Talk:The Lost Symbol

Novels Stub‑class High‑importance

	Novels portal 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, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.NovelsWikipedia:WikiProject NovelsTemplate:WikiProject Novelsnovel articles
Stub	This article has been rated as Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article has an incomplete infobox template! - see Novels InfoboxCode or Short Story InfoboxCode for a pattern.

This article was nominated for deletion on 29 December 2005. The result of the discussion was keep.

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)[reply]

I just posted a link for the new cover in the "New Cover" section below -ice —Preceding unsigned comment added by Icefreeze57 (talk • contribs) 14:47, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

I'd say wait till any oficial announcement is made, either way. --so U m y a S ch 11:17, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

JJ - you so smart - *sigh* 203.3.197.249 (talk) 05:27, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Guys, it's a fictional book. While some of it may be based on real conspiracy theories it is still a fictional book. He isn't saying it is true, he's writing a book. JK Rowling isn't attempting to say that Hogwarts is a real place. --86.141.141.68 (talk) 16:56, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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. :) --El on ka 23:52, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/10/02/60minutes/main576332.shtml

I'm unfamiliar with editing so this may be in inccorrect format.

Perhaps the writer was referring to the Bush vs Kerry election. Both members were Skulls and Bones members I know and I tried to find a link. Someone more experienced with this may be able to find a better link to proove this information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.253.164.194 (talk) 15:19, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

-The third refrence is broken 75.134.19.185 (talk) 02:03, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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))[reply]

I always wondered about Harvard

A sentence in the article reads:

"According to current information, The Solomon Key will be the third book involving Robert Langdon, the fictional Harvard University professor."

Despite my once being a postdoctoral fellow at Harvard, I've long suspected that it might not really exist.

(Seriously, though, perhaps it would be worded better as

". . ., The Solomon Key will be the third novel by Dan Brown involving the character of Robert Langdon, a Harvard University professor.")Daqu (talk) 06:35, 3 May 2008 (UTC

I've changed it to "According to current information, The Solomon Key will be the third book involving the fictional Robert Langdon, a Harvard University professor." - hope this is better 84.71.123.26 (talk) 16:05, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-Masonic ?

While the Da Vinci Code is often considered to be an anti-Catholic book, it's still unclear whether Salomon Key is anti-Masonic or not. Given Brown's affinity for esoteric knowledge, I don't think it can be labeled that way, and some may even view it as a kind of promotional book, much like Da Vinci indirectly gave publicity to Opus Dei. ADM (talk) 05:56, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

|Honestly I don't think you can call a work of fiction anti-anything and remain without bias. Nobody even knows how much they will factor into the novel.Sch-u740 (talk) 02:30, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

|Just finished it - I'm a Mason, and I think it's nothing but complimentary to both Blue Lodge and Scottish Rite Masonry. Definitely not Anti-Masonic whatsoever. If anything, it will lead to more men inquiring about joining the Craft. MrBill (talk) 04:11, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Film?

Does anyone know if there is going to be a movie of this eventually, as with Angels & Demons and The Da Vinci Code? Molly moon 19:36, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is the possibility, since Ron Howard has stated that he intends to complete the Langdon 'trilogy' but I wouldn't include a mention because there have been no details and the book hasn't even come out.Sch-u740 (talk) 02:30, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New cover

Need to update the cover, it's no longer this one —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.253.236.228 (talk) 14:04, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a link to the new cover http://www.borders.com/online/store/TitleDetail?sku=0385504225&cmpid=SL_20090707_RWB

I do not know how to change the picture :( I tried but i dont want to mess up the rest of the page :)

best of luck -ice

People are holding their breath...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/09/AR2009090901795.html?nav=rss_email/components Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:56, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Symbologist" link

I see in all three articles on Langdon novels the world "symbologist" links to our rather ugly and confusing symbology page. Should it link to Symbolism? Something else? Joshdboz (talk) 13:54, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Isn´t "symbologist" a made up proffesion? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:06, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Out now!

The book is out now, hopeing a rewrite soon :-)210.84.56.186 (talk) 08:59, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Added jacket cover puzzle summary

If any more of the "puzzles" are solved, please update the main page to include the solutions. Thanks so much! Noah (talk) 23:10, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]