|↓||Skip to table of contents||↓|
|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Dan Brown article.|
|Archives: Index, 1|
|This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard. If you are connected to one of the subjects of this article and need help, please see this page.|
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
|This article has an assessment summary page.|
|This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot I. Any threads with no replies in 90 days may be automatically moved. Sections without timestamps are not archived. An archive index is available here.|
Edit request on 17 May 2012
|This edit request has been answered. Set the
My friend is called Dan Brown. This is not him.
Edit request on 18 July 2012
|This edit request has been answered. Set the
Please add under Philanthropy: Partnering with the New Hampshire Charitable Foundation, Brown and his wife established the Dan & Blythe Brown Foundation, which provides ongoing funding to charities nationwide in support of various causes aligned with its philanthropical priorities. http://www.nhcf.org/document.doc?id=236 page 14, donors Sarahmont (talk) 15:11, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
- Not done. Once you are confirmed you should be able to expand the article yourself.--Canoe1967 (talk) 06:20, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
What kind of a response is that? If the addition is not legit, then explain why? And if you don't feel like adding it, then why not abstain from responding entirely?
- I apologize if my above post seemed harsh. An editor asked for assistance at help desk to clear the back log. I was just helping out in good faith. These pages are protected for various reasons. I found that many requests didn't need a template, but just a regular talk page request or IPs creating accounts and/or users waiting the 4 days and ten edits to do it themselves.--Canoe1967 (talk) 07:29, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Please add in the Philanthropy section: In April 2011, Brown made a major gift to Amherst College and established the Dan & Blythe Brown Scholarship Fund to provide scholarship aid to students with demonstrated need. https://www.amherst.edu/media/view/425849/original/Brown%2BDan%2BScholarship%2BFund.pdf Sarahmont (talk) 13:30, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
Film adaptation of The Lost Symbol
Currently the article states that: "A film adaptation of The Lost Symbol is confirmed to be in production for 2012 release." However, both references given are three years old. Almost three quarters of the year 2012 have passed with no sign of the movie going into production. The article on the movie says: "So far, there has been no sign of the movie going into production." So I suggest that we remove the mention of a 2012 release unless a source from this year is provided. --18.104.22.168 (talk) 10:25, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
The article states that he is born on the 22. June while the info box on the right side says he is born on the 22. July. Im not sure which one is right, if anyone knows, please fix it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 16:01, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
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
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.
- 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)
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. 126.96.36.199 (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.188.8.131.52 (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.184.108.40.206 (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)