Talk:Dan Brown

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Inferno[edit]

I'm not sure if it was intentional or not, but when one clicks on "Inferno" under the 'notable works' section, it links to a general "inferno" page, not to the book's page. i would edit it myself, but im not exactly sure how to edit that particular section... if someone wants to edit it, the following is the correct page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inferno_%28Dan_Brown_novel%29

if someone wants to just tell me how to do it, i can after work tonight. Osmo250 (talk) 01:10, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Here is how I would do it:

  • First check on the proper name of the WP page in question;
  • You can do this with a Google-search [Wikipedia Inferno];
  • This yields the WP page: Inferno_(Dan_Brown_novel) ;
  • Now, you have two choices:
  • You can either refer to "Inferno_(Dan_Brown_novel)" enclosed in double-brackets; or
  • (or) you can enter Inferno_(Dan_Brown_novel)|Inferno in double-brackets and "Inferno" appears, linking to desired page.

Thanks for asking; I didn't check yet to see if that has already been done. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 10:57, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

 Done, TNKS to someone — Do a 'find' on [Inferno] and see that all four refs link to proper WP page.
  • PS: When you want to see good Wikipedia writing techniques, briefly go into 'edit' on a good WP page.
  • Notice the use of bolding for the Inferno novel title. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 10:57, 29 June 2013 (UTC)


Research[edit]

Considering the fact that Brown is well known for making things up out of whole cloth with absolutely no basis in actual fact, perhaps the part about the 'research-intensive nature' of his writing should be...reworked. 94.255.173.237 (talk) 10:24, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

No. Just because, as a novelist, he invents/twists "facts" to suit his book does not in any way negate the research he does do, which is arguably intensive. If the article made a judgement call on the quality of his research (i.e. it was always accurate) or use of that research (i.e. he never strays from the sources) then that could be changed. But the intensity of his research, as it relates to how long it takes him to write his books (which is what the rest of the sentence says "Because of the research-intensive nature of his novels, Brown can spend up to two years writing them."), is accurate as it stands. Although finding an RS to back up that particular claim would be advisable. Vyselink (talk) 15:02, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
As the man claims that 99% of his books, beyond the obviously invented characters, are true, and there is LARGE amounts of rebuttal to this, I'd say that while it may be intensive, calling it research is nonsense. He makes up things out of whole cloth. His WORK may be intensive, but if it isn't factual, it isn't research.85.229.59.77 (talk) 22:44, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

A) Pretty sure he's never claimed "99% of his books, beyond the obviously invented characters, are true", so unless you can find a reliable source that states that he has in fact claimed such, that part of your argument is just as made up as you claim his works are.

B) Where are the "LARGE amounts of rebuttal" to this claim that you just invented he made?

C) Merriam-Webster definition of research (found here):

1: careful or diligent search

2: studious inquiry or examination; especially (NOTE: DOES NOT SAY EXCLUSIVELY): investigation or experimentation aimed at the discovery and interpretation of facts, revision of accepted theories or laws in the light of new facts, or practical application of such new or revised theories or laws

3: the collecting of information about a particular subject.

Since his facts and conclusions are of the fictional type, i.e. he uses them for work in his fictional novels, you are more than welcome to argue the conclusions that he has come to at some other point. But, the wording that his work is research intensive, regardless of how he uses that research, is accurate. Vyselink (talk) 23:01, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Mea culpa: My apologies. He has in fact claimed that it is 99% true, so I must give you that. However, the wording as it stands is still accurate, as regardless of how he uses his research, and of how accurate he claims it to be, he still conducts it. Vyselink (talk) 23:05, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

If I spend two years, purportedly doing research, and makes the number of severe errors that Brown has done, have I actually done any research? Or have I merely goofed off at spectacular levels for two years? His books are all full of the sort of brain-melting errors that the most basic of studying should have avoided.85.229.59.77 (talk) 20:13, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

You still have yet to give a valid reason for changing the wording, other than that you consider the faults in his book to mean he hasn't done any research. Research does not mean 100% always accurate. He may do the research and decide to ignore it or fictionalize it for his books. Either way, he has done the research. So far your argument has been your distaste for an author of fiction books fictional take on history. The one point you made, about the nature of his "work" as compared to "research", has already been shown to be not valid, as proven by the dictionary definition of "research" given above. Vyselink (talk) 20:40, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Edit for bias[edit]

Hi, I'm a fairly new editor and am not sure how to properly flag an article for attention, but I see some issues with this page. Several articles of intentional slander seem to be inserted, such as "of no talent," stating that he won the "Most annoying smoker of the year award, 2015" and referring to him as "Danielle" Brown. It seems that this whole article probably needs to be examined for bias and slanderous insertions. Hoff0839 (talk) 17:17, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Dan Brown. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:32, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Remove libelous comment about Jack Dunn?[edit]

There was a a comment about Jack Dunn added on Apr 1 with no citation and seems potentially libelous. Should it be removed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rkhwaja (talkcontribs) 07:21, 5 April 2017 (UTC)