Talk:Deception Point

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Novels (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Novels, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to novels, novellas, novelettes and short stories on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit one of the articles mentioned below, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.


I may be mistaken, but what code is this article talking about. I don't recall coming across any such code in the book, atleast not as an integral plot in the story. Could someone clarify? --Bluerain 14:09, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

In my edition there is a sequence of numbers after the main text.--J-Star 14:30, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, the article sounded as if it was an integral part of the story. Anyways, sorry, my bad. --Bluerain 08:48, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Two men, sentenced to die in the electric chair on the same day, were led down to the room in which they would meet their maker. The priest had given them last rites, the formal speech had been given by the warden, and a final prayer had been said among the participants. The warden, turning to the first man, solemnly asked, "Son, do you have a last request?" The man replied, "Yes sir, I do. I love Dan Brown Novels. Could you please read me a paragraph or two from one for me, one last time?" "Certainly," replied the warden. He turned to the other man and asked, "Well, what about you, son? What is your final request?" The condemned man said " For the love of all mercy! Please, kill me FIRST ! " —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:39, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Opinions or facts?[edit]

I believe this article is more about personal opinions (and a grudge against Dan Brown?) than it is about facts, and could use a re-write to a more neutral tone.

Does this qualification comes from a top-notch nanotech scientist? If so, quote him/her, else, be careful when making this kind of assumptions. Because it isn't publicly known, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

About the "underwater rifle", this article states: "However it cannot be as powerful as the author claims." Why, is your word is better than his? Just to point out: where are the facts?

On the ice ammunitions: The article says "ice is unsuitable as ammunition". Not true. I use hard pieces of ice with a fling, it provides excelent ammo with devastating effects (if my aiming was a bit better). =)

Also, the reasoning behind the conclusion is that "it has been disproved by the Discovery Channel program MythBusters". Don't know you, but I don't really think the experiments made in a TV show are a great source of scientific knowledge. Although this can be mentioned in the article, it can hardly be used as fact. 07:44, 15 June 2006

I'd like someone to examine and comment on the DNA analyzer used to check Rachel's DNA at the NRO which claimed to be able to accurately determine that it was her in 4 seconds. I'm not an expert, but having done some molecular biology, this seems way to quick a turn around. Comments? Thanks, Matt ***
I have to agree, even though Mythbusters is very fun to watch their conclusions aren't what one can call scientific proof.
Totally needs a rewrite, I am sick of this Dan Brown bashing on Wiki, it needs to STOP. His books are FICTIONAL and need to be discussed as so. Stop trying to poke holes in a fictional book...--SoxFanNH 22:09, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
A fictional book that claims that all mentioned technology exists. Which is not true. If we made just a footnote that the claim is not true without any explaination there would be people demanding sources/explaination, so I think this is the right solution. -mrbartjens 16:08, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree that some things in the novel is based on expiriments that are in their infancy, but some things , such as ice bullets, are true. Ice bullets are coated with a substance that allows the bullet to not melt when being shot out of a gun, as for the mythbusters show. It shows that we can't shoot ice out of a regular gun, the military doesn't have to use gunpowder (ie. magnetic artillery guns) Anhvuti 00:01, 2 August 2006

Not sure magnetic guns answer the mail but as the point of the ice weapons was to concuss and not to kill a weapon very similar to a paintball gun (using compressed air) is inside the realm of possibility. --Sircolin 19:54, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I've been checking out military jet articles on Wikipedia alot recently, no mach 2 F-14 exists, but is it possible Brown was possibly referring to the F-16XL ? Scratch that, the F-14A+ is actually listed as having supercruise ability. 01:02, 3 September 2006

This is what I figure - all the technology 'exisits' - but perhaps there is only one example of something, sitting somewhere in a research lab. And it depends on whether 'technology' is taken to mean the ability to do something using currently exisiting knowledge, or the actual implemention of it. I doubt that the "Smoke and Mirrors" projected holographic bit for the helicopter is actually real (but then, if it were, it would be classified).. But the pieces are there as far as I know - we can actually make digital holograms - it would just take a hell of a fast computer to make anything very complicated, and a very very powerful laser to project it (in full color..) - not to mention the cooling systems to keep such a laser from probably melting itself. Still, DB should just stop with the "Facts" page - for a person who writes about "symbology" all the time, he gets Triton wrong, saying he was the Greek god of the sea. Not according to Wikipedia - Triton was the messanger of the deep, Poseidon was the god of the sea (although perhaps this is one of the finer points of Greek mythology). (talk) 20:28, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Mariana Trench[edit]

Am I the only one who thinks the section on Mariana Trench is really poorly written? Citing Wikipedia? Using off-site hyperlinks to an on-site article? Could someone please rewrite that? VolatileChemical 01:44, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

You're not. I've re-written it to remove the internal quote/ref. It now has an external source, and wikilinks to Marianas Trench. Kuru talk 04:04, 2 September 2006 (UTC)


Okay, I'm sorry if I sound like I was paid to say this by Dan Brown, but citing MythBusters as pretty much conclusive evidence doesn't seem right to me. Fun show, yeah, but conclusive scientific evidence? Not really. It's kind of like putting a political poll up on a website and saying the results are an accurate representation of what the world believed politicly. WBHoenig 01:21, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Bathynomous giganteus[edit]

It is not correct to state that Browns spelling of the animal as Bathynomous Giganteus instead of Bathynomus Giganteus is a mistake. The spelling reflects a difference in English language usage worldwide. A quick google on B. Giganteus will turn up many articles and entries spelt with and without the O. --Brideshead 18:53, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Disputed Technologies[edit]

I am putting the full disputed technologies section back up, because it is mostly accurate and relevant. Some argue that it isn't accurate, because everything technological in the book is possible. However, that's not what Dan Brown said, he said "All technologies described in this novel exist". Technology is the implementation of scientific concepts. So in order for a technology to exist, it can't just be possible, it has to,...exist. So the flying microbot right off the bat makes the statement incorrect, because although we have small flying robots, and wireless recharging technology, we don't have any technology that can make it that small and unified. Same with the other technologies. There has to be at least one concrete example the same as it was in the book in order for that tech to 'exist' --Jake11 03:01, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

The section was removed in 2008 by an IP without comment [1], possibly because of the lack of sources. It would be interesting to have the claimed disputes backed up by reliable sources... --Roentgenium111 (talk) 17:41, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Delta Force Question[edit]

The new comment concerning Delta Force operators being referred to as operators and not agents, does this have any validity other than what is mentioned in "Inside Delta Force"? It's a great book, but there is some dispute as to its accuracy. --pevarnj (t/c/@) 06:23, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Rachel Sexton Wound[edit]

I added a para on one glaring inconsistency at the end of the novel - where all the characters are petrified of sharks and two of the 'bad guys' are torn to shreds by the sharks. Ms Sexton, however, is able to fall into the water with a "graze" and have nothing happen. Shankargopal (talk) 11:52, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, she did. But all the sharks had been scared away by the explosion on the bottom. Ti83 (talk) 10:02, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Why was the code solution + other sections removed??[edit]

This unexplained "cleanup" edit removed a lot of relevant information that could've at least been moved to the talk page, and should have been discussed first before removal. -- OlEnglish (Talk) 19:05, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Section on foreign language editions[edit]

Hello. A complete list of links to all foreign language wiki articles seems a bit over the top. I think a sentence saying the number of foreign language editions released would be sufficient. I can not find any featured article books with a list such as this. The note at the top of the list, referring to wikipedia, also seems odd, in that it seems unusual to talk about the project within an article. Beach drifter (talk) 16:57, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I have responded to this message here. Nightscream (talk) 03:13, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

OH-58 Kiowa helicopter[edit]

Please don't let anymore Dan Brown fans try and inject this book as any sort of reference to popular culture in the aircraft article. What figures prominently in the book is not an OH-58 of any type, despite Mr. Brown's use of the nomenclature. (Born2flie 04:17, 10 September 2006 (UTC)). (talk) 22:19, 23 September 2010 (UTC)The article says that the Kiowa was carrying Tomahawk missiles while the book say it was armed with Hellfires! Anyone care to make an edit? (talk) 22:19, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

First, please start new discussions/sections at the bottom of the page. Thanks. :-)
Second, if such an aircraft indeed appears in a given novel, then mentioning it in a popular culture section in an article on that craft is not unreasonable. Just out of curiosity, how is it that the helicopter in question is not the the one you mention, if Brown refers to it as such? Is it because he depicts it inaccurately?
Lastly, no one here has the authority to keep editors from adding such material, so long as it conforms to Wikipedia policy. If you feel that it does not, then we can discuss the matter on the talk page of either this article or that of the helicopter. Nightscream (talk) 23:02, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from, 7 November 2010[edit]

{{edit semi-protected}} Please change: The helicopter slides off the ship into the sea, sinking to the bottom. When the intense heat at the bottom ignites the Tomahawk Missiles still on the helicopter...

TO: The helicopter slides off the ship into the sea, sinking to the bottom. When the intense heat at the bottom ignites the Hellfire Missiles still on the helicopter...


Show all results for the wold 'hellfire'. See pages 369, 377, 417, and specifically page 425.

I just finished the book and this was fresh in my memory. (talk) 13:48, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Already done It looks like someone else changed Tomahawk to hellfire Inka888 19:49, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Pradeep717, 5 December 2010[edit]

{{edit semi-protected}} A new page for Deception point has been created in Malayalam language. Please insert a link to the same. ഡിസപ്ഷൻ പോയന്റ്‍

Pradeep717 (talk) 03:54, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done My76Strat 06:07, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Hungarian edition[edit]

Hi! Hungarian edition is titled:"A megtévesztés foka", published in 2005, isbn: 9637318739. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:17, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi, yourself. Thanks for the info. I've just added it. :-) Nightscream (talk) 21:16, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from, 21 January 2011[edit]

{{edit semi-protected}} Senator Sexton's full name was Thomas Sedgewick Sexton and he's the main antagonist. (talk) 15:50, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Not done: No need to give the full name, and calling him the "main antagonist" is borderline OR, so not really needed. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:03, 22 January 2011 (UTC)


The character Rachel Sexton is described as a "gister" but the link to gister is a disambiguation page. What's the particular meaning of this term? (talk) 20:01, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I believe that the term "Gister" as described for the character Racher Sexton means Central Idea or Main Substance of NRO, Dan Brown himself described her in chapter C paragraphs 17th of Deception Point as "Rachel worked here as a “gister.” Gisting, or data reduction, required analyzing complex reports and distilling their essence or “gist” into concise, single-page briefs." [1] Igniel (talk) 03:36, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Pruning the foreign language list[edit]

The list of foreign language translations is in discord with the usual way to solve it on Wikipedia, which is to use the other language articles describe it. The list as it was before my pruning is too much promo style in my opinion, readers are already provided with articles to the book in their language edition if they want to buy it. Saving a few links pruned here:


  1. ^ Statsbiblioteket. Department of the Danish National Library. Accessed November 13, 2011
  2. ^ Hr. Ferdinand (publisher in Denmark); Accessed November 13, 2011
  3. ^ A Megtevesztes Foka. accessed August 30, 2011.
  4. ^ Bod klamu at; Accessed August 11, 2010

Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 16:52, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

  1. ^ chapter C paragraphs 17th of Deception Point by Dan Brown