Talk:Inferno (Brown novel)

Secrecy

The secrecy of the translation is just a display of stupid spamming. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.145.200.153 (talk) 12:56, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Factual inaccuracies and controversies

Apart from the Manila thing, this looks like OR and largely undue. Can we remove it? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:29, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

When referring to fiction, nothing is OR. Articles on fiction in Wikipedia often have such paragraphs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.149.122.155 (talk) 09:53, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Bad research

At one point reference is made to putting Pandora back in the box, Pandora was never in a box, she was the one who opened it to let out all the troubles of the world. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.29.129.105 (talk) 12:38, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

The purpose of this talk page

A Talk page in Wikipedia is a relating page to the article itself; for the purpose of improving the article, not as a discussion forum on whether you like the Dan Brown action novel or not. However, I found your thoughts interesting. TNKS, Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 11:02, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Remove spoilers from this article

Remove spoilers from this article... please it ruins a good read when the reader already know the twists that Langdon faces when he gets to know about FS- 2080 and Dr. Marconi.

Please see WP:spoiler for guidance. As for the work being a good read, that is WP:OR, as a good read is a subjective experience. Personally, Brown has a habit of taking poetic license to the extremes of the 007 character's license to kill, killing the facts mercilessly in order to plod the story along.Wzrd1 (talk) 14:12, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree to the previous comment over removal of spoilers. Thought WP:spoiler terms a spoiler as another form of text, but it's a different case here. This article reveals the climax of the novel and thus may seem even offensive to the author as it may violate copyright and royalty rights. Moreover, ethically, giving such detailed spoilers does not seem good to me, as to a reader, the climax should be known entirely from the book, and not from somewhere else. Shreyas1011 (talk) 09:00, 9 May 2014 (UTC)shreyasg1011

We do not remove spoilers. If you feel we should, you will either need to change this project wide (expunging Rosebud is a sled, Darth is Luke's father, she is a he, the South loses, everybody dies, Jesus comes back, etc.) -or- provide a compelling reason why this case is different from all of those (spoiler: it isn't). Yes, the climax of the novel is revealed. Offensive to the author? That's a shame, but he'll wipe his tears with his millions and somehow manage to go on with his life in his solid gold mansion with unobtainium toilets. Violates copyright? No, it doesn't. The climax is just like any other plot point. Discuss it as much as you would like. "Ethically" you've decided that one particular piece of one novel is sacred, but exploding Death Stars, farm girls returning to Kansas and Keyser/Verbal's identity isn't? Interesting concept. Again, this novel is like thousands of other novels, movies, TV shows, lyric poems, limericks, knock knock jokes, etc. The plot is encyclopedic information, including whodunit. - SummerPhD (talk) 16:53, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Surely a person who wants to avoid spoilers will simply skip over the plot summary?

Massive inaccuracy in the article vs both the novel and biology

First, I removed the nonsense about bubonic plague, that was mentioned frequently, but was not the plague induced by the "mad scientist". Bacteria can cause some genetic issues, but not many. Competent authors know this and use a virus as a vector, as this author did. To be blunt, I'm only rather annoyed at wasting a night reading the novel to find the fact that a bacteria was not the cause, as this article proclaimed, but was due to a virus that was designed to cause sterility in 1/3 of humanity, which is a special kind of magic reserved for authors of fiction. More simply, people, the evening news gets it wrong half of the time. A virus is different from a bacteria. Small hint, bacteria also are infected by various virus kinds, bacteria are unable to infect a virus. Off of my soap box.Wzrd1 (talk) 05:34, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Length of Vayentha passage

Someone has edited it so that Vayentha's character passage is huge, describing in detail her part in the story. I say this should be scaled back to a simple character description - even Langdon only gets one line. Alternatively somebody could bring the rest in line with her's; I'm not prepared to do that because I don't think the story should be told on a Wikipedia character section, that's best left for the book itself, and, to an (obviously) far lesser extent, the "Plot" section of the page. Without just deleting what this person has written, I invite others to give their opinions.

• I cut back the section. The plot details belong in the plot section so are unnecessary in the character section. Rlendog (talk) 21:29, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Wrong historical facts

Dan Brown claims in a short preamble that all descriptions of artwork are accurate. This accuracy distinguishes Dan Brown's work from other works of fiction and makes it much more fun to read. But sadly there are at least three historic facts that are not accurate:

- Botticelli's "Map of Hell" is NOT a painting, but a book illustration on vellum.

- unlike the book states, Venice has NEVER been conquered by the Ottomans.

- The horses of Saint Marc's Basilica have been brought to Paris under Napoleon, but they NEVER adorned the Arc de Triomphe, for wich they would have been far too small. In fact, they stood on the much smaller Arc de Triomphe du Carrousel near the Louvre, where you can still see copies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.115.250.108 (talk) 13:38, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

New strains of the black death

I added this to the article today:

See also

• New strains of the Black Death could emerge [1]
  — | Gareth Griffith-Jones |The WelshBuzzard| — 12:33, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Why? The article doesn't seem to mention the book. Rlendog (talk) 19:50, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

I know, but it is current news that is relevant to the novel. — | Gareth Griffith-Jones |The WelshBuzzard| — 20:32, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

"See also" is a section intended to refer the reader to other wikipedia articles related to the same subject. It is not a spoiler section, and the link referred to is irrelevant for an article about Dan Brown's novel. I're removed it. 93.184.194.104 (talk) 09:23, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

On the jacket of the book inside there are letters that are standing out, maybe related to K1 kryptos I see HAIGIA

maybe related to an alexander — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.49.219.76 (talk) 22:58, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

The Association for Research Into Crimes Against Art

Why is this a section in the article? It comments on one line of a very book. If we're going to give more information about each organization listed that's fine, however I feel as though this is simply an addition to advertise this particular website.

I'd like to petition to remove this section, barring any objections.

Thanks Hydramix (talk) 05:40, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Plot

Is the plot correctly recounted? It seems in part to come from the film! Figures are metioned that don't seem to appear in the book (Bouchard, Sims - only known as "The Provost") and names of actors (Irrfan Khan, Sidse Babett Knudsen) are given. The ending does not correspond to what I have read in the German edition. 31.18.193.245 (talk) 11:04, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

IMHO the actors involved in the film should not be included in the details of the book's plot. There is a Wikipedia page for the film, which is where such details belong. RGCorris (talk) 13:39, 5 April 2017 (UTC)