Talk:Angels & Demons

Antimatter volitility

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)

CERN on Angels and Demons

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)

CERN released a site covering the science behind the story (primarily antimatter and the 'God particle') to coincide with the movie release here: http://angelsanddemons.cern.ch/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thenoyes (talk • contribs) 13:01, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

vandalism

An unregistered user was deleting large parts of the article. I've restored large parts of it and have protected the article. -- fdewaele, 11 December 2006, 18:13

155.33.106.142 keeps deleting the Plot Summary. Please don't let this become an edit war. Either state why you want to delete it (copy right violation,...) and discuss it here or refrain from further damaging this article -- fdewaele, 11 December 2006, 18:30

Mr. Howard is that you? Just kidding (I hope). Also someone removed the extensive section on inaccuracies, pointing to other articles that don't go into all the details of the elements of those conspiracies and topics addressed in the novel.

Accuracy

I've tried a different approach to this section in the hope of adding some relevant criticism in whilst avoiding the dreaded fact list. The article does need to cover the inaccuracies of the book to be properly encyclopaedic and NPOV (it must be surely POV to sweep criticisms under the carpet) so I was hoping that the more general written discussion might overcome the encyclopaedic list problem.

Spenny 11:10, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Great, that approach seems to have survived. I need to question the citation that all the errors have been corrected which I rate as an implausible assertion. You may note that I softened it to some, but as the citation is Italian I think that it is not sufficient. It may well only apply to the Italian edition. I have two solutions, simply to say that in the earlier editions there were errors and leave a hanging implication, or someone would need to find a more reliable citation. I was also not clear whether the citation referred to all errors or just the language errors, I suspect the latter. Spenny 08:41, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Removed the following, don't disagree, it is just that it is one of 5000 problems with the book, and it seems to be the de facto consensus that a long list of faults was not appropriate. I have tidied up the Wiki Book link as anything goes there!

In the story, the murdered pope explained his allegence to science through his ability to conceive a child whilst continuing to abstain from intercourse. However, the Roman catholic church is opposed to IVF (see "Religious Objections").

Spenny 14:16, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

If this article went into all the errors in the book, it would be at least ten times the size it is now. The one which leaps out at me in particular is the characterisation of Gunther Glick, the so-called "British" journalist whose speech and thoughts are full of Americanisms, and who likens himself to some American journalist whom nobody in Britain has heard of, instead of one well-known to the British people. There's also the fact that, by virtue of the way cellphones work, calls cannot be made untraceable, as suggested in this book. -- Korax1214 (talk) 12:56, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Undue prominance to errors

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 then 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)

IVF (poss spoiler if you haven't read the book!)

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)

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)

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)

Biased

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)

I agree! I thought that Wikipedia is an Encyclopedia which provides information. But this article is no better than an amateur blog written by someone who dislikes, or is jealous of the author. I find the article quite annoying, and, although I really support Wikipedia, is ruining the reputation of Wikipedia at a time when it is still trying to establish itself as reliable and scholarly source of information. Would someone please completely rewrite this article and indeed most of the articles about Dan Brown. The article has many mistakes: the obsession with exposing Dan Brown's mistakes is overdone and not always correct: when I reread the book, I am unable to find them - or have they been corrected by Brown since the article was written? Maybe this author should now tackle a few other authors: perhaps check out Shakespeare for his portrayal of Venice, Greece, Rome or elsewhere! Ebrownless (talk) 12:38, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Inaccuracies

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)

NEW INACCURACY FOUND: in the book, it is stated that the Pope must speak Italian, Spanish and English in order to be able to be elected, which is completely inaccurate. It's true that the Pope is obliged to speak Italian, Spanish and, obviously Latin, but under no circumstances must the Pope have any command of English as a sine qua non requirement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rgljuarez (talk • contribs) 15:21, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

84.44.129.115 (talk) 20:41, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Inaccuracies regarding the antimatter container + the wireless camera

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)rabhin

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)

Film production

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)

Ancient

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)

Concerning everyone concerned about theAccuracy.

This is a Fiction Novel which means it is false, fake, not real. He might use real things in this novel but it is still Fiction. I don't mean to rant and this will probably be deleted, but still it is a fiction novel, so get off it and just read it for fun.

~Morgan_T0ny 10/20/2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Morgan T0ny (talk • contribs) 01:23, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Many people get their knowledge of history and science from popular media. Knowing what parts of fiction are accurate and plausible vs. which are not is useful and fun, especially for those of us who do know some things about those topics. Just because something is fiction doesn't mean it's off limits for speculation. Even experts do this, for every film that comes out (even obvious fantasy like "300"). See for example "Truth and Fiction in the Da Vinci Code" by Bart D. Ehrman, and "Past Imperfect: History According to the Movies" by Mark C. Carnes. Don't get upset because people criticize this in fiction, it doesn't detract, but rather enhances one's experience. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.53.58.195 (talk) 11:10, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I really get tired of hearing that argument. Good fiction fiddles with reality, but it doesn't ignore it. Brown's errors my not matter to you, but only because they relate to things you're not familiar with. I promise you that if the big reveal at the end met your own absurdity test (Langdon wakes up and it's all a dream; the real conspirators are Abraham Lincoln and George Washington, both of whom happen to be space aliens) you'd be just as critical. Isaac R (talk) 20:53, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

It's not so much that we can't stand criticism, but that it's irrelevant. The Tiber had one too many bubbles? Oh no! I just think literary criticism (like how he wrote the same book four times) should be the only ones mentioned, unless there's something really notable. If I wanted science, I'd read New Scientist - and I do. I don't know about typical Wikipedia policy, but other books don't seem to have quite such an... exhaustive list of inaccuracies. 99.244.97.75 (talk) 23:09, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Article Talk Pages are not message boards or forums for general discussion of the article's subject. They're designated for discussion on how to improve and maintain the article, and the only post above that touches upon this proper role is the 99.244's. Articles on other books do not have sections devoted inaccuracies because article content is dictated by the subject. The Da Vinci Code is the focus of much controversies due to its inaccuracies. Other books do not. Articles merely reflect this. Nightscream (talk) 03:16, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

janus

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)

Reception

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

External Links

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)

Historical conflict between science and religion

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)

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)

I've made a change to the sentence, which is hopefully acceptable. Dyaimz (talk) 21:51, 8 May 2009 (UTC)if u r like my and u like this good for u

STC

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

--Kelvin_HO^{Wiknerd(talk)} 15:37, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Internet vs the Web

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..."?

--Kelvin_HO^{Wiknerd(talk)} 15:33, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

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)

Yep. Chapter 2, Page 7. I've added the clarification. Nightscream (talk) 03:37, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Latin grammar and other matters

I would like to point out that Illuminati is plural (it means the Enlightened Ones; the singular is Illuminatus) so "Illuminati is" is a grammatical error. It happens several times in the article.

Concerning chronology: the stuff that Brown attributes to CERN (antimatter and that special plane) have not been invented yet, so one might imagine the story taking place several years in the future, solving the problem of the camerlengo's age. Of course this in turn creates problems with DA VINCI CODE, where the recent passage of the millenium was a plot element.

I would also like to say that if people use Brown's novels as a source of information (rather than entertainment), then I feel sorry for them. CharlesTheBold (talk) 19:57, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Where in the article does the phrase "Illuminati is" occur? I can't find it.

Both antimatter and the X-33 have been invented. CERN indeed produces antimatter, having first done so in 1995, but it simply cannot be produced to be stable for more than a fraction of a second, or in large quantities, or stored, as in the movie. As for the X-33, it was invented, but the first production model was not completed (a technicality, I know). But how does this pertain to the article? Nightscream (talk) 20:22, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Reply: "the Illuminati has also stolen a canister..." and "The horrible truth is that the Illuminati has put the stolen canister somewhere", both in paragraph 3 of the summary. The verb was "to have" rather than "to be" but the grammatical error is still the same. As for the chronology, I meant to say that the technology was a few years more advanced than ours and might be considered to be in the future. I was replying to an earlier comment that the Camerlengo was too old to have been conceived by artificial insemination.

CharlesTheBold (talk) 22:03, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Okay. I corrected the grammar errors. Thanks. :-) Nightscream (talk) 15:37, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Movie Puzzle

i would like to see a section on the main page dedicated
to documenting the nearly subliminal groups of dots
that flash on screen during the movie in the hopes
of figuring out what they refer to. so far i've seen...

domino or dice looking clusters
1
2
3
4 - antimatter cloud
5
6 - carbomb explosion
7
8 - helicopter ascent

symbols
star - Vittoria's face ransom video
triangle - spine of Galileo book

the dots are either yellow or black
though i haven't noticed a pattern
216.254.156.216 (talk) 16:42, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

First of all, any such material could only be added if there are published sources that discuss it, per WP:V. Second, what's with all the arbitrary line breaks in your post? Nightscream (talk) 23:09, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Synopsis

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)

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)

Character Names

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)

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)

Various questions and additions?

• "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)

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)

Story plot isn't right

"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).

This article isn't about the movie. It's about the book. Nightscream (talk) 13:37, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

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)