Talk:The Lost Symbol

Update required

This book was first rumoured to be released in early 2007 and now it is August of that year and still there not much info. Sadly Brown won't release anything. I wish we had another update from my favorite author. Mehicdino 09:36, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

The book's working title

This article [1] indicates that the title 'The Solomon Key' has been dropped. Presumably we should keep an eye out for a new working title and redirect this page there once we have it? Just to alert people...Peeper 11:15, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd say wait till any oficial announcement is made, either way. --soUmyaSch 11:17, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Re:

• Sighs*

This is the same ol' regurgitated junk that's been handed down to different folks all the way back from the 1700's.

I know exactly where Dan Brown is going with this--I've already read up on what certain cults have to say about King Solomon.

Here's the picture; first of all, he's going to talk about some sort of secret society (most likely the Illuminati will be involved within the storyline) and he'll tell you that the masons trace all the way back to a guy named Hiram (who allegedly was a mason and helped Solomon build the temple).

Then, he's going to tell you how they "got involved" with American politics--he's going to tell you about the "Great Seal" which was drawn up by the Treasurer of the USA at the time (who was a mason).

Somehow, he'll fit in the fact that they were involved behind the French Revolution which inspired us Americans to do the same thing (the last part being a lie).

Then...

Lastly, he'll tell you about their traditions and gods who gave them wondrous power and how that we can maximize our potential if we realize that we can have this kind of power too.

Guys...this is old junk.

It's as old as the hills--it the same ol' power grab stuff that satan tried to give Eve in the garden.

--JJ

The French Revolution took place after the American Revolution, and had a lot of its inspiration from the American Revolution. Other than that, I completely agree with your point. Knowledgesmith 05:42, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

To some of us this is not old hat and entertaining. People just need to realize that it's fiction. -d1rk — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.213.8.13 (talk • contribs) 16:53, May 10, 2007 (UTC)

Have you guys ever looked at the map of Washington DC (through Google Earth) around the important governmental buildings? With the patterns created by the roads and some of the buildings, you could find a lot of symbols related to the Illuminati, Satanism, the Masons, and the Jews (Star of David). -- Davo88 06:48, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

request for experienced wikipedian

This article contains sentences like:

"and the fact that the most recent U.S. Presidential election was a choice between two members of the Skull and Bones secret society" without any reference to proof.

In short; it doesn't meet my standards, and it probably doesn't meet wiki standards either. Is there any1 experienced enough to decide how to edit this article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.10.25.60 (talk • contribs) (22:40, May 27, 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion! When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the Edit this page link at the top. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes — they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome.

You are correct that all statements on Wikipedia should have appropriate references, though with things growing so quickly (we get about 2,000 new articles per day) the level of referencing is often sadly lacking on many articles. If you see a statement that you believe is false, you can either remove it, or request a citation by adding the {{fact}} tag at the end of the section in question. Hope that helps, and if you have any questions, let us know.  :) --Elonka 23:52, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

The whole article is fairly light on verifiable information - I took a pass through here about a year ago to clean it up and missed the "fact" claim. I've modified that sentence to simply a list of topics that were cited as possible coverage; but without any 'conclusions' on the veracity of the topic. Please jump in there if you see anything else out of place! Kuru ^talk 00:05, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Unnecessary tag

This article opens: The Solomon Key is the working title of an unreleased novel currently being worked on by Dan Brown. Exactly how stupid must a reader be to not then realize "This article or section contains information regarding scheduled, forthcoming or expected future book(s). The content may change as the book release approaches and more information becomes available."?

This is an example of a truly unnecessary tag. I know that there are Wikipedians who believe that tags are the greatest thing since sliced bread. But I cannot imagine a newspaper or magazine article, a televised story, or an encyclopedia entry, that would feel it necessary to include both of these statements at the opening of an article like this. One clearly negates the need for the other. Anything that is unnecessary and redundant is inherently poor writing. Wishing to avoid poor writing, we should monitor our use of tags.

Tags warning against POV or lack of verified information are one thing, but this kind of tag serves absolutely no purpose at all. No one reading the opening sentence will fail to realize that the book can still change. For heaven's sake, it even mentions in the opening that the title is a working title, which clearly indicates that things can change. Why on earth does anyone think that this tag is needed? Unschool 03:15, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Massive Cleanup Needed

I intend to clean-up this article soon, but I wish for some feedback on my proposed rewrite first. 1) Remove the 'Likely speculation section' per WP:Crystal and/or WP:NOT. This section is entirely inappropriate. 2) I shall attempt to find sources for the content of this article and statements in that section. 3) Depending on how much actual VERFIABLE information for content I can find I may restructure the article. 4) I'll attempt to find some form of release date or range of release dates. If anyone has any problem with this propsed plan please speak now. I shall commence this rewrite in a day or two. Many Thanks 03swalker (talk) 16:36, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Where did this come from?

"After the successful publication of The Da Vinci Code, there were rumors that Dan Brown had a clandestine summit with a few prominent Armenian scholars; this information first originated from conspiratorial sources in the Near-East and could not be confirmed or denied." This line needs a source or it needs to be deleted.(PhilipDSullivan (talk) 21:38, 15 February 2008 (UTC))