerlengo is in most cases a cardinal, it is possible for an ordinary priest to become Camerlengo. See Camerlengo 62.46.180.125

Perhaps this should be mentioned though, since the book seems to give the impression that the camerlengo is necessarily a junior priest. --Tsk070 21:17, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

i think this the best book i have ver read.i dont see why people have to find every mistake in it. in every book theres some mistakes. what i like most is that you don't know who the real bad guy is in the end. o ya. and i don't think anti-matter should ever be created. it would be a horible weapon that would get in the wrong hands. it is still an interesting subject though.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ moron. 82.42.205.93 (talk) 18:05, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Formula section
Do we really need a section explaining that Brown's two books have similarities? All we are really saying is that he found a winning formula for a book and then used it again. If we did that consistently, half the mystery writers in the world would have much longer articles while we explained that they really all followed the same formula. DJ Clayworth 14:27, 27 July 2005 (UTC)


 * He has four books, and if you have read all of them you would realise that it goes beyond just simple similarities. They are extremely formulaic, they have the same basic climaxes at the same times.  This includes a slow revelation of "facts" and lots of pseudo-science.  The seeming enemy and the plans that seemed evident through the book always turn out to be wrong.  The villain always turns out to be a character that is close to the main character and is portrayed in a way that would make him out to be the most trustworthy person in the book.  This character is always unveiled very close to the end of the book and the true intentions are finally known and usually there is an apology or expression of regret that the main character found out the plans and must be killed for the greater good.  I can't read his books anymore as they make me angry, he takes a painful amount of time to reveal simple answers to problems and since the stories are so similar I know exactly what is going to happen.

Science vs. The Church
I don't know if this is too much POV to include in the inaccuracy list, but throughout the book are scenes that imply that the majority of scientists are still mad at the Catholic Church for e.g. what happened to Galileo. For instance, there's the scene where the grad students at CERN are cheering because the pope had been shot. I don't have any hard facts to lean on here, but I'm a physicist, so I know a lot of physicists, and I can say that from what I've seen scientists have no different view of the Catholic Church or religion in general than anyone else. And I don't know any scientist who's all hung up on the suppression of science by the Church hundreds of years ago. I think it would be fair to say in the inaccuracy list that there is no evidence of the sort of antipathy toward the Catholic Church by scientists that Brown claims in the book.

Nope you can't say that. There's no evidence either for or against. That's simply your opinion. 89.243.44.207 (talk) 17:51, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Hiroshima bomb, CERN´s website
About: "The Hiroshima bomb was about 13 kilotons, not twenty. That was the Nagasaki bomb." On CERN´s website about the book (see link at the bottom on the article side) they write: "Twenty kilotons was the equivalent of the atom bomb that destroyed Hiroshima." So who is right, Wikipedia or CERN? Huldra 23:41, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

The Hiroshima Bomb was 13 kilotons, Nagasaki was 25-6 kilotons

illuminati
The quite begining of the book does not tell about the secrets unfolding ahead.Though the book is shrouded with controvercies, it is justified, since the matter is a bit to hard on the Catholic Church. The I.Q. of the book has to be appreciated.The ambigrams created by John Langdon are unimaginable. The most electrifying topic of this book is the Illuminati. None had ever imaganed that such famous scientists and artists like Galileo,Bernini etc. could be part of such mysterious group.

Writer-kavyanjali, Age - 16, E-mail - kavyanjali29@yahoo.com Country- India

please write to me if any questions occur in your mind after reading this.

- the illuminti were formed in 1776, therefore the book, is wrong and your facts are wrong. galelio, who lived during the 15th centruy could not have been part of the secretive group, nor can bernini etc.

I think this is unfair as Dan Brown could simply be implying that, in the fictional Illuminati of the Angels and Demons world, the Illuminati has been around longer than the recorded 1776.

Cell phone dial tones?
At several points in the book Brown references cell phones having dial tones (or rather, characters are unable to use their cell phones because they can't get a dial tone due to being underground and other reasons). No cell phone I have encountered has a dial tone when working properly, but all the instances in the book occur in Europe. Do European cell phones have dial tones? If not, is this an error worth pointing out in the article?


 * No, we in Europe don't have as advanced technology as you Americans, idiot.


 * No. Cell phones do not have dial tones. However, this seems more a simple display of ignorance than a factual error.

I live in Germany, have a Sony Ericcson 610 with an O2-Account, and the default setting sure has dialing Tone.


 * That's cool: it's the very first time I hear about a mobile phone with a dial tone. Are you sure you aren't talking about the tones made by the keys? Here they're talking about the line tone, the one you hear on fixed phones when you pick them up. And no, cell phones have NO dial tone.


 * That's exactly what the previous writer meant, so he or she is wrong. German cell phone lines do not produce dial tones, and neither do Italian ones (at least not when you're roaming).


 * "The phone has dial tone" is an English expression that indicates phone can grant communication. It is also used for mobile phones as well, regardless the fact the service status of a cell phone devices is usually determined by a visual indicator. Likewise, you may say "Turn the computer on" while you well know that computers power switch is not a turn knob.

In Europe the most prevailing mobile phone standard is GSM. The time, place and context of the book lead to the assumption that GSM is being used. There is no dial tone in any GSM system, as far as I know. Therefore I think that the mention of a dial tone in the book is a gross inaccuracy.

Another inaccuracy

 * Another factual inaccuracy is that papal election no longer interest anybody according to the novel, and media coverage is extremely limited. The election of Benedict XVI proves the opposite, the coverage was huge.
 * It's a novel. It's also fiction. And it was also written before Benedict XVI. 69.156.204.3 21:09, 29 December 2005 (UTC)


 * On the other hand the X-33 thing can be challenged as an inaccuracy since the novel is not dated. It could take place in the close future like say 2025 (which would be coherent with the length of the reign of the assassinated pope) and such vehicles could exist at that time. But keep in mind that the X-33 thing is just a writer's trick to keep all the tribulations of Langdon within the 24 hours.Hektor 14:32, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I will make another reference to CERN's fact or fiction page. CERN does not own an X-33, or any other type of aircraft.--66.167.56.33 03:21, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Nausea
"The pilot explains Langdon's nausea is altitude sickeness from flying at 60,000ft. This will come as a surprise to the many Concorde passengers who flew at 60,000ft." But not in an X-33. Can we remove this invalid comparison? Superm401 | Talk 05:00, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Anyway, why is it that every inaccuracy we could find is listed, but nothing is listed as an accuracy? I'm putting a tag on the page on this basis.  There is absolutely no need to list every one.  All but a few important ones should be removed. Furthermore, when does Brown claim "realism and accuracy" or "asser[t] [...] extensive research".  I read the book and I think things are being twisted here.  Superm401 | Talk 05:36, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
 * You re right listing what is accurate would be shorter.Hektor 06:08, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Exactly, as it should be for all fiction. However, I found a better way of shortening it, as you can see.  Thanks for the suggestion, though. Superm401 | Talk 07:25, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

The section is headed "Factual Inaccuracies" not "Inaccuracies that are claimed to be factual by DB". IMHO the broad range of inaccuracies are relevant not because they show sloppy research by DB but as context for the fact/fiction furore surrounding the DaVinci Code. The extent of inaccuracies in even simply checkable facts in this book together with the implausibility of the denouement underlines that the DVC should also be treated as nothing more than a work of fiction. Your major editing would seem to have an agenda and your placement of the NPOV warning is warranted in light of the changes you have made.
 * Some valuable research about the inaccuracies of the book has been deleted without much discussion.Hektor 15:58, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
 * You're right. However, to quote What Wikipedia is not, "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of items of information. That something is 100% true does not mean it is suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia."  There is no purpose in including the entire list, other than biasing the reader.  The article must remain NPOV, and I don't see how it could with that vast list of inaccuracies but no mention at all of his accurate research. Superm401 | Talk 18:59, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I totally disagree with your edits and your interpretation of What Wikipedia is not. Sorry. Furthermore I think there should be some homogoneity within Wikipedia and there is an extensive list of inaccuracies in the Da Vinci Code article, so why not here so that both books of the same series are treated in the same way ? However, I have found a way to solve this issue by a clear discussion. I have created an article List of factual inaccuracies of the book Angels and Demons, with the content you have deleted. Now you just have to propose it for deletion and we will see what is the result of the discussion. Either delete, remerge with the present article or keep as an independent article. I think it is a fair way to solve this issue. Hektor 03:12, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I am nominating it for deletion, regardless of your expecations. I intended to do so before seeing that comment.  The list is not valuable by itself, and is excessive and needlessly POV when included in the article. As for The Da Vinci Code, that's a separate issue.  I'll look into whether there is excess there too. Superm401 | Talk 04:04, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Laziness

 * I think the bottom line is that most of the factual errors bring nothing to the intrigue but are harmful to the enjoyment of the reading of the book and the research. They are unintentional but show an extreme carelessness/lazyness in the redaction of the book. This lazyness is also illustrated by the use of nearly the same intrigue for the two consecutive books.Hektor 00:59, 10 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't think he is lazy. He is an author, and as an author he has two primary goals - to write a book that sells, and to make it engaging for the reader. Anything else, including factual accuracy, is secondary. While factual errors can be off-putting for those who know otherwise, it could be argued that the storyline of the book benefits from Brown making creative decisions rather than explain something that is inherently more clumsy, and somewhat unnecessary in a work of fiction. Kouros 12:55, 2 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I would tend to agree with the paragraph above. However in this book the amount of unaccuracies seems to be too much and the sheer amount of them harms the full enjoyment of the otherwise robust plot.


 * Furthermore, even when the extra accuracy wouldn't have harmed the story, I still don't see it as laziness. He's a fiction writer.  His author's craft does not include high factual accuracy, nor should it.  He is better off focusing on other things. Superm401 | Talk 21:55, 2 December 2005 (UTC)


 * ...and that is where the arguments circle around. There is no definition that a fiction writer is obliged to follow reality, but neither is there a rule to the contrary which you suggest that there is. A writer can chose their own rules, and DB chose a set of rules which were to claim a basis in fact. Whether the book works is down to the treatment, not a set of fiction rules.


 * If I wrote a book about the British Prime Minister Arthur Treacher, the reader is given the signal that the environment is fictional, and any liberties can be taken, though making him live at Buckingham Palace would typically require some justification by the conventions of fiction, and what works would in part depend on whether we were writing satire, comedy, thriller or historical fiction. It is even in the author's remit to bend the rules of convention, it does not guarantee that the work will be acceptable.


 * If I use Margaret Thatcher, then the rules have changed. That does not stop me making things up - but if I start stating things differently than is common knowledge, the reader will need to understand what the intent is. If this is not justfied by some clear signalling that the book is set in an alternate history, then it will simply come across as implausible. Implausible rarely is accepted as good fiction, the reader does not buy it, it does not work. Of course, to see the implausibilities may depend on your knowledge.


 * For example, in the original listings that circulated, having been told specifically that the locations in Rome were real, and having been to the locations, certain events simply were implausible. Yet, another reader could read the same section without an understanding of Rome would not be aware of the problems and therefore not be troubled.


 * That statments made in the book are wrong is not POV, that is fact. What gets missed is that the people who are offended by the inaccuracies are offended because of their experiences. Put another way, people don't like the suggestion that if they enjoyed the book that there is a suggestion that they are ignorant. Put yet another way, there is no contradiction in stating that this is a heap of garbage that many people have found very enjoyable, and it should not be a problem to be able to state that many of the pseudo-factual statements in the book do not bear close examination, but this should not stand in the way of a good read. Attempting to surpress information on the problems in the writing is simply censorship, and hiding under the guise of POV is still censorship. In the end, this book is exceptional and there should be no problem in the Wiki coverage reflecting this. Spenny 20:05, 8 December 2005 (UTC)


 * "the end, this book is exceptional"...by that I can only assume you mean exceptionally aweful. Brentt 19:53, 2 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Of course, but it is also exceptional in sales, in the response it gets, in the ambiguous way it is sort of presented as fact but not, for the noticably different writing style. There is enough there to say why this should not simply be a standard book article. Spenny 18:33, 26 June 2006 (UTC) (fully employed and have been for many years!)

Don't you people have something better to do than to sit here and argue about a fiction book? Get a job for crying out loud


 * Don't you have something better to do than sit here and complain about people complaining! Get a job for crying out loud. Brentt 19:53, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Article expansion request
This article would benefit from the following:
 * ISBN numbers and publication dates of some of the major editions
 * A list of some of the languages that it has been translated into, as well as alternate titles
 * Sales figures, especially in comparison with how it did before and after DVC came out
 * Quotes or links of some prominent reviews

And yes, I'm adding some of this too. But help would be nice. If someone can even help with collecting raw data, I'll help with formatting. :) Elonka 01:08, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Question about first publication date
I did quite a bit of checking, but am still not certain on the exact date of the first version of the novel. The Library of Congress says "c2000". Most of the bookseller sites, however, list it as "June 2001", so that's what I used on the page. Does anyone have a source for an earlier date? Elonka 08:33, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Found it. May 1, 2000.  Elonka

Antimatter canister
Since you are in fact storing an abundant mass of energy, it would seem practical to devise an antimatter containment trap in which the storing mechanism is powered by the contained antimatter itself; especially for storage of a large volume of antimatter rather than creating a time bomb with the blast power of an atomic warhead. Just putting it out there. Moltovivace 07:03, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

How would they harness it?

The guy above raises a good point. There doesn't seem to be any way of harnessing anti-matter in the story at the time. The only reason CERN was keeping the antimatter was for study. 03:04, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

"All-Seeing Eye" innaccuracy.

 * Brown writes that the "All-Seeing Eye" is insignificant to the US but on the bottom of the pyramid(on the one-dollar bill) is written 1776(MDCCLXXVI) in Roman numerals.

I'm missing something here -- how is this a factual inaccuracy? I was planning to rewrite the sentance to be more clear, but I don't actually get what it's saying. How does the fact that the designer of the US one-dollar bill found somewhere to stick the founding year of the country make the symbol itself "significant"? You could stamp MDCCLXXVI onto a picture of anything. Kutulu 14:20, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Just wondering...
Is it factual when Dan Brown wrote that people have been trying to forge a perfect symmetrical ambigram of "Illuminati" for a very long time, to no avail? How is it that me, a twelve-year-old, was able to make one in less than ten minutes? It may not be as intricate as the one in the book, but it's still symmetrical. I even made one for Earth, Air, Fire, Water, and the Illuminati Diamond. So is it really fact when he wrote that? --Thrashmeister 19:02, 3 May 2006 (UTC)


 * No, it is another subject where Dan Brown has invented a folk-lore around it based on his own perceptions and impressionability. Kids have been doodling stuff like that for years, and then some artist DB comes across gives it a name and has made it his speciality (and which he does very well). Do a search on the net and you can find computer programs that can do it, though not very elegantly. The real nonsense is to think that there might be learned people that would worry about such things: the word is clearly nearly symetrical before we start, it must be one of the easiest to do.


 * Hardly worth putting in a list of factual inaccuracies. More for the "DB is not much of a detail person" list! Spenny 10:39, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Inaccurate use of "Hassassin" as singular noun.
I don't know if this is relevant enough to be pointed out on the main page, but though I would point it out. In some places, Brown uses "Hassassin" as a singular noun. Two examples: "The Hassassin strode quickly now, his black eyes filling with anticipation." (Page 34 of the paperback English.) And in the next paragraph: "The Hassassin smirked. He had been awake all night, but sleep was the last thing on his mind." (Page 35 of the paperback English.) The problem is that the "in" ending is the oblique plural ending for certain Arabic words. Hassassin/Assassin is derived from "ḥaššāš" (one who uses hashish), the plural of which is "ḥaššāšūn." The oblique plural (used when in the accusative or genitive tenses) is "ḥaššāšīn." Sometimes, Arabs colloquially use only the oblique plural, hence why people who heard Arabs talk about the Assassins retained the "in" ending when rendering the name of the group into English. Brown should have rendered the word, if singular, as "Hassass" or, better yet, "Hashash." Or he should have stuck with the English word "assassin." Kitabparast 01:38, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

More conclave inaccuracies
I'm sure some of these may have been oversights, while some may have been literary license, but they are inaccuracies nonetheless and should be addressed in the article. --Tsk070 21:14, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
 * First of all, Langdon's description of a "Great Elector" is false. Such a position does not exist. The conclave is presided over by the Dean of the College of Cardinals. Unlike the fictional "Great Elector," the Dean is elegible for election (Pope Benedict XVI was the Dean of the College of Cardinals presiding over the conclave that ultimately elected him Pope).
 * The Devil's advocate has nothing to do with the conclave. This office was for candidates for sainthood and was abolished in 1983.
 * Thirdly, the book claims Romano Pontifici Eligendo is a set of "ancient forgotten laws." In reality, Romano Pontifici Eligendo was promulgated by Pope Paul VI in 1975. Also, the document has nothing to do with the methods of papal election, as the book claims.
 * Fourthly, the book also seems to depict the "Preferiti" as officially denoted as such. Perhaps Brown was thinking of the term Papabili, but the Papabili are never of a specific number, nor are they officially recognized, and their identities are simply based on public debate.

No they shouldnt even be in an article about a FICTIONAL book, wow.--SoxFanNH 22:14, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Keeping Factual Innacuracies Under Control
Whislt this section is valid, to keep the critics at bay it was severely trimmed as it was felt that the sheer list of errors, whilst all valid, somehow made the article inappropriate. I left a comment in the section but the section is expanding again. I'll probably trim it down again with my personal list of arbitrary decisions on which errors are of importance (ambigrams will go for example). Anything deleted will migrate to the WikiBooks if not already there.


 * I added ambigrams because it was one of the more innacurate notions in the book. Ambigrams are not difficult to create, and the was a recurring and important theme in the book, a theme which at times actaully carried the plot. Saying its unimportant relative to other innacuraccies seems wrong.


 * Besides, the list really is not that unwieldy or innapropriate as it is. Factual innacuracies are one of the things Dan Brown is most notable for. --Brentt 22:30, 28 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Whilst I agree, if it gets too long, someone will just come and try and delete the lot again. The list won't stay trimmed as everyone adds their own favourite bug-bear - it is not a top 10 at the moment, the "undetectable bomb" is not in the list for example. I think the idea at one point was to select the real facts that were wrong as opposed to ludicrous plot devices. How do you get a balanced list? Go back a couple of months of reversions and you will find a mega-list. Myself, I'd go for comprehensive, but it is too much effort to defend from the less critical members. Spenny 17:04, 29 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I see what your saying. But I think the ambigram thing is a bit more of a "factual innacuracy" than the undetectable bomb. The undectable bomb was a soft-sci fi thing. It was just implausible technology, without a good explanation--i.e. left to the reader's imagination. He didn't imply that it was existing technology (which would have made it a "factual innacuracy"). Ambigrams on the other hand, are in fact not a difficult esoteric art, as was implied in the plot--it was a prominent factual innacuracy in the book. Hence it would belong in any list...top 10, probably top 5, since it was such an important part of the book. --Brentt 17:27, 29 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Seems like the tail end of factual innacuraccy article is getting a little nit-picky. "Additionally, it's a wonder that all the clocks and watches in the book have exactly the same time - precise to the second. That includes Langdon's watch, all the watches of the Swiss Guards, the Hassassin and the public clocks including those in various churches around Rome. " I think this probably merits removal from "fatual innaccuraccies".

Come on, it's a novel. You can't actually make Dinosaurs out of mosquitos either, but Jurrassic Park's Wikipedia page doesn't have a section like this. Slimdavey 15:03, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Totall agree Slimdavey, some people just go WAYYYY too far... They just feel the need to bash Brown for some reason...--SoxFanNH 22:13, 25 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I certainly understand your points - but I don't necessarily think it's all about Dan Brown bashing. Even fans of any fictional novel can start to wonder where fact meets fiction.  In this case, where its a novel with a fairly scientific theme (the main character is supposed to be a professor), there's an even greater desire to cross-check.  I loved Brown's novels, but sometimes like to go back and see what parts of it were really true, to keep my own historical knowledge in check.  Sure, some things are obvious, like dinosaurs spouting from flies, but others are more subtle, and can be interesting to learn the differences.


 * That said, I think it makes sense to have very detailed repository of fact-checks... but I just wonder if this deserves its own page. This is supposed to be an encylopedic article - not a database of facts.  In my mind, when things get too detailed, the section should be replaced with a higher level summary, including a reference to other places for further research (such as a seperate "Dan brown fact check" webpage). Warthog32 22:35, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

The core of contention is that Dan Brown goes out of his way to highlight the "factual" nature of his information. The blatantly false nature of even the first page of the book reflects poorly on the rest of the novel. If you had not included passages suggesting parts of his novel is based on real technologies it may be easier to glass over. However his superfluous claims demands higher scrutiny of his research. The first page would make any person who has taken senior high school physics wince since creating anti-matter takes more energy then you get out of it. His claim violates the second law of thermodynamics making the entire novel farce. 142.179.200.76 17:26, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

PS. I added some clarification on why his claims on anti-matter are inaccurate. The quote cited from CERN and the preceding sentence didn't really clarify why Anti-matter cannot be an energy source. It isn't due to production capacity but instead due to the fact artificial anti-matter is incredibly energy inefficient to create and there are no natural sources on earth.142.179.200.76 17:26, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Battery inaccuracy.

I'll delete the "battery inaccurary". It does not make sense. If these people can invent that type of bomb, they can invent a battery that lasts a precise amount of time also. 206.47.141.21 16:41, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

My favorite inaccuracy...
occurred at the end of chapter 70. Chinita, the camerawoman, says to Glick, BBC reporter, "You're definitely going to hell." To which Glick responds, "And I'll be taking the Pulitzer with me."

I find it hard to believe that a British reporter working for a British news outlet didn't know he was ineligible for the Pulitzer Prize, an American journalism award.


 * Maybe Glick figured that this story was his ticket to the Big Time- working in American journalism. In which case, once he made the move, he would then be eligible for a Pullitzer. Ackatsis 09:04, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

You people are sick, its a FICTIONAL novel, deal with it.--SoxFanNH 22:12, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

It may be a fictional novel, but it purports to use real information as its background. Rarely have I read a book littered with so many cock-ups, factual inaccuracies and patent absurdities. The twist at the end have got to be one of the stupidest ever written. Anyone with 5 minutes knowledge of the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church would know that one of the main characters wouldn't have reacted that way to revelations about his parents. I burst out laughing at the sheer stupidity, and then got annoyed having read a book so bad that even its "twist" was bullshit. If Brown did his own research then he is incompetent. If someone else did it for him then he should sue them. It is soooo bad it is unbelievable. It made me decide never to anything else written by that idiot. FearÉIREANN \(caint)|undefined 23:09, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Maybe they should add this to the list: There never was a professor called Robert Langdon at Harvard, or a Director called Kohler at CERN. There certainly has never been a Pope called Mortati. Sheesh. --Kvasir 00:22, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Can we delete the reference to CERN not inventing the Internet from the article's factual inaccuracies section? If I remember correctly the book asserts that CERN invented Web technology, which is accurate. I know there are many who doesn't know the difference between Internet and Web, but regardless what Dan Brown wrote in the book regarding the web invention is true. 10:36 9 October 2006 (BST)

Islam is not a language
In chapter 9: "It's Islamic. It means 'adversary' ... God's adversary. The church chose Islam for the name because it was a language they considered dirty." Langdon hesistated. "Shaitan is the root of an English word ... Satan."

This implies Islam is a language, Islam is a religion, the word Shaitan is Arabic not Islamic. I understand the inaccuracy is only implied but it screams out at me. If nobody has a problem with this, could I add it to the inaccuracies section.

More point of viewish: Arabi could hardly have been considered dirty given the wealth of Christian (including Catholic) liturgy in Arabic by the time of the crusades.

The BBC camerawoman's relative...
Since I cannot find anyone else who seems to have noticed: The BBC camerawoman Chinita Macri appears to be related to Mario Macri, one of the real-world leaders of CERN's PS210 experiment in 1995 in which a few atoms of antihydrogen were created. --JustinTerested 08:15, 2 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Dan Brown could well have taken the name from there he has previously used names of people who have influenced the books, such as Langdon from the guy who drew the Ambigrams and the authors of Holy Blood, Hloy Grail in Da Vince CodeJameskeates 11:14, 18 August 2006 (UTC) ps The physics factual innacuracies seem to be hardly mentioned, there are plenty and not of the technical ability kind, but I think the CERN site probably deals with them

Book error? Cardinal Ebner from Frankfurt
There are no bishops or cardinals in Frankfurt - eventhough it has a cathedral. The biggest part of Frankfurt belongs to the Diocese of Mainz. Or does Dan Brown mean his birthplace. IMHO it is rather uncommon to mention a bishop's birthplace rather than his "workplace". Is it a mistake of Brown then. --84.58.50.170 17:45, 14 September 2006 (UTC) Linne

Italian Translations
Dan Brown probably used an internet translator or translated word for word English to Italian to get his translations, which is a totally unreliable method. -- MySpirit September 16, 2006

Mapping out Altars of Science
I think it would be helpful to include a map showing all 4 Altars of Science with other major points of interest such as the Castle, Vatican and Tiberina Island. I have done this using google map, it shows clearly that the monuments do not line up like a cross as revealed. The cross alignment is a major component of cracking the puzzle and the author has clearly cited the description of the artworks and exact location as accurate. My edition (Pocket Books premium edition April 2006) contains a highly schematic map of Rome which shows the monuments lining up as described or as the author intended. I just think it would be interesting to include a real-world map of Rome for comparison. Unfortunately google maps and modification thereof are not for free use, or is it. --Kvasir 07:18, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 02:10, 22 May 2016 (UTC)