Talk:Dan Brown/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

I earlier today removed a link to the site bookthoughts.co.nz, as the site appears to be lacking in content, of no particular note (the only link to it google reveals is a link from the owner's own blog), and not specifically relevant to this article. The link was subsequently reinserted.

Upon further reading, this appears to be one of a number of articles seeing persistent removal and reinsertion of links to the site bookthoughts.co.nz owned by a user formerly registered as Kiwifaramir. See the user's talk page for discussion on this issue. Most recent edits inserting links to this site are by users with no contributions or edits aside from the link to bookthoughts inserted with identical text ("Read And Write Reviews On Novels By...") into an article on a given author. Examples presently include Alice_Sebold, John_Grisham, C._S._Lewis, Martin_Cruz_Smith. Can any procedurally expert wikipedia users advise on due process in this case? --Yst 03:36, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

For anyone to look up Dan Brown and find minorly relevant details such as lawsuits and plagiarism is a rather unflattering approach to an article worthy of being in Wikipedia. I'd request for a re-write.. if I knew how. Besides, the point of view is seriously not neutral. Sylee 05:48, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Lawsuits and plagiarism allegations are not minor details, and the article is not supposed to be flattering, but factual. Why not rewrite it yourself? Wikipedia is about being bold! --K. AKA Konrad West TALK 06:16, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

I so prefer the latest update. It makes more sense and has more relevence now. Konrad West missed my point but the one who edited the Dan Brown article didn't. Thanks. - Sylee

Dan Brown is currently being sued by two historians for stealing the hypothesis and structure from the book - 'The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail' published in 1982.

I noticed the reference to a novel called Goya's Gantry (1998) in the article; is this accurate? I can't find any references to Brown having authored a work with this name (published or otherwise). Ajnewbold 03:32, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Looks like someone took care of it. Ajnewbold 12:53, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

I have flagged this page as having a non-NPOV as whilst there is criticism of Brown, there is no support. To say that he "has drawn criticism for being wrong" does not explain what the criticism is, and suggests that Brown actually IS wrong. Ukcreation 02:00, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I've chopped out the section and put it here. I encourage whoever put it here to rewrite it with actual sources and specific examples. --CVaneg 08:11, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

He has been criticized for distorting, even fabricating, history in some of his novels. Inaccuracies in his works are not however limited to history or religion. The claim in the front of some of his books ("all descriptions of artwork, architecture, documents and secret rituals ... are accurate") is contentious, with many errors cited in describing building layouts and documents. Further numerical errors or inconsistencies are present in the works with regard mainly to times and distances. Also, descriptions of familiar every day technology, particularly transport, has drawn criticism for being wrong. While these novels are fiction, there is no warning that the novel does not truly depict history. As a result, readers may become misinformed about true historical facts. Multiple books written by other authors have tried to go more in depth into the information included, others try to prove the information as untruthful.

In my opinion the changes made by Cvaneg have removed the non-NPOV so I have removed the flag. Thanks Cvaneg. Ukcreation 13:21, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The problem is not that he states some things are factual, some ar ficticious. The problem is that he states things as factual which are NOT. So he indeed does NOT say the truth (cf. The Davinci Code). The chapter "Criticism" in the article is not only biased, it is also written in an extremely bad style. --213.47.66.134 15:39, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This article needs a Criticism section, mostly using not only his lawsuits, etc., but also literary criticism, like the fact he writes it all like a script, there are hardly any descriptions in his books, and any good passages... good god. This man can't write according to 90% of the critics out there, and we should mention it. --Sprafa 21:46, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

The very fact that his books are labled as, and sold as fiction means he has no requirement or burden to be faithful to what some consider to be true history. On the hardcover edition of "Angels and Demons" the rear dustcover above the ISBN/UPC says "FICTION". On the publisher page ther is a Fiction disclaimer in reasonably large (but not oversize) letttering. As a comparison, I pulled a random fiction title off my shelf: Sharpe's tiger" by Bernard Cornwall in paperback format. It is a fictional title about a recurring character through various REAL naval and land battles between 1799 and 1820. Nowhere on the rear cover, front cover or spine does it say *FICTION*, nor does it say so on the list of other titles page, the title page, the publisher page, not even a disclaimer, nore does the dedication page, or the inner covers. Is there some reason Mr. Brown is being held to a higher standard, which is, in my opinion, completely unrealistic?

Most people should be able to realistically deduce from Mr. Brown's "Author's note" page that certain things are real and the rest therefore, is not real. He makes perfectly acecptable claims to what is real: in his book "Angels and Demons" he states the following as a fact: "the worlds largest scientific research facility-Switzerlands CERN recently succeeded in producing the worlds first particle of antimatter..." This IS true and is well documented on CERN's website: www.cern.ch. This is one example of the claims he makes as being fact. Bearing in mind that his titles are marketed and labled as fiction, Mr. Brown has no obligation to hold anything he writes to events in real history. Nor does he have an obligation to claim that some things might not be real in big bold lettering. Yet, on the publisher information page, he does make such a disclaimer.

Many credible scholars and historians would agree that what is written in many history books is not even faithful to the events which actually transpired. Sir Winston Churchill is quoted as saying: "History will be kind to me for I intend to write it." Why then, should Mr. Brown be held to a higher standard than those who write history?

Dan Brown is a well supported and extremely good author. He has many great books under his name and people that think he is a "hack author" should reread his books and think about the facts!

While you make some good points, Wikipedia is here in this case, I think, to report on the author and widely spread criticisms of the author. They are apparently many and noteworthy, and should not be censored out of hand just because they happen to present him in an unfavorable light. Wesley 6 July 2005 05:36 (UTC)

It is not the fictional text that everyone disagrees with but misleading introductions making claims about all the places featured being real, when they are changed to fit the story. To use your CERN example he thanks CERN which suggests they in some way helped write the book, which isn't true. And he follows on from your quote with dramatic speculation about anti-matter which isn't factual even in the intro. Then the description of the site inside (not to mention the cringe worthy physics mistakes) is inaccurate. All it would take is to ask a physics undergraduate to read through it! Anyway I think the complaints are that he deliberately uses things like the intro to portray things inside as factual. I am not sure this is a valid criticism as authors in the past (such as Jack Higgins) have portrayed fictional books as fact to good effect. However why not include criticism, it has been widespread so if its properly referenced that is fair if we also include support, but lets be honest the criticism has been more. Plus he writes terrible English I read Angels and Demons cos I work at CERN but it was a real struggle.Jameskeates 10:41, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

the following

The novelist Lewis Perdue is sueing Brown, claiming that The Da Vinci Code was largely based on plagiarism of Perdue's books The Da Vinci Legacy and Daughter of God. His Da Vinci Legacy lawsuit page reports the current status of the case, listing some of the alleged similarities between the works.

were removed by an anonymous editor. Should it be reverted?MATIA

I also don't understand this removal. Could the anonymous author please explain? Temtem 01:46, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

During the case there was a number of forum's where a person, calling "herself" Vanessa, was targetting Brown/Perdue threads and quoting only the Brown side of the case, usually using Random House's wording prefixed by "hey!", to make her look hip, etc. It could be someone, like Vanessa, on behalf of Random House trying to stem the negativity. That's my cynical thoughts. Connor Wolf

Brown and his publisher sued Lewis Perdue, not the other way around. The link to the lawsuit result shows Brown as Plaintif. Perdue countersued in defence. US copyright law is different to UK, and the outcome may be different.

Davinci code was good book, Deception point is is good book but bad disappointing ending, seems the author ended it that way because he couldn't find another way .

I have removed the section on Digital Fortress as it duplicated the criticism section on the page for the book. I have also removed the Angels and demons section, as it was also duplicative. The criticism for Deception Point was moved from the author page to the book page. I moved the section on the Da Vinci code as well. -- SusanLarson ^{(User Talk, New talk, Contribs)} 17:22, 15 December 2005 (UTC) have you read angels and demons?? it is a fantastic book with a GREAT ENDING. and to be honest, in my opinion the da vinci code has a good ending...something not expected at all.

We need to include some commentary on praise and criticism of Brown within this article, preferably generalised. While book-specific praise/criticisms are better dealt with in any depth within the actual book articles, it would probably be worth summarising them briefly here, particularly for Da Vinci Code. — Matt Crypto 12:35, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Should we include the fact that all his books have the same plotline? Or does that count as a spoiler? Slizor 02:16, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I think that's better mentioned on the book pages themselves. For example, see Angels and Demons, which has a section listing the similarities between books. Elonka 08:58, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Or that he doesn't write novels, just movie treatments? -86.4.170.224 10:28, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Can we keep Lisa Rogof's self-promotion off the page? She or someone on her behalf is adding misinformation to Brown's biography which is sensational, but wrong. Anonymous comment posted 19:14, January 26, 2006 by 67.32.202.188

Hi, thanks for popping in to the discussion. I am the individual who has been adding information from the book, which I purchased yesterday at Borders. Based on my reading of it, the information is plausible, and the author includes many references in the back of the book, as well as copies of early press about Brown. The details that I've been able to check, have all proven correct so far, and I have found no information that was incorrect. May I assume that you are objecting to the language about Brown and his future wife having a "discreet romance"? I'm open to suggestions about re-wording the page, especially if you can provide any published references which can be shown to contradict anything in Rogak's book. Has there been any public debunking going on anywhere? Oh, and when you add a comment to the discussion page, please "sign" it by posting four tildes : ~~~~. This automatically adds a datestamp, which keeps things a bit more organized. Thanks! Elonka 04:15, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

No problem! I'll also try to do the protocol better. It's not the "discreet romance" language so much as the contention that Brown worked at Beverly Hills Prep School in order to make contacts. That is completely inaccurate: he worked there simply because he needed to make a living. My biggest issue is that unverifiable statements that are tossed in to make someone look bad seem to cross the Wiki line. I know someone who knows Brown extremely well, and have also read Rogak's "biography". And while there is much truth in it, there are also many untruths. Also, I'll admit I have a real aversion to using unauthorized biographies as "fact" on Wikipedia as it demeans the integrity of Wikipedia in general. Unauthorized means de facto unverifiable of course. 70.149.141.254 18:36, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Well unfortunately, even if Dan Brown himself came to Wikipedia and said, "That's not true," it's against Wikipedia policy to use an eyewitness account. See Wikipedia:No original research. The best way to refute inaccurate claims here, is to supply a reference that proves their inaccuracy. In any case, the "discreet romance" paragraph has been extensively written, and the "contacts" sentence from Beverly Hills teaching is okay to remove since it could be argued to be POV (Point of View). As for other bonafide references in the article, such as the statistics about Harry Potter book sales, they have to stay unless they can be replaced with something more credible -- they can't just be removed, especially by an anonymous editor, unless proof can be offered that they are inaccurate. Elonka 20:52, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

The name Lisa Rogak rang a bell- in May of 2005, it seems she hardly knew anything at all about Dan. Here's an excerpt from an email she sent me.

How big is his staff, i.e., how many layers did you need to go through to get 
through to him? Also, how did he react when you informed him of the mistakes in DF?
Many thanks. If there's any other insight you can lend, I'd appreciate it.

Lisa Rogak

She was basically just fishing for information, and it seemed she had none. Perhaps she dug up a lot, but my guess is she couldn't know much more than was public record. --btrotter 10:36, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

An anonymous editor added a claim to the Dan Brown article, saying that though Brown claims to have studied art history for a year in Seville, that the University "has no expedient under his name". I reverted the comment since it was unreferenced, but it may still be worth following up. I know that it's standard Wikipedia policy to take people's firsthand word for it as to certain biographical details like when they were born, who their parents were, what schools they went to, etc., and it's easily verifiable that Brown *says* that he went to the University of Seville, but if there's a credible claim that this particular datum is false, we should perhaps remove it from the article, or modify the wording to, "Brown claims that he attended..."

The key, of course, is "credible claim", since there's plenty of garbage that routinely gets added by pranksters. Considering the Seville issue though, it's true that every source that I can think of, only comes from Brown's interviews. And he does have a reputation for occasional exaggeration (such as referring to his wife as an "art historian"). Is it possible that this is an exaggeration too, that he just spent a year *in* Seville, but then made the claim that he was "studying at the University" since he could see it from his vantage point at the coffeehouse?  ;)

I'll recheck my own sources (like Rogak's book), but in the meantime, has anyone else ever seen a verifiable reference besides an interview? --

Elonka 19:44, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

---

Dan did take Art History there.

It wasn't 1994-5, it was 1984-5.

---

The University of Seville about Dan Brown

Ese señor nunca ha sido matriculado en esta universidad, a no ser que se apuntara a un curso de otoño de los que se dan en la Facultad de Geografía e Historia” para alumnos extranjeros.[1]

En el listado de alumnos de la Hispalense no aparece ningún Brown ni en el curso 1994-1995 ni en el siguiente, aunque fuentes universitarias consultadas por Efe no descartan que recibiera clases "como estudiante invitado o becario".[2]

Similar sentences can be found in several Spanish websites. Can somebody translate them, please?--Menah the Great 21:11, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Reader who is responding to request to translate.

I used an online translator, so you will see a very elementary tanslation. Soemone may want to do a more accurate and complete translation. here goes...

"That gentleman never been has registered in this university, unless he scored at an autumn course of which they occur in the Faculty of Geography and History "for students extranjeros.[1]En the listing of students of the Hispalense does not appear no Brown neither in course 1994-1995 nor in the following one, although university sources consulted by Efe do not discard that it received classes" like invited student or becario".["

Pretty good. My own translation (I lived and worked in South America for over a year) would be: "This gentleman was never registered at this university, unless he attended a Fall course given to foreign students by the Faculty of Geography and History," and "In a listing of students at the university, there is not a single person by the name of Brown in either the 1994-1995 class year nor the following, although university sources did point out that he could have taken classes 'as an invited student or scholarship recipient.'" I'm a bit fuzzy on the exact meaning of the word "Hispalense" (it may just be the proper name of the university), but I'm pretty confident on the rest. --Elonka 00:10, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Hispalense is a synonim of Sevillano/a, "Sevillian". The roman name of Seville is Hispalis.--Menah the Great 02:58, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

That's what I was seeing too. Okay, so that part would translate to: "In a listing of Sevillian students, there is not a single person by the name of Brown in either the 1994-1995 class year nor the following, although university sources did point out that he could have taken classes 'as an invited student or scholarship recipient.'" I may still be missing a subtlety, like "invited student" might mean what we refer to as "transfer student" -- we'd need someone more fluent to be certain. --Elonka 03:21, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I have seen a book by Dan Brown which is not in the "Worsks" section, Illuminati but im not sure if he wrote it or co-wrote it. Someone should check it out and add it in. 212.120.228.189 22:44, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

It has been said that while Brown stole ideas from "The Holy Blood And The Holy Grail", they also stole from "Jesus Scroll." Even though it is quite obvious that Brown has stolen and changed several names from history and changed them around to suit his murder mystery book, (i.e. Pierre Plantard) who had claimed to be a decendent of Christ, no one can really say that Brown actually stole from the actual story. He just "used" ideas from history to suit his story. And who hasn't done that? Isn't that the definition of inspiration? (User:142.163.81.252 16:33, February 28, 2006 )

also they have it listen on the page that Angels and Demons was written before the da vince code, but he wrote it after the da vince code.

The article is NPOV, as it makes no mention of the on-going plagiarism trial. We must inform readers that he may not turn out to be a "grail knight". He himself admitted reading the holy grail holy blood book before writing da vinci code. It is also very important, because the holy grail, holy blood authors openly admitted in press that their book was entirely made up, which destroys Dan Brown's claims that everything he wrote is real. 195.70.32.136 14:24, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I find the whole idea of pliagarism nonsense because Dan Brown's book is sold as a novel and the book it was based on was a nonfictional writing. It doesn't really matter, in my opinion, which one is real or both are fictional. Dan Brown's book is a thriller with references to the theories from the other book. In scientific writing this has been done very often. Furthermore, Dan Brown has named a character in reference to the authors of the original book, which can be seen as referencing the original work. But then, we are talking about a novel and fiction remains fiction! But this is just my opinion. --Ghormax 22:10, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I think the most appropriate place for the plagiarism accusation, is not on the bio page, but where it's covered now, on the actual book page(s), The Da Vinci Code (under Court Case), and Criticisms of the Da Vinci Code (under Allegations of Plagiarism). Brown hasn't been attacked about *all* his books, just DVC. Then again, it might be appropriate to add a "See also" section mentioning it, since it's definitely notable, regardless of whether or not the suit is proven to be with or without merit (and at the moment, it seems to be the latter). But I don't have a strong feeling on it either way, so it depends what the consensus opinion is. If enough people feel we *should* add a section about the trial, then we can do so. Otherwise, let's leave it off, because we already have enough forks. Anyone else have any thoughts on it? --Elonka 23:43, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I added a link to Dan Brown's witness statement from the trial. It's dozens and dozens of pages long, and there's a lot of info there which we can use to update the related articles. I'd do it myself, but I'm getting ready to get on a plane and head to GDC, so I won't be doing much editing for the next few days. I did want to make you all aware of it though! If no one else has time to get to it, I'll start incorporating the new information when I get back. --Elonka 02:37, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Can anyone see a link between the bunfight over 'theft of ideas' (a concept with little legal substance) and the fact that DVC has returned to its number 1 place in the fiction charts for the third year. HBHG has also risen in the nonfiction category.

Certainly DVC would never have made it based on its literary merits: cardboard characters, sitcom plot, and wooden style. I can't help but admire the publishers' acumen in setting up the legal system this way. Wpenrose 20:48, 11 April 2006 (UTC)Dangerous Bill

I'm not disputing this claim, just saying that it needs to be cited with a source. To Google! ````Levid37

Source is on the page. Rogak's biography.[3] --Elonka 18:23, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

source? his bio!

I did some editing to remove anti-anti-Christian non-NPOV. It said that his books are anti-Christian, I changed to to say that they are perceived as anti-christian. It also said he is a "self-proclaimed" Christian. I changed it to say that he is a Christian. "Self-proclaimed" reeks of holier-than-thou. As far as Wikipedia is concerned, if you're proclaiming yourself as a Christian you're a Christian. Andrewdoane 18:50, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

This is a pretty sticky topic to make a blanket statement like that. Just because someone proclaims to be an American citizen, does that mean they are? Just because someone proclaims to have a doctorate in law, does that mean they do? Just because Al Gore claimed to have invented the internet, did he? The above referenced site does not say that Dan Brown is a Christian. It says he grew up in a Christian home and went to church. According to the Christians, this does not make you one of them. Professing a faith in Jesus Christ and living a life that says so is what makes you a Christian. Including swear words and falsehoods against religion in a best-selling book does not necessarily make one a Christian. I would say reword this bit or remove it altogether and avoid the controversy. Bdag 16:56, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I am concerned about the new "Criticism" section. It seems to be nothing but a series of negative POV quotes, most of them from un-notable sources. My inclination is to delete it outright, does anyone else have an opinion? To be clear: I am not against the idea of a "Criticism and controversy" section, as long as it's presented in a fairly-written way. But the section as stands just looks like a poorly-formatted slam. --Elonka 19:01, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

(pasting in comment that was placed on main article) However in order to be objective there have been numerous reviews that have praised his book(s), and also fair to mention that with 45 million Copies sold of the Da Vinci code there certainly is a huge number of people to enjoy this book. One should also mention some of the possitive remarks from critics(they are abundant), it is only right to say that there are also indisputable facts in this book. There are Religous groups protesting the Da Vinci movie, and the response they have given to this certainly shows signs of fear, one would wonder why. One possible conclusion for the Vatican to oppose this movie and book so strongly, might simply be because the public and followers were made abundantly clear that the Church is willing and capable of keeping such things as child molestation and other abuses done by the Catholic Church private, until the hundreds of thousands of victims made their voices heard. The Church never expected for that to become public, as it may have never expected the writings in Dan Brown's book to make so many aware of other possible secrets. ( Posted by User:Ocstandard at 20:16, May 8, 2006 )

I have gone ahead and removed the Criticism section for now, so we can discuss the best way to present a "Criticism and controversy" section in the article, that is presented in an NPOV (Neutral Point of View) way. --Elonka 05:54, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I was shocked that Dan Brown of all people didn't have a criticism/controversy section on his page. What exactly was so bad about the old one that it could not be fixed rather than abandoned? If it is what is cut and paste above, I agree it's pretty bad. But surely something along the lines of: being fuzzy with the difference between facts and fiction, the plagiarism case by the holy blood, holy grail people and his rehashing of the same story line deserve to be mentioned and should be easy enough to back up. TastyCakes 01:09, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

When this has been discussed in the past, the general consensus is that the controversy is about The Da Vinci Code or his other novels, and not about Brown himself, so those comments are covered on the respective book pages, or, if there's enough of it, it's moved to its own page. For example, see Criticisms of The Da Vinci Code. --Elonka 06:17, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I guess that's fair. TastyCakes 20:21, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. If you still feel that a "Criticism and controversy" section would be appropriate, feel free to suggest wording here? As long as it's neutral and encyclopedic, it could be a good addition to the article. --Elonka 00:03, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

i read somewhere that he was a jew. can anyone confirm it. or were these the allegations against him nids 19:08, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure he's not Jewish. TastyCakes 17:32, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Isn't that a bit anti-semetic TastyCakes? BMurray

When was he born?

1962 and 1964 are both given as the novelist's date of birth.

Well, this is probably a downright hoax, but it's worth mentioning. Someone may or may not be posing as Dan Brown while playing WoW RP servers. It probably isn't true at all, it's just a little tiny thing I've come across. Don't flame me, please.  :(

I think this person is great. He's so intelligent he makes me remind me of myself. lol. I've looked up research on the freemasons and illuminati and the da vinci code and all his puzzle's he's made in his books. I want to read "The Solomon Key" when it comes out. All the books he writes has something very interesting and non-fictitious which makes it even cooler. I may join CERN one day. -Heir of Eragon

 Parodies have emerged, "The Asti Spumante Code" and " The Vadinci Cod".

A user keeps to tell this man to shut the hell up becuase willie is being all gay with the sources but it is unreliable. I do not see any proof that this is unreliable, it is not character defamation since Dan Brown's claim remains unverified, and this may relate to his depiction in Digital Fortress of Spain as a third world country. I am putting it back in.

From that user: I have no problem with a lot of the criticisms of Dan Brown. However, I can state categorically that Dan Brown was at the University of Sevilla because I was in the class with him. I will simply not let the Wikipedia page stand saying he wasn't.

Is there some reason we should not believe what is said in the cited source? Quadpus 03:14, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, I won't speak to other criticisms the article makes, but as to the part claiming Dan wasn't at the University of Seville, yes, you should not believe it. However, I will note, as the citation in Spanish is La fortaleza digital" o cómo reinventar Sevilla, an d Dan-Brown-mentiroso-compulsivo, which means "Digital Fortress or How to Reinvent Sevilla", and "Dan Brown, Compulsive Liar", well, yes, I'd say that's a pretty clear demonstration of bias which undermines the credibility of the source. A lot of people have a negative things to say about Dan Brown, but no one credible would ever call him a "compulsive liar." Finally, one would think it would be painfully obvious, but the citation in question says Dan Brown was not matriculated in 94-95 or the year after. Well, of course not. His junior year in college, when he studied in Seville, was 1984-85.

I think it's pretty clear he has a habit of deliberately misleading people in order to sell books. Just look at the quotes in The Da Vinci Code#Literary and historical criticism.Quadpus 12:32, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Until someone sources this claim that he has outines for at least 12 future books, I've changed it to "several." Softlavender 03:42, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I believe it's sourced to an interview with Brown, in Dan Burstein's "Secrets of the Code." I'll see if I can dig up a more precise reference. --Elonka 16:33, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Here's an online source.[4] --Elonka 20:34, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Dan Brown's claim calling "himself a Christian who says the controversy is good to inspire 'discussion and debate' that will ultimately lead to a more solidly defended faith" is transparent hyperbole - the research for both Angels and Demons and Da Vinci Code represented uncritical acceptance of the pseudo-historical books found in the Mind, Body and Spirit departments in bookshops and Libraries (also designated as New Age) and nothing to do with respectable bonafide history. Let's see Dan Brown engage in an open debate with informed individuals rather than on a one-to-one basis with interviewers who are there to wrap him in cotton wool. He's never done this. Dan Brown has done the same mix-up with the "Priory of Sion" in Da Vinci Code like he did with the "Illuminati" in Angels and Demons. Wfgh66 19:25, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I suggest you read the article Fiction Nil Einne (talk) 10:34, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Does this even make sense to anyone else? If it is actual information, it might be better suited to The Da Vinci Code, which I think it's referring to.Epmatsw (talk) 23:04, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I think you mean blade and chalice Epmatsw. The blade and chalice that is from Dan Brown's The Da Vinci Code that I didn't see in the movie by the way only in book, was the same from this file that was made by www.apperlate.com using this same code but triangles were never called the blade and chalice, this is explained on neights talk page.--Juggantic (talk) 14:22, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

This is a more balanced statement. "Jehovah's Witness claim to be the restoration of first century christians", "Mormons claim to be the only 'true' christians. These are only claims and assertions and should be stated as such. 122.104.137.25 (talk) 13:11, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Simply not true. See "words to avoid". In general on Wikipedia, we accept a subject's religions self-identification at face value. If you have a reliable source which disagree with the subject's self-identification, that could be used, but saying somebody is not Christian when they say they are could never be more than a matter of opinion, since different sects and denominations have different requirements. He may have been baptized when a child or accepted J.C. as his personal lord and saviour at any time during his life, and that would make him a Christian by some Christian sect's rules unless he renounces it. It is not our place as Wikipedia editors to second-guess the subject's self-identification. Wednesday Next (talk) 18:37, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

http://www.apologeticsindex.org/d50aab.html is an article disputing Dan Brown's claim to be Christian, going as far as to refer to him as a heritic. Brinkley32 (talk) 04:15, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it doesn't. It takes a paragraph of Brown's text and follows it by some textbook definitions. Nowhere does it actually say Brown is a heretic, and even if it did, it would be just one person's opinion. People seem to be confusing fact and fiction here. Most writers of fiction don't believe in their fictional world! Why would anybody assume Brown is any different? This Brown bashing just shows how insecure some people are! Wednesday Next (talk) 02:46, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

"If you have a reliable source which disagree with the subject's self-identification, that could be used". Did you not say that? You cannot tell me that source does not disagree with his self-identification. By the way, I am not "bashing" Brown. I have read his books and think he is a great author. I enjoyed reading them. I just think people who look at this page should get a neutral view of Brown. To say Brown is not a Christian would be a one-sided view. I would be content with saying that Brown considers himself a Christian, but you insist on me finding a source disputing his claims. You said to find a source, and I found a source. Now you say the source doesn't matter because it is just one opinion? I think you should be a politician with that flip-flopping. You are not an administrator and you do not own this article. Just because you have a strong interest in the fictional tales this author writes about, you don't have the authority to moderate his page. Brinkley32 (talk) 04:36, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Nowhere in that source is there a quotable statement the the effect that Brown is not a Christian. Wednesday Next (talk) 17:43, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for a fair compromise. Brinkley32 (talk) 19:45, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Brown's claim to be a Christian is meaningless since Christianity as a whole will reject his Christian beliefs. The same thing applies to Margaret Stardbird claiming to be a Roman Catholic, a statement that has attracted widescale ridicule from Catholics. Brown's statement is nonsense. Like Hitler claiming to be a Jew.Wfgh66 (talk) 13:41, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Do you have any actual reference where Dan Brown's beliefs have been described as un-Christian? I'm not aware that there is even extensive knowledge of what precisely Dan Brown's beliefs are. (Remember the Da Vinci Code is largely a work of fiction and there is no evidence Dan Brown believes Mary Magdelene is the wife of Jesus) Nil Einne (talk) 10:31, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

How about parading a work of fiction saying its a factual literary piece. Have some common sense dude. You're a human afterall not a chimpanzee. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.138.162.6 (talk) 01:29, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Parading a work of fiction saying its a factual literary piece has nothing to do with whether one is a Christian or not. The only valid sources for one's religion would be those that establish their own statements to that effect, or observations of what churches they attend. Concluding that he is not a Christian because of his "parading a work of fiction saying its a factual literary piece" is your personal interpretation, which is not a reliable source. Nightscream (talk) 03:28, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Nobody outside America even cares. Why is this mentioned at all, and especially in the intro section? It isn't mentioned on any other language version of Wikipedia that I checked.. Just remove it and move on. 81.235.174.98 (talk) 16:28, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

It's mentioned as part of his response to the accusation that his novels are anti-Christian, which makes it reasonable to mention. Articles across different language versions of WP are written independently of one another, and thus the content of one has no bearing on the validity or lackthereof of a material in another. One could just as well speculate that none of the editors of the other versions were aware of this material, and not that it's because they "don't care" about it, which one editor is not qualified to conclude unilaterally. We could also argue that since none of the others include it, that perhaps someone should add it to them. Nightscream (talk) 00:47, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm just curious what constitutes "Christianity" in the eyes of these article critics. Are individuals who have abstracted away any tangible qualities of Christianity or most of the historical doctrines of Christianity, like Chris Hedges, considered "Christians"? Or would "nominally Christian" be more accurate? Not that I think this has any relevance to the article, which should use the self-identification criterion to avoid more ideological issues (Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not so much a place for essayistic discussions of unresolved or nuanced themes). Canadianism (talk)

I'd say if we are going to mention him and the outcome of the plagiarism trial, it makes sense to complete the story by mentioning his death. What do others think? --John (talk) 22:13, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Only if his death is relevant to that trial. Nightscream (talk) 03:24, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

A couple of years ago, there was a section in the Angels & Demons article listing reused plot devices in all of Dan Brown's novels( http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Angels_%26_Demons&oldid=66454116#Similarities_to_Brown.27s_other_books ). A while later, it was moved to another page, which was deleted. Is there any way to add that information to this page? Llxwarbirdxll (talk) 20:30, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I added passages about recurring motifs in his novels to the article in late September. Nightscream (talk) 04:10, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

This is what this interview says, he lived for a year, 17 or 18 years old, in the city of Gijon, in Spain: http://www.lne.es/ultima/2009/10/29/dan-brown-escancio-sidra/827208.html (sorry, it is only in Spanish) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.128.4.223 (talk) 08:01, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

There is no reference in the article to the "Bernini Mystery", sometimes seen as title of one of his books. Can someone add this? Is it an additional book or an alias of one? −Woodstone (talk) 10:11, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I have now added several backtranslated titles of the works. Especially confusing is the official Dan Brown website, which shows the cover of Dutch "Het Bernini Mysterie" as translation of Deception Point, whereas it really is a translation of Angels and Demons. −Woodstone (talk) 07:20, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

The website cited above (here) of the USA publisher shows as translation of "Angels and Demons" both "Het Bernini Mysterie" as well as "De Delta Deceptie". The former is actually a translation of "Angels and Demons". Wouldn't you call that confusion? Why your anger in suppressing the given useful additional information? I don't get it. Give some room for other opinions than yours. −Woodstone (talk) 09:32, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Please see WP:AGF. You have not established any "anger" on my part, any more than you've established "confusion" on the part of international readers, who, if they don't read English, aren't really going to be reading the English language versions of the novels. The fact that Dan Brown's website is confusing to you does not mean it bears any relevance to his Wikipedia article. This is not a question of "suppression" of information, or not giving room for other opinions; I simply disagree with yours, and have provided the reasoning for why I do so: English readers read the English language versions of his novels, whereas those who read other languages will read those versions. If you can refute this reasoning, and/or provide evidence that such readers are indeed "confused", then please provide a source for that. Nightscream (talk) 15:03, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

There are many people (me included) who read literature in a mix of languages. Whichever suitable edition comes one's way first. If the titles are not literal translations, it becomes then difficult to find out how complete one's reading has become. It is natural to go check the WP in the original language for the complete list and scratch off the ones read. This is greatly enhanced by my additions to the article. Space is cheap in wikipedia. I simply cannot understand what your reasonable objection could be against this enhancement. If you don't want to know this information, skip it when reading. Others will read it thankfully. And Dan Brown's site it not just confusing, it is confused (plain wrong). −Woodstone (talk) 15:11, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

My reasonable objection is that this is not the article on those novels. It is an article on Dan Brown. If a multilingual reader wants to know the alternate titles of those novels, he/she would go to the Wikipedia articles on those novels, and not to the article on Dan Brown. Wouldn't it make more sense for you to add this information to those articles, which you haven't done? Information in an article should focus on that article's topic, and information on topics only related tangentially to that primary subject should be limited. Translations of the Harry Potter novels are given a passing mention in the Harry Potter article, which directs to an article devoted to that subject. It is not, however, mentioned in the J.K. Rowling article. It it were, it would become a mess.

Another reasonable objection (though this is arguably an extension of the first) is that when you start adding more and more information less directly relevant to an article's topic than to other topics to which it's related, the question must be asked of where it ends? Why, for example, did you only list some of the alternate titles, but not the others? That page on Brown's site, after all, indicated other titles that you didn't mention.

A third reasonable objection is that your addition of the alternate title Illuminati to the Angels and Demons line, which does not have a source per WP:NOR/WP:V, and is not mentioned in the source for the Bernini Mystery translation.

If this does not convince you, then I'll request Third Opinion. Let me know.Nightscream (talk) 19:38, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I have corrected the placement and added a reference for the "Illuminati" title to be at "Angels and Demons". You are right that this information would also be useful at the various book-articles. I have not done that yet but that is not an argument relating to this article. Also the incompleteness of my additions is not a sound argument. The whole voluntary and cooperative nature of WP allows each editor to add their bits and pieces of information as they see fit. The main point: why here, at this article, I have explained above. A reader would like to check which books are missing from his reading list. He may have read several books in different languages and now wishes to establish which books are left to be read. Checking against the contended list will keep him from inadvertently bying a new book that he has already read in another language under a different title. That could not be done by checking the book articles, because he would not know some of the English titles. One reason I have backtranslated the titles is (yes, indeed) this is the English WP, and secondly this limits the alternatives, since that way there is no need to add a long list of minor (spelling) variants. −Woodstone (talk) 05:44, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

"...that is not an argument relating to this article." Indeed it is, for the reasons that I explained above. If you disagree with a given line or reasoning, evidence or argument, then you should offer a counterargument in order to explain why. Cannot you refute my reasoning above? Should the JK Rowling article, and for the matter, the article on authors like Stephen King, James Patterson, Nelson DeMille, Robert Ludlum, etc., also contain translated titles as well?

It is the list with original plus alternative titles that supplies most added value. −Woodstone (talk) 06:48, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

"Also the incompleteness of my additions is not a sound argument. The whole voluntary and cooperative nature of WP allows each editor to add their bits and pieces of information as they see fit." The fact of the site's voluntary and cooperative nature does not explain why you chose to include some translations and not others. So I'll ask you again: Why include did you choose to include some of the translated titles, but not all of the ones at Brown's site? There are other translations at that site that are not mere spelling variants.

If you aim at completeness, go right ahead. Each addition makes the list more useful. I did not add all because I do not know all languages. Let editors knowing those langages make more additions. −Woodstone (talk) 06:48, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

"Checking against the contended list will keep him from inadvertently bying a new book that he has already read in another language under a different title. That could not be done by checking the book articles, because he would not know some of the English titles." You seem to presume quite a bit about our hypothetical reader, and seem to have a rather low opinion of his/her resourcefulness. The truth is that you have no way of knowing whether he/she will inadvertently buy this book or another, as he/she can simply find out the title of the book through the vast resources available to him/her. Even if we put aside things like Amazon.com, he/she can find out the titles of Brown's novels (he hasn't written that many, after all), and then go to the article on the given novel in question to find out its title. Nightscream (talk) 06:30, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

So why have Wikipedia at all? All the information is out there. Let people fend for themselves. (I always thought WP was there to present collected information in an accessible form.) −Woodstone (talk) 06:48, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

"It is the list with original plus alternative titles that supplies most added value." Please answer the question. In your opinion, should we add the foreign language titles of novels in the articles of all other authors? Yes or no?

In principle yes, I would support that, preferably by giving backtranslated forms. That keeps the list concise. −Woodstone (talk) 14:56, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

"I did not add all because I do not know all languages." But you know the ones displayed on that page at Dan Brown's site, which you yourself added as the source, as I pointed out above. One more time: Why not add all those titles? Why only some?

In this volunteering cooperative environment of WP there is no requirement of completenes by every single editor. I added information about languages I'm familiar with. Hopefully other people can make additions for their languages. &minusWoodstone (talk) 14:56, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

"So why have Wikipedia at all?" I just told you above: He/she can find out the titles of Brown's novels (he hasn't written that many, after all), and then go to the article on the given novel in question to find out its title. Remember, Wikipedia is not a web directory. As it states on that policy page: "Wikipedia is not...A complete exposition of all possible details. Rather, an article is a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject."

You don't get it. Your procedure for the hypothetical reader does not work. He has read "Het Bernini Mysterie". He goes to WP and looks up "The Bernini Mystery". Not found. End of procedure. Or does he now have to go to the Dutch WP and hope the book is there? What if he does not remember in what language he read the book? I usually do not. You make it a complex search. −Woodstone (talk) 14:56, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

"I always thought WP was there to present collected information in an accessible form." This does not mean that we indiscriminately add any information to any article, regardless of the degree to which the two are directly pertinent. If you have an article on a book, and an article on its author, which is the more appropriate article in which to list the foreign language editions? The answer is simple: The article on the book. This is especially true not only because of reasons of directness of relevance, but space. Can you imagine listing all the foreign language titles of all the novels of a given author? Consider this: Brown has written five novels. I just added a list of the foreign language titles to the Angels & Demons article, and this is what it looks like. (Keep in mind that unlike your hypothetical reader, I was able to find the foreign language Wikipedia articles that I added fairly easily, using just a bit of deductive searching in some spots, and the right attitude, in order to cut and paste not only the external links, but the non-English characters that I could not produce with my keyboard.) Now imagine four more lists like that, not in the articles for those books, but in the same article, the article on their author. Now imagine doing this for someone who's written seven novels, like JK Rowling, or dozens, like Stephen King. Am I failing to convey to you the problem that what you propose would lead to? It would turn any such article on an author into a mess. Nightscream (talk) 09:02, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

It can hardly be called indiscriminate additions. They fiot perfectly in the already present list and are a perfect way for readers to find out which books of the author are still left to be read. Any article on only one of the books does not offer this facility. At the very least the reader would have to go to all the book artciles with pen and paper in hand to make the list himself. Let's do that work for him in WP. −Woodstone (talk) 14:56, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Third Opinion

Hi there, I found this dispute on WP:3O. I'll do my best to provide a neutral opinion. As stated by User:Nightscream, this article should only include the as-written titles of the novels; such a list would quickly get out of hand--see WP:TOPIC. (As a precedent, J. K. Rowling#Publications only lists "Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone," despite being popular in the United States as "Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone.") Such information might be included at an article such as "List of novels by Dan Brown" or "Translations of Dan Brown novels," and definitely in each novel's individual article, but not here. Instead, to aid multilingual readers in finding the novel that they are reading (if they do not want to go to the appropriate non-English Wikipedia), one might, for example, create a redirect from The Bernini Mystery to Angels & Demons. Mildly Mad^T_C 16:49, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Precisely. Contrary to the low opinion that Woodstone seems to have of every other foreign language user of WP, going to WP and not finding the "The Bernini Mystery" is not the "end of the procedure". If the reader is intelligent, and not hampered by a defeatist attitude or sheer laziness, then he/she can investigate ways to find out other versions of that title, or articles on it, much as I did when creating that list in the A&D article. Using redirects is one way to aid them. Pretending that they're so incompetent that they suddenly have to use "pen and paper", as Woodstone theorizes, even though they're already on a computer, is not realistic, and reveals an inability on his part to consider that he might be wrong. I'm removing that information, and adding it to the other articles, along with redirects. Thank you for your participation, Mildly Mad. :-) Nightscream (talk) 18:50, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Having just watched the film, was Dan Brown in the film possibly playing the role of the COE of PointCorp at the Senate hearings, a Dan Brown was named in the credits at the end? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Frannyb1956 (talk • contribs) 14:58, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

What are the criterion for adding an "Influence/influenced" section to the article?--64.114.135.25 (talk) 19:47, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Such material has to be supported by reliable, verifiable sources that unambiguously establish this (and are not solely the interpretation or observation of the editor), and which are cited in the text. The relevant policies you need to adhere to are found at the pages I just linked to.

Also, when you start a new discussion, remember to do so at the bottom of the page, and not in the middle of a pre-existing one. If you need any further help, just let me know. :-) Nightscream (talk) 04:10, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

It's been said that per WP:CRITS, criticism sections should be integrated into the article. Do you think that is meant for just politicans and would authors be different given that it's more likely that their criticism sections are more literary in nature as opposed to political criticism? If the two types of criticism sections (in my opinion) are not different in nature, then we should really start to integrate the criticism into the article itself. Just putting it out there for discussion.--RossF18 (talk) 20:04, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

We say he studied at Amherst and that he was "a writing student". It would be clearer if we were explicit about what his major was (presumably Eng.Lit or Creative Writing). -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 22:25, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

We'd need a source for that, per WP:NOR/WP:V. Nightscream (talk) 23:56, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

...which is why I'm asking. If I had a source, I'd have made the change already. -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 02:10, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry. A lot of people (newbies, I guess) post on Talk Pages to ask about adding this or that, and have to be told about those policies. Mea culpa. Nightscream (talk) 04:52, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

The influences section lists both Shakespeare and Leonardo, which is both silly and unsourced. As someone with a reasonable knowledge on both, I am a little surprised that anyone could think that Brown displays any affinity with either writer. I'm going to go ahead and remove this. Elphit (talk) 19:37, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

With respect to Shakespeare, it is neither silly nor unsourced, as it is sourced in the Influences and habits section. Whether one is influenced or has an infinity for a particular person has no bearing on whether an editor feels that it is displayed, since that is subjective, and POV. The Leonardo influence, however, is indeed unsourced (as is the notion that he influenced Harlan Coben, since Coben influenced Brown), so I removed that. Nightscream (talk) 20:34, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

"Storie" ... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.253.236.228 (talk) 13:03, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

This article has no direct link to the Wikipedia article The Da Vinci Code (film) ! This omission appears to be either a ridiculous oversight or a blatant attempt to manipulate public opinion. The article does have a link to the "sequel" movie, Angels & Demons (film). I would correct this myself, but the Edit tab has been removed from the page. Correction: There is a link to the film buried in the list of miscellaneous links at the end of the article. There should be a link within the body of the article, just as there is with Angels & Demons. 71.174.155.85 (talk) 16:29, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

There is most certainly a link for it in the Film adaptations section. Nightscream (talk) 06:59, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

'Nightscream' has deleted the notice I posted earlier: "Not to be confused with Dale Brown, the (other) author."

I disagree with his justification. Dan and Dale are FAR to easy to confuse or mis-remember with one another.
LP-mn (talk) 00:38, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Dear Editor, Could you please add the following updated information to the Philanthropy section of Dan Brown's Wikipedia page: Thank you.

In April of 2011, Brown made a gift to his alma mater, Amherst College, to create an endowed scholarship fund for incoming writing students. Ref: www.amherst.edu

Founded in 2007, The Dan & Blythe Brown Foundation continues to underwrite a wide variety of charities, focusing primarily on education and environmental issues. Ref: www.nhcf.org Sarahmont (talk) 13:16, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Neither of the two references you provided support the material you describe. They're just the main pages of two websites, neither of which makes any mention of Brown's gift or his Foundation. Sources must explicitly establish the material in question. If there are pages on that site that do support that material, and you can provide the urls for those pages, we can add the material then. Thanks. :-) Nightscream (talk) 14:40, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Any discussion anywhere about Dan Brown and his relationship with his own father? He has written five books already, and in EVERY book of his there must be certain characters with serious conflicts with their fathers. Every one of them without exception. Has he consciously or unconsciously reflected an Oedipus complex in his works? I am asking this in good faith, with no ill intention to Mr. Brown himself, but the fact about his created characters is so obvious that I just wonder - and wonder who else might wonder like me? 114.199.99.191 (talk) 10:59, 9 July 2011 (UTC)Armchair Sgmnd Frd — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.199.99.191 (talk) 10:54, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Please see WP:NOR, WP:SYNTH and WP:V. Nightscream (talk) 20:14, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm reading in several places that Dan Brown is the author behind the Nikki Heat series of books relating to the ABC Television show Castle. Here and on Goodreads.com. Is this worth noting? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wonderfullyrich (talk • contribs) 03:50, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

I will be adding it under film adoptions. please review the edit and remove it not appropriate as its not released yet.. Tho its confirmed to be released in 2012. Hashan 22:35, 7 October 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gayasri (talk • contribs)

In the "Works by Dan Brown" section, I noticed a novel, "Karma", which is proudly sitting there. However, it was written by another Dan Brown, not by the same Dan Brown who wrote Angels and Demons. A link which you might find useful in order to check the authenticity of the "Karma" novel here on Amazon — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ksiiitm (talk • contribs) 14:07, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

My friend is called Dan Brown. This is not him.

2.126.84.168 (talk) 11:46, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Oh right. Thanks for the info--Jac16888 ^Talk 12:09, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Currently the article states that: "A film adaptation of The Lost Symbol is confirmed to be in production for 2012 release." However, both references given are three years old. Almost three quarters of the year 2012 have passed with no sign of the movie going into production. The article on the movie says: "So far, there has been no sign of the movie going into production." So I suggest that we remove the mention of a 2012 release unless a source from this year is provided. --89.27.36.41 (talk) 10:25, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Done. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 13:34, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Dan Brown/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

==WikiProject== Hello. Article looks very nice. The prose for the most part has citations and sources. Can you possibly find a source for free photos? I rated the article B because it appears to meet the requirements. Best wishes. -Susanlesch 17:10, 6 January 2007 (UTC) The obvious typo in the infobox caption needs fixing. Also you might look at an FA or another article to see how a Notes or References section can be done without external links inline. Different editors have different preferences for citations (I use something like this). Best wishes. -Susanlesch 17:23, 6 January 2007 (UTC). minor edit at :26 Typo in infobox fixed. Could use a more specific caption maybe. Good luck with your article. -Susanlesch 20:37, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Last edited at 20:37, 6 January 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 14:37, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

The article states that he is born on the 22. June while the info box on the right side says he is born on the 22. July. Im not sure which one is right, if anyone knows, please fix it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.166.176.201 (talk) 16:01, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please add under Philanthropy: Partnering with the New Hampshire Charitable Foundation, Brown and his wife established the Dan & Blythe Brown Foundation, which provides ongoing funding to charities nationwide in support of various causes aligned with its philanthropical priorities. http://www.nhcf.org/document.doc?id=236 page 14, donors Sarahmont (talk) 15:11, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Sarahmont (talk) 15:11, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

 Not done. Once you are confirmed you should be able to expand the article yourself.--Canoe1967 (talk) 06:20, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

What kind of a response is that? If the addition is not legit, then explain why? And if you don't feel like adding it, then why not abstain from responding entirely?

I've added the material in question, Sarahmont. Thank you. Nightscream (talk) 07:20, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

I apologize if my above post seemed harsh. An editor asked for assistance at help desk to clear the back log. I was just helping out in good faith. These pages are protected for various reasons. I found that many requests didn't need a template, but just a regular talk page request or IPs creating accounts and/or users waiting the 4 days and ten edits to do it themselves.--Canoe1967 (talk) 07:29, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Please add in the Philanthropy section: In April 2011, Brown made a major gift to Amherst College and established the Dan & Blythe Brown Scholarship Fund to provide scholarship aid to students with demonstrated need. https://www.amherst.edu/media/view/425849/original/Brown%2BDan%2BScholarship%2BFund.pdf Sarahmont (talk) 13:30, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Done. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 17:33, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

And take the suggestion to be a WP editor — You will love it; everyone benefits. TIA, Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 22:44, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure if it was intentional or not, but when one clicks on "Inferno" under the 'notable works' section, it links to a general "inferno" page, not to the book's page. i would edit it myself, but im not exactly sure how to edit that particular section... if someone wants to edit it, the following is the correct page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inferno_%28Dan_Brown_novel%29

if someone wants to just tell me how to do it, i can after work tonight. Osmo250 (talk) 01:10, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Here is how I would do it:

• First check on the proper name of the WP page in question;
• You can do this with a Google-search [Wikipedia Inferno];
• This yields the WP page: Inferno_(Dan_Brown_novel) ;
• Now, you have two choices:
• You can either refer to "Inferno_(Dan_Brown_novel)" enclosed in double-brackets; or
• (or) you can enter Inferno_(Dan_Brown_novel)|Inferno in double-brackets and "Inferno" appears, linking to desired page.

Thanks for asking; I didn't check yet to see if that has already been done. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 10:57, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

 Done, TNKS to someone — Do a 'find' on [Inferno] and see that all four refs link to proper WP page.

• PS: When you want to see good Wikipedia writing techniques, briefly go into 'edit' on a good WP page.
• Notice the use of bolding for the Inferno novel title. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 10:57, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Considering the fact that Brown is well known for making things up out of whole cloth with absolutely no basis in actual fact, perhaps the part about the 'research-intensive nature' of his writing should be...reworked. 94.255.173.237 (talk) 10:24, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

No. Just because, as a novelist, he invents/twists "facts" to suit his book does not in any way negate the research he does do, which is arguably intensive. If the article made a judgement call on the quality of his research (i.e. it was always accurate) or use of that research (i.e. he never strays from the sources) then that could be changed. But the intensity of his research, as it relates to how long it takes him to write his books (which is what the rest of the sentence says "Because of the research-intensive nature of his novels, Brown can spend up to two years writing them."), is accurate as it stands. Although finding an RS to back up that particular claim would be advisable. Vyselink (talk) 15:02, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

As the man claims that 99% of his books, beyond the obviously invented characters, are true, and there is LARGE amounts of rebuttal to this, I'd say that while it may be intensive, calling it research is nonsense. He makes up things out of whole cloth. His WORK may be intensive, but if it isn't factual, it isn't research.85.229.59.77 (talk) 22:44, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

A) Pretty sure he's never claimed "99% of his books, beyond the obviously invented characters, are true", so unless you can find a reliable source that states that he has in fact claimed such, that part of your argument is just as made up as you claim his works are.

B) Where are the "LARGE amounts of rebuttal" to this claim that you just invented he made?

C) Merriam-Webster definition of research (found here):

1: careful or diligent search

2: studious inquiry or examination; especially (NOTE: DOES NOT SAY EXCLUSIVELY): investigation or experimentation aimed at the discovery and interpretation of facts, revision of accepted theories or laws in the light of new facts, or practical application of such new or revised theories or laws

3: the collecting of information about a particular subject.

Since his facts and conclusions are of the fictional type, i.e. he uses them for work in his fictional novels, you are more than welcome to argue the conclusions that he has come to at some other point. But, the wording that his work is research intensive, regardless of how he uses that research, is accurate. Vyselink (talk) 23:01, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Mea culpa: My apologies. He has in fact claimed that it is 99% true, so I must give you that. However, the wording as it stands is still accurate, as regardless of how he uses his research, and of how accurate he claims it to be, he still conducts it. Vyselink (talk) 23:05, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

If I spend two years, purportedly doing research, and makes the number of severe errors that Brown has done, have I actually done any research? Or have I merely goofed off at spectacular levels for two years? His books are all full of the sort of brain-melting errors that the most basic of studying should have avoided.85.229.59.77 (talk) 20:13, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

You still have yet to give a valid reason for changing the wording, other than that you consider the faults in his book to mean he hasn't done any research. Research does not mean 100% always accurate. He may do the research and decide to ignore it or fictionalize it for his books. Either way, he has done the research. So far your argument has been your distaste for an author of fiction books fictional take on history. The one point you made, about the nature of his "work" as compared to "research", has already been shown to be not valid, as proven by the dictionary definition of "research" given above. Vyselink (talk) 20:40, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi, I'm a fairly new editor and am not sure how to properly flag an article for attention, but I see some issues with this page. Several articles of intentional slander seem to be inserted, such as "of no talent," stating that he won the "Most annoying smoker of the year award, 2015" and referring to him as "Danielle" Brown. It seems that this whole article probably needs to be examined for bias and slanderous insertions. Hoff0839 (talk) 17:17, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Dan Brown. 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/20090524011135/http://www.thestandard.com.hk:80/news_detail.asp?pp_cat=18&art_id=14142&sid=7052348&con_type=1 to http://www.thestandard.com.hk/news_detail.asp?pp_cat=18&art_id=14142&sid=7052348&con_type=1
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090526010819/http://www.vision.org:80/visionmedia/article.aspx?id=1333 to http://www.vision.org/visionmedia/article.aspx?id=1333

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:32, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

There was a a comment about Jack Dunn added on Apr 1 with no citation and seems potentially libelous. Should it be removed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rkhwaja (talk • contribs) 07:21, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Dan Brown. 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.thestandard.com.hk/news_detail.asp?pp_cat=18&art_id=14142&sid=7052348&con_type=1
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090523225741/http://phillips.exeter.edu/ei/news/news_danbrown.html to http://phillips.exeter.edu/ei/news/news_danbrown.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.vision.org/visionmedia/article.aspx?id=1333

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:45, 3 September 2017 (UTC)