Talk:Angels & Demons

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

message: Further, despite the book's asseratation that major media outlets, such as MSNBC and CNN simply shoot their reporters in front of green screens rather than send them out to do live reports, there is no evidence of this occuring in the real world. Generally when someone is being shot in front of a green-screen on TV the effect is fairly obvious (refer to the "live location reports" done often on The Daily Show).
I removed the above text, not because it is wrong, but because if we had a list of errors in the book it would take up more space than the book itself. There are more important errors than this, and it would be unencyclopedic to list them all. (See above) We are supposed to maintain a neutral point of view and it has been suggested that it is unreasonable to give undue weight to the errors in the book, even if error spotting is the book's only useful entertainment!
The linked Wikibook - see main page - has a useful repository of the errors in the book. There is also a blog with these errors you may wish to circulate these on as linked also on the main page. Spenny 13:11, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Undue prominence to errors

message: I realise that no timelines are given in the book, but assume it's set in the present day.  Given that, isn't there a discrepancy in the birth date of the character conceived by IVF? The first 'test tube baby' was Louise Brown born in 1978 - the character in the book must have been born in the early 60s. Or have I got the wrong end of the stick? --Whoosher 14:37, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That one was niggling at me. What dates for the events can we imply (there are little clues around like car makes) and what ages are established for the characters? Spenny 17:39, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Glad I'm not the only one! The character who's established as having been conceived by IVF is stated to be in his late 30s (maybe even as specifically as being 39, although I wouldn't swear to that). I assumed that the action took place in the present day because of the references to some of the everyday technology: mobiles, etc. The rest has me stumped though!  Maybe it's just another item to add to the rather long list of factual inaccuracies.  --Whoosher 17:48, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  IVF (poss spoiler if you haven't read the book!) 

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

message: As it says in the article:
Also, this book mentions one Cardinal Ebner from Frankfurt. In truth, there is no cardinal from Frankfurt as there is no Archbishop of Frankfurt. There are only 4 cardinals from Germany: from Mainz, Cologne, Munich, and Berlin.
This is so far correct as there is no Archbishop of Frankfurt but a Cardinal needs not be an archbishop or even a bishop in the roman catholic church. In truth the pope can create a cardinal out of every roman catholic christian. So there could be a Cardinal from Frankfurt as this man does not need to be a bishop.
Pretty sure that names of characters fall under the category of fiction. Robert Langdon doesnt exist either. thats not considered a factual inaccuracy, thats called a fictional character. --Late Leo (talk) 19:34, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The Pope can create a cardinal out of every #male# Catholic. Jackiespeel (talk) 22:00, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inaccuracies 

message: I was wondering:
- where the he## the wireless cam was getting it's juice from when set up on the tomb of peter
- if it wasn't battery powered (which seemingly is the case), why they couldn't shut off ever smaller sections of the vatican by just throwing the electricity-switches (cut the power by tripping the fuses blockwise, eventually the signal of the wireless cam should have died)
- if it was wireless, why they didn't access the other cams (other wireless devices) to turn them off and this way home in on either it's wireless signal or it's electromagnetic signature ...
- how a wireless cam was able to broadcast through several meters of granite ...
well, I can go on, but basically I was wondering if someone else was irked by this too
77.251.36.79 (talk) 13:24, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: As with all the other errors.... who cares about one specific thing in a book so riddled with factual inaccuracy, contrived plot elements and straight up plot holes that the error list is probably longer than the book? Leushenko (talk) 01:44, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inaccuracies regarding the antimatter container + the wireless camera 

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

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

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

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

message: Is there a particular good reason why the first external link "Angels & Demons Novel" which leads to a domain squatter site called angelsanddemonsbook.com is in this Wikipedia entry ?
The external link has nothing to do with the actual book, contains the text from the plotsummary on this wikipedia entry, plus a solicitation for sale of the domain, and a list of other domains for sale, which also seems to be of the domainsquatting variety.
Maybe an editor should remove that link ?
:Sorted. :-) — Korax1214 (talk) 09:26, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: External Links

message: This may be true for the flat-earthers in America, but as this is specifically about Catholicism I think it's worth pointing out that the Catholic Church has been at pains to distance itself from Intelligent Design. Moreover the illuminati page has no information about a conflict. Dyaimz (talk) 22:53, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, Pope John Paul publicly affirmed evolution as a scientific fact in 1996, though Benedict has contradicted this. However, this is only relevant if it pertains to the article, and if there are reliable sources to support this point, which specifically make the point in relation to the novel. Nightscream (talk) 03:32, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: *JP2 didn't decry evolution, but keep your terms straight - it's a scientific **theory**.  --Krupo (talk) 05:09, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

text: I've made a change to the sentence, which is hopefully acceptable. Dyaimz (talk) 21:51, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've added a link to an article on the conflict thesis.  Hopefully, this will point those interested in the Church's relationship to scientific inquiry in the right direction. Innocent76 (talk) 21:58, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  The persecution of Galileo by the Roman Inquisition is pretty common knowledge. Unfortunately, Brown seems to have confused this with Copernicus. 92.78.104.28 (talk) 13:23, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Historical conflict between science and religion

message: Has the film been taking particularly creative or aggressive approaches to prevent online streaming?   It doesn't seem to exist on surfthechannel today, nor many of the feeder sites like megavideo.
::First off, the film is yet to be released, as of this writing.
::Second, discussion of illegal means of obtaining a view of a movie should not be allowed in article talk. (or anything relating to piracy.)
::Third, existence of a movie on such channels does not mean it has been released, such as leaked copies
--KelvinHOWiknerd(talk) 15:37, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  STC 

message: Under the inaccuracies heading there's a short paragraph:
::Another mistake made in the book is the claim that CERN is the organization that invented the Internet. In fact, Tim Berners-Lee and a small team at CERN invented the hypertext transport protocol, which led to the World Wide Web, not the Internet, which was engineered in the United States by DARPA.
Which cited the website | CERN - Spotlight: Angels and Demons. While the website states both that the Web is their invention, and that the Internet is not, I question the accuracy of which it is a mistake present in the book. Within the book it only states that CERN invented the Web, which is true.
Shall I edit it so that it states: "A misleading statement in the book..."? 
--KelvinHOWiknerd(talk) 15:33, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I reread the book last night after seeing the film, and I agree that the claim is only that CERN invented the WWW (which is true).  At no point does the book claim that CERN invented the internet.  So there is really no mistake or misleading statement at all, only misinterpretation by some WP editors.  I suggest removing the said paragraph completely. Puffino (talk) 17:35, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep. Chapter 2, Page 7. I've added the clarification. Nightscream (talk) 03:37, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

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

message: I believe there is a mistake in the plot summary, third paragraph, second sentence ...at which point the antimatter will fall, come into contact with the base of the canister...  Shouldn't it be at which point the magnetic field will fail, letting the antimatter come in contact with the base of the canister...?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Danielsj (talk • contribs) 19:01, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it's not so much of a mistake as it is an omission of detail; feel free to add it. And just so you know, a new discussion should have a title heading right over its first post. :-) Nightscream (talk) 22:01, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Synopsis

message: Any thought of adding "Pope Luke" to Cardinal Baggia? He does take on that name in the movie.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.241.126.117 (talk) 13:38, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: This isn't the article about the movie. It's the article about the novel. Also, new posts and sections go at the bottom. :-) Nightscream (talk) 13:47, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Character Names

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

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

message: Perhaps someone with editing permissions can add another example to the inaccuracies section of the article. The brand name Alfa Romeo, a famous Italian automaker, was repeatedly misspelled throughout the first edition of Angels & Demons.
The mistakes, like many others, were corrected in subsequent printings. This article details and shows examples of the mistakes: http://jalfredproofreader.blogspot.com/2009/09/orgy-of-misspellings-in-blockbuster-dan.html Thank you.
Andrew, 12.09.09 66.171.178.162 (talk) 22:35, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, but that blog entry (not an article) would not pass WP:RS. Thanks anyway. Nightscream (talk) 18:16, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another inaccuracy in the novel. 

message: I was wondering if it is possible to enter my blog page as a new external link, (http://faissabdul.wordpress.com/2010/02/06/angels-demons-tour/)
It is something which gives a outline of the path of illumination, and I believe people might find useful.
Faissabdul (talk) 00:55, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: According to WP:External links, personal blogs are among the types of links to be avoided in the EL section. Sorry. Nice-looking blog, though. Nightscream (talk) 06:16, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  New External Link 

message: ok, so theres a reference on the page about the "angels and demons decoded" tv show, and it talks about the guy from CERN claiming that 10 billionths of a gram of antimatter has the explosive power roughly equivalent to that of a frecracker, which is supposed to show that they would have needed way more than what they had in the book. however, it says in the book, and i quote, "a ten milligram sample--the volume of a grain of sand--is hypothesized to hold as much energy as about two hundred metric tons of conventional rocket fuel." 10 milligrams is 1,000,000 times that of what the guy on the show was talking about. also, the sample used by the assassin to try to destroy the vatican was .25 g, which is 25,000,000x. i dont know about anyone else, but that seems like alot of firecrackers. --Late Leo (talk) 19:49, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: This article is about how Dan Brown wrote the book, not how he should have written it. — 188.29.220.239 (talk) 09:27, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: This article is about the book itself, and should include relevant material found in secondary sources. In a similar vein, article talk pages are solely for discussing ways to improve the article, and are not forums for general discussion of the article's topic. The first three messages in this section seem to violate this. Nightscream (talk) 14:40, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Antimatter volitility 

message: Is there actually any need for this section?? Lots of books invent alternative histories and events, Clive Cussler's Dirk Pitt series (excluding the first 3 of the series) for example, and yet none of them have inaccuracies sections. I think most people would be aware that the book is a fictional story. douts (talk) 23:26, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Cussler's novels have not generated controversy over their inaccuracies by virtue of the Notes he places in the beginning of his books, or the the religious content of his novels that some in the public have taken issue with. Brown has indeed generated such controversy with the Note page he includes in the beginning of each of his books asserting that a number of elements in the books are "true", and for the way in which his claims prompt the ire of a number of theists, which goes far beyond merely presenting an alternate history. Because of the ensuing controversies and Brown's reputation, these issues are more easily found in secondary sources, which is one of the main criterion for inclusion. But if the same sources covered such issues generated by Cussler's books, then his article would include such material as well. Nightscream (talk) 18:13, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, there is a need for an inaccuracies section.  Dan Brown's books have been very popular (as have the movie versions of them) and many people have been misled into thinking they are more factual than they really are.  For someone coming to Wikipedia for information, such a section would be very helpful. 152.133.14.5 (talk) 21:29, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inaccuracies section  

message: What phrase use Langdon to tell how symbols change their meanings?
הראש (talk) 11:42, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  That phrase 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Angels & Demons. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131102133534/http://www.johnlangdon.net/angelsanddemons.php to http://www.johnlangdon.net/angelsanddemons.php
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060516220255/http://www.danbrown.com:80/secrets/bizarre_facts/angels_demons.html to http://www.danbrown.com/secrets/bizarre_facts/angels_demons.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:13, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

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