Talk:Dan Brown

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
Flag of New Hampshire

This article is part of Project New Hampshire; an effort to create, expand, and improve New Hampshire-related articles to a feature-quality standard.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
High This article has been rated as high-priority on the priority scale.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Dan Brown article.
Article policies
Archives: 1

2005-2006


[edit] Disputed Claims

A user keeps trying to remove the section on the University of Seville in disputed claims, claiming the source 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)

[edit] "12 future books"?

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.[1] --Elonka 20:34, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Transparent Hyperbole

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'm not sure what the point of this rant is.... A person can be a Christian and at the same time have mistaken beliefs about history. I don't see a contradiction here, but I do see an insensitivity to the strictures of the policy on how we should be careful about what we say about living people. Wednesday Next (talk) 18:42, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Author is not copyright holder for sword and chalice

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)

[edit] Dan Brown claims to be a christian

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)