Talk:Digital Fortress/Archive 1

Earth
I reverted the changes by 70.24.71.215, as they were made with no edit summary or explanation on the talk page. However, this source suggests that soil is only slightly more dense than water, which leads to the calculation that the room is somewhat less than 2m long. --David.Mestel 19:18, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

"Artistic Licence"?
I think that "Artistic License" is a rather generous way to describe the glaring errors in the book, as it implies that they are mostly deliberate, which is clearly not true. Perhaps "Factual Errors" would be a better title for the third section. WP:BOLD notwithstanding, I feel that it is important to obtain consensus before changing this. --David.Mestel 18:59, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I think it is fine as it is. Guinnog 19:13, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't think it matters much, but I'd lean towards keeping "Artistic license" to avoid the impression we're out to slam the book. &mdash; Matt Crypto 19:44, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I understand your arguments, and, though I still don't agree with you, but, since I don't feel strongly on this, and I can see that everyone else thinks that we should leave it as is, I'll drop the issue
 * Before I changed the title to "Artistic license", the whole section was nothing but a big slam-fest where people were going after the book with pliers and blow torches. "Artistic license" emphasizes WP:NPOV. --J-Star 17:57, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Where has this section gone? It is linked to from Dan Brown.Billlion 17:23, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I tried undoing Matt's removal and it was deleted within 24 hours by some illiterate. Yes it probably was too long though most of it was true enough. Maybe someone should try a more modest criticism or else it appears that Wikipedia is unable to provide a balanced treatment of a book that even most Dan Brown fans admit is flawed. Chris55 13:43, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * No need to bandy around insults ("some illiterate" etc). I removed this stuff last year because 1) it was all unsourced, but mainly 2) it was giving much too much undue weight to the factual inaccuracies in the book. That does not make for a particularly good encyclopedia article. We can discuss factual inaccuracies in the article, but it should really be driven what's already been noted in reliable third-party sources, not the random and possibly original observations of people largely out to ridicule Dan Brown (that fact that he deserves ridicule after writing Digital Fortress does not, of course, come into this). And that includes me (I spotted the bit about Enigma weighing 12 tons, rather than 12 kilos). &mdash; Matt Crypto  19:43, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Description was aimed at someone who thought "encylopediatic" was a word, not you, Matt. I already said it should be shorter. But I suspect some people will remove any criticisms. Chris55 17:22, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Biased.
It seems, in my honorable opinion, that this article focuses on the flaws of the book, and not if it was commercially successful or not. If it was a bomb, state so, not just a list of "artistic freedoms".

- Caleb Osment 09:42, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
 * If the book attracted criticism for having an implausible plot, then we should document that criticism in some way. An exhaustive list of factual errors may not the best way to go, but a few examples are appropriate. &mdash; Matt Crypto 10:02, 8 January 2006 (UTC)


 * That may be so, but the point of an unbiased article is to show both sides. For example, "This book sold millions, blah blah blah, but was heavily criticised within certain circles, for it's lack of accurate details." Caleb Osment 13:51, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Caleb, I agree that the "Artistic License" section is bloating. I added it as a compromise as people were filling up the "Criticism" section with that stuff. The inaccuracies are factual and not a matter of opinion. We can discuss whether or not that much is needed or if we should start trimming. However, I for one do not think a POV check in needed. --J-Star 16:27, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps move it all to a new seperate article "Criticisms of the Da vinci code" - personally I think that having this much in an "artistic license" section in a main article is unprofessional, and turning it into a bulletin board. (This unsigned comment posted by Gruffy at 20:17, 17 January 2006)
 * Pointing out that reality and fiction differ is not criticism. It is merely a statement of fact. It doesn't become criticism until someone someone adds judgement and uses theses differences as arguments when doing so.--J-Star 07:40, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
 * It'd be very inappropriate to move this stuff to an article entitled "Criticisms of the Da vinci code", what with this page being about Digital Fortress and all. ;) /blahedo (t) 08:03, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I see no violations of NPOV; it's not as if somebody hates the book, and wrote a scathing article about it. Pointing out every flaw or just some is up to the author- if a number of people don't agree, then we should remove the less important/prominent flaws. -Chewbacca 00:53, 23 January 2006 (UTC)


 * It looks to me that the whole article is badly in need of references. If there has been a valid criticism from a verifiable source, then it should be placed and quoted.  But if there are elements in the article that are unsourced criticism, then I agree that they should be removed, as violating the policy of no original research. Elonka 03:29, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
 * That the goofs are goofs can be easily verified as being true, but I suppose what you're saying is that the criticism needs to have been voiced before outside of Wikipedia, rather than being newly expressed here for the first time. There has been criticism on various online places for the crypto-naffness of Digital Fortress. Some comments of this type are available here, and, more self-promotionally, here. &mdash; Matt Crypto 08:46, 23 January 2006 (UTC)


 * The book seems to indicate that a 20 bit key is twice the difficulty to solve as a 10 bit key. In reality a 20 bit key is 2^10 times as hard to solve as a 10 bit key. When such fundamental flaws are present, the book is practically unreadable. Where is that within the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.169.2.194 (talk) 20:11, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Followed By...
This book is followed by Angels and Demons?? How is this true? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.65.181.160 (talk) 21:03, 2 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Dan Brown wrote Angels and Demons next GrahamHardy (talk) 11:16, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, Dan Brown wrote Angels and Demons after Digital Fortress, however, it's not to be mistaken as a sequel. —— Ryan (t)•(c) 14:03, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Ensei Takado's nationality
"Hulohot: A deaf assassin from Japan hired to hunt down Ensei Tankado and take the ring." As far as I know, he was described as a Portuguese mercenary, not originated from Japan. Could anyone confirm this? Hulohot User:81.193.43.242 15:47, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Hulohot it's definately a portuguese name but the books says he was born in Lisbon or Lisboa, Portugal's capital. It might be a nickname or a codename. Assassin's don't usually reveal their real names. Don't you think? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.193.43.242 (talk) 15:47, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Slamming getting out of hand. What to do?
Alright... Dan Brown is not as accurate as the pretext says. But it seems to be a sport these days to fill Dan Brown-related Wikipedia articles with every inane little error one can think of, down to how many times a telephone rings or not! This article alone dedicates 50-75% of its bulk to nitpicking. It's absurd and must be contained.

So... suggestions? --J-Star 10:14, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Beelzebub, yeah, that's large (and at least a couple of sentences are my fault). My vote is that we get rid of it. Well, most of it. We can say that the book has been criticised for inaccuracies (and provide a source). We can even give an example or two, I suppose, but it's not appropriate to turn this into an exhaustive catalogue of errors. &mdash; Matt Crypto 10:56, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I vote we keep the section and trim it down to only the most notable errors... such as - in this case - the flawed plot premise. --J-Star 12:12, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I tried a bit of Googling for usable sources. Part of the problem is that a number of reviewers actually praised the book for its realism! "Digital Fortress is the best and most realistic techno-thriller to reach the market in years." and "Brown certainly does his homework as it relates to computer security technology and talks intelligently about encryption algorithms"  by a certified computer security professional. This beggars belief, frankly.  The most scholarly review I could find was in the journal Cryptologia, who say "the result is a thrilling story that is frighteningly real, with unexpected twists and turns, which will keep you turning the pages and making comparisons to Tom Clancy". My own opinion is that the book is riddled with absurd errors, but... &mdash; Matt Crypto  19:59, 22 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Aw, not allowing the nitpicking spoils the only fun one can get from a Dan Brown novel :-) I'm not suprised you couldn't find usable sources... if people are stupid enough to buy it, they are also stupid enough to praise it, I guess. But the second External link is a very usable source IMHO. It's from a reviewer who reviews (on being asked to) a lot of books and movies for their scientific and technological content, and that alone should make him notable. I don't know how notable he actually is, though. --Shreevatsa 21:28, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
 * It didn't recieve good reviews as a scientific article or theory, it recieved good reviews for being a good novel. Lots of people enjoy Tolkien as well, even though his books aren't "entirely accurate". If you expected the book to be 100% correct, you were probably in the wrong section of the bookstore.Andrimner (talk) 16:15, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * You watch your tongue now young grasshopper. I for one liked the book. There's this thing called "Suspension of disbelief" you know. ;)--J-Star 12:53, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I can usually manage suspension of disbelief, but I found "suspension of all intelligence" (plot predictability, etc... especially considering there is a one-to-one mapping to any of his other books) and "suspension of all knowledge of the English language" to be quite tough :-) --Shreevatsa 14:30, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Publication year
This article says Digital Fortress is published 1996. Many other wikipedias says originally is published 1998. (checked also Finnish book. Origin 1998. However, most translates are published after da Vinci-code.)

Where is mistake? --EsaL-74 (talk) 03:15, 12 September 2008 (UTC)


 * It looks like the article orginally had 1998 but this was changed to 1996 on June 5th this year without any citations; changed back to 1998.GrahamHardy (talk) 22:24, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Uninteresting Plot Description
This book is one of my favorites (a little odd, seeing as I'm not even 14) but the plot description is short, boring, and straight from the back of the book. Can someone change it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.33.169.115 (talk) 00:36, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. This book is one of my favourites too and I am not even 14 (I am going to have my 12th birthday tomorrow.) The synopsis is straight out of the book jacket... Come on guys, we can do better than that... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.236.18.180 (talk) 13:51, 11 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I've paraphrased that section. If you two have read the book, why not write a synopsis of the entire story? Thanks again. Nightscream (talk) 01:53, 12 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Okay, I just went through the article's Edit History, and found that an anonymous IP editor replaced a far more detailed synopsis with the jacket copy back in June. I left a warning on that person's Talk Page, and added details from previous versions that I came across during my search. Again, if you want to add a more detailed explanation of the story, feel free to do so. Thanks again. Nightscream (talk) 02:26, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Spoilers
I have noticed that the new synopsis is a complete summary of the book. While I appreciate that the book-jacket summary has been removed, the new summary is stuffed with spoilers. Why not add a spoiler warning, or put a new synopsis minus the spoilers? In case the new summary has to be edited, I would love to do it. Please consider my points. Thanks Incredisuper (talk) 08:37, 18 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Spoiler warnings aren't used anymore. A synopsis is effectively the same as a summary, and should include all points raised in a book (in this example).  It logically follows that all plot points will by definition include spoilers, making a spoiler warning unnecessary.
 * On the other hand, if you removed the spoilers, it wouldn't be either a summary or synopsis anymore.  a_man_alone (talk) 13:48, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't know that. Sorry :) Incredisuper (talk) 08:37, 18 April 2010 (UTC)


 * No worries. Welcome to Wikipedia! :-) Nightscream (talk) 21:14, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Where is it?
Last time I visited here there was nice article regarding the book's flaws. Where is it? Why would someone delete such a facinating part? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by FleetCommand (talk • contribs) 06:39, 11 April 2007 (UTC).
 * It was probably deleted because it turned into a sport to slam the book in all possible ways.--J-Star 15:59, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * But now the article has no mention of critics. Not even that it requires too much "suspension of disbelief" to some people with minimum elementar computing skills. Nothing to do with taste, but it should at least mention this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.231.82.97 (talk) 19:23, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I started to add some factual errors in the book before I looked at the talk page. I realise then that there had been a long section on the "artistic license" taken in the book.  The whole section is now completely gone, and this article is devoid of any criticism.  Now, I understand that pointing out errors in a book shouldn't take up most of the article, but shouldn't there be at least some mention of the rather fantastic realism of the book? o (talk) 05:02, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Any material added to Wikipedia articles must be supported by reliable, verifiable sources explicitly cited in the text. Creating sections or adding material to the article regarding factual, technical or historical errors based solely on the personal knowledge of the editor adding that info is called Original Research, and is prohibited. And keep in mind that when we talk about sources, we don't simply mean sources that establish the real-life "truth", but that it must mention this in specific relation to the novel. If it doesn't mention the novel, it violates WP:SYNTH. Similarly, such material should not be added to Talk Pages like this one, unless a source is being cited, as Wikipedia Talk Pages are not message boards or forums for general discussion of the article's topic. Nightscream (talk) 17:27, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks Nightscream. I hadn't seen this comment before. The section on Real Life was intended to draw attention to the real issues without directly criticizing the book, and I've added some more references. I'll leave others to reinstate the inaccuracies section - there are several good points that would be easy to find citations for. Chris55 (talk) 08:21, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 89.173.26.251, 10 August 2010
The title of the Slovak translation is invalid, it points to a different book (Deception point). So please change "Bod klamu" to "Digitálna pevnosť".

89.173.26.251 (talk) 21:23, 10 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Done. a_man_alone (talk) 21:55, 10 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Can you provide a source supporting that title? The only one being cited is the page on Brown's official site, which does not support that title, but the previous one. Even the Slovak Wikipedia article does not contain a linked source. Nightscream (talk) 00:16, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Googling Bod klamu shows that it is definitely the Slovak title of Deception Point. Further, the Deception Point article lists Bod klamu as the Slovak version title. Googling Digitálna pevnos shows that this would be the proper title as the IP stated. Beach drifter (talk) 00:33, 11 August 2010 (UTC)


 * If a reliable source be found to support a different title, like maybe a Slovak version of Amazon, then that would be fine, since it's possible that it's published under multiple titles, which occurs in English-language books too (Lost Moon and Apollo 13; Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone and Sorceror's Stone). If such a source can be found, then both titles could be mentioned in the article. Insisting on an either/or choice, and leaving in Brown's website as the citation, when that source supports Bod klamu and not Digitálna pevnosť, makes no sense. His site even has an image of that edition's cover. Nightscream (talk) 03:49, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
 * What about Bod Klamu at the Deception Point article? How about a link like this http://www.shop.sk/dan-brown-bod-klamu/, and of course I can't read Slovak, but the summary clearly is about a meteor in the arctic. Likely it is an error at the Dan Brown site, and if you would spend two minutes looking at google results you would realize this, and that Digitálna pevnost is the correct title. Stop trying to own the Dan Brown articles. You have an issue with every edit made to them.
 * Oh wait, how about we just put Bod Klamu into google translate, gee, it translates "Deception Point". Beach drifter (talk) 04:32, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

That link indeed supports Bod klamu, but not Digitálna pevnosť, so why do you keep changing it to Digitálna pevnosť? If you want to to include another title, or a translation, then you need a source, not "common sense" or Google translations. Look closely at the rest of the list. Do you see that in some cases, a translation is placed next to the foreign language title in parenthesis? That's because in those cases, that translated title also appears on the cover at whatever source is cited. You're saying that what, we should translate all of them? Even the Korean, Serbian, etc.? What for? Remember, everything in articles must be supported by sources. If a source doesn't support this, then not only should it not be included, but there's no reason to. Whatever the sources indicate is sufficient. Nightscream (talk) 19:59, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
 * it is not sufficient if it is dead wrong. The link you just added as a ref argues that Bod Klamu is the title of Deception Point, as proved by the summary on the page. I am at a complete loss as to why you are making this so difficult. The correct title here is obvious. If you are trying to make a point about sourcing, congrats, now please let us create an accurate encyclopedia. Beach drifter (talk) 20:07, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Further, there is no reason to suspect multiple names, it is not merely coincidence that Bod Klamu is one, listed as the Slovak name at the Deception Point article, and two, is a direct translation for said title. Beach drifter (talk) 20:10, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Have no fear, I have emailed Random House and I'm sure they will be fixing the error sometime in the next millennia. Beach drifter (talk) 20:27, 11 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I missed the point about the two novels being confused. Brown's site indeed has the cover of Bod klamu as the Slovak edition for both Deception Point and Digital Fortress. I guess I didn't understand what you were saying. Sorry about that. Nightscream (talk) 21:33, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Estonian title
For the section "Foreign language editions":

Digitaalne kindlus - Estonian

reference: http://tallinn.ester.ee/record=b2060286~S1 90.191.38.184 (talk) 18:27, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Latvian title
For the section "Foreign language editions":

Ciparu cietoksnis - Latvian

http://www.jr.lv/lv/veikals/prece/index.html?shop_id=238637

85.255.73.234 (talk) 15:09, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Triva???
Should there be a trivia section added, or something of the sort, since the alleged Jon Benet Ramsey killer John Mark Karr was seen reading this book on his flight back into the USA? I thought it was pretty interesting. Batman6 05:24, 22 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Trivia sections are discouraged in Wikipedia. See WP:TRIVIA. The fact that someone who was briefly a public figure read the book is not salient enough a point to mention. Nightscream (talk) 12:25, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 72.10.96.51, 21 January 2011
edit semi-protected

Tankado's real last name was Numataka. It's right in the book. His father is the real antagonist, not Strathmore

72.10.96.51 (talk) 15:48, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Skier Dude  ( talk ) 05:59, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Use of Japanese names and vocabulary
I'm currently reading this book and I'm disappointed with the sloppy use of Japanese words, names, and cultural references (seems to be a common problem among western writers).

The first name "Ensei," though old fashioned, is acceptable, but the last name "Tankado" sounds more like the name of a street or a bar than a person and is not listed in the Japanese Name Dictionary (WWWJDIC).

Likewise the name "Numataka" is probably fabricated. "Tokugen" is listed in the name dictionary.

In Chapter 13, Numataka is called "akuta same -- the deadly shark." The word 'same' is correct but I'm unsure where 'akuta' comes from. It's possible Brown meant to use 'akuma' -- demon, or 'akutama' -- villain/bad guy.

In Chapter 18, "menboko -- honor and face" is mentioned, but this should be 'menboku.'

At the end of the same chapter, he makes reference to "shichigosan -- the seven deities of good luck" but 'shichigosan' actually refers to a festival celebrating children's health at the ages of 7 (shichi), 5 (go) and 3 (san). The seven deities of luck are 'shichifukujin.'

This is as far as I've read.

Neill — Preceding unsigned comment added by Redhead1978jp (talk • contribs) 10:33, 5 April 2006 (UTC)


 * For some reason parts of that were deleted, and so now there is a point in the article that says "at the end of the same chapter" without ever referencing a chapter. I will change it to "at the end of chapter 18." — Preceding unsigned comment added by IAmAwesome (talk • contribs) 21:41, 29 June 2006 (UTC)


 * It's possible 'akuta' might also be a perversion of 'akutare' (rowdiness) or 'akutareru' (to misbehave or act rowdily). 'Akuta' by itself is a word for garbage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.19.12.210 (talk) 12:26, 16 January 2010 (UTC)