text:
Talk:The Lost Symbol

List of Places
It would be useful and relevant to include a section in the article listing and linking to all the important buildings/places visited in the book, including the Washington Memorial, Capitol Building, Washington Cathedral and a number of others. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.193.198.230 (talk) 10:10, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

People haven't read it yet?
C'mon, it has already sold over a million copies, and it's only 500+ pages long. You've all read it in one day, post the synopsis!

Here's from his page:

"As the story opens, Harvard symbologist Robert Langdon is summoned unexpectedly to deliver an evening lecture in the U.S. Capitol Building. Within minutes of his arrival, however, the night takes a bizarre turn. A disturbing object--artfully encoded with five symbols--is discovered in the Capitol Building. Langdon recognizes the object as an ancient invitation... one meant to usher its recipient into a long-lost world of esoteric wisdom.	When Langdon's beloved mentor, Peter Solomon--a prominent Mason and philanthropist--is brutally kidnapped, Langdon realizes his only hope of saving Peter is to accept this mystical invitation and follow wherever it leads him. Langdon is instantly plunged into a clandestine world of Masonic secrets, hidden history, and never-before-seen locations--all of which seem to be dragging him toward a single, inconceivable truth." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.53.59.87 (talk • contribs)

 * This is Wikipedia, the encyclopedia anyone can edit. If you are not satisfied with the current recap, please be bold and add one yourself. Thank you.  black ngold29  14:15, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

 * Yeah, but that wasn't a recap, it was the sort of thing that people knew before the book came out, based on advanced publicity. Anyone can read the back cover, we're talking an actual synopsis of the story, from somebody who has read it! ;) 68.53.59.87 00:28, September 20, 2009

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)

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)

The book's working title
This article 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)

 * 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)

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
 * 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  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.  :) --Elonka 23:52, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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))

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)
 * does it really need to be stated that Langdon is fictional? 67.176.160.47 (talk) 06:51, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

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)

 * 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)

 * 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)

Certainly not Anti-Masonic, however a lot of the stuff he trots out in it such as the ending bit about people becoming gods themselves is complete rubbish in the context of regular freemasonry. Also there is a danger that a statement like this could portray Freemasonry as a religion and that is a misconception that the Grand Lodges around the world certainly don't want propagated to the public.Jaquesdemolay92 (talk) 05:40, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

Something is really wrong, because I've SEEN this film! At least 3 years ago in fact. It was aired on TV. I was disappointed because the villain's final scene, where in the book he is eaten by the dark as he descend's into damnation, was cinematically underplayed. Am I from some parallel universe??? 2601:89:C600:E521:C046:95B9:A47E:2CF9 (talk)

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)

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)

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

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

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)
 * To my knowledge all of the puzzles have been solved, but putting solutions in the Wikipedia article really isn't what Wikipedia is for... In fact, the only information that should go into the article should be information that can be linked to a published reliable source.  See also Verifiability.  The puzzles are fun though!  FYI, the letter-number combinations are code for a phone #, and the numeric symbols on the front cover link to chapter numbers, similar to the circular puzzle from the DVC bookjacket. --Elonka 04:47, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The DiVinci Code section of Wikipedia has had the "solutions" found on it's Jacket cover for years. Just saying! Noah (talk) 06:04, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * please do not include actual solutions. just saying there are puzzles is sufficient enough for wikipedia. i know wikipedia has spoilers but this maybe a little too unexpected to readers as they may not even know about puzzles but they would have looked at answers forcibly before getting a chance to solve them. This is not like a sports event where results are expected. -- Ashish-g55 15:04, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Spoilers
Don't you think it would be a LOT smarter to omit Mal'akh's other identities, particularly as Zachary Solomon? I could see it coming, but it's easily the book's most important secret. Giving it away in the characters list is absolutely insane. I'm taking the Solomon alias off. +1 on this one! It totally ruined the whole twist! Since it in the majority of the book is different charaters it should be listed as that! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Resonance451 (talk • contribs) 06:42, September 21, 2009
 * It's a fair concern, but this type of thing has been discussed extensively, as to whether or not to include spoilers in Wikipedia article about books or other works of fiction. See also WP:PLOTSUM and WP:SPOILER.  There was even a major debate on whether or not a "spoiler" banner template should be placed at the top of any plot section, to warn readers that such information might be included.  But the consensus is that it's to be expected that an encyclopedic article about a book, will contain a concise summary of the contents of that book, and that no spoiler warnings are necessary. --Elonka 15:19, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I can understand that any reasonable person should be aware that the section titled PLOT is a spoiler and there's no need of a banner announcing it, but this is not always the case in the CAST section. you don't expect one of the most important secrets of the story to be in bold in the first lines of the section. I'm talking about Mal'akh of course. This is what happened to me: I skipped the plot section successfully, but then, there it was. and there is no way you can ignore it. it blows the whole story in a glance. please remove "Zachary Solomon" or at least flag the section as spoiler. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Princessche (talk • contribs) 23:37, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Not quite a spoiler, but interesting nonetheless; on page 373, when referring to the (questionable) etymology of the word 'sincere', meaning "without wax", DB makes a veiled attack on his previous book Digital Fortress, saying "Ironically, this same code had been a plot twist in a mediocre thriller Langdon had read years ago." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.185.67.121 (talk) 04:17, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Factual inaccuracies and mistakes

 * Heh, oh noes, a flaw in the book! That'll be one of about 357 errors, at least.  :)  Though as to which ones should go into the Wikipedia article, we should wait to see which ones are genuinely "notable" errors, as in which ones are being written up in outside press. If there's major controversy over an error or a misinterpretation of some sort, that's probably worth including, but other trivia (see WP:TRIVIA) though it may be fun to spot, probably isn't right for the article.  If in doubt of whether or not something should be included in the article though, please feel free to list it here on the talkpage so we can take a look at it? --Elonka 23:37, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

 * Or that someone with a recently severed hand is calmly walking around, playing tour guide, and walking up and down stairs? ;) Those are, alas, original research and we can't put them into the article. If, however, we can find (multiple) other sources covering these errors, then yes, they might be worth including. --Elonka 16:39, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree, a little too early right now, but it's worth noting that Brown's other books have sections or sub pages titled "Inaccuracies." 5Q5 (talk) 17:46, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

 * Here's a source that can be used for two of the inaccuracies: The direction of travel to Kalorama, and the highest point in DC. --Elonka 03:44, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

 * Um, seriously, the best we've got on inaccuracies is that he's got someone driving the wrong direction and misspelling Amtrak? Speculation over what you can "really" see from a plane landing at Dulles? With the intensely precise details on the history, structure and architecture of DC and the minutia on painting and sculpture, if Metro stations and plot faux pas are all we've got, then I'm sorry but imho this needs to stay on the talk page and out of the article. If someone can tell us (with references) that the Capital Building doesn't really have an SBB or the art doesn't really show what he says it does, then we've got something to write. Otherwise it's trivia, and the kind of trivia that simply makes everything else in his book seem stronger. Kevin/Last1in (talk) 12:28, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed that it would not be appropriate to create a section for just those two inaccuracies. But I'm confident that more sources will be available in due time. --Elonka 14:38, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

 * As per WP:TALK, this discussion should remain focused on ways to improve the article, and not a general discussion of its topic. It is not our place to add any information about inaccuracies unless they are supported by reliable, verifiable sources that specifically provide this information in relation to the book, as per WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:RS, WP:CS, etc. Nightscream (talk) 18:30, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Consensus requested - restore or keep off plot material
On September 22, five hours after I added some factual plot reveals to the article, an administrator came along and deleted them using the reason "condensing plot" (unusual since the plot was and still is sorely in need of expansion) The admin in question happens to be one of, some say the, world's leading experts on Kryptos, the CIA coded sculpture mentioned in Brown's novel and likely the upcoming nonfiction companion book. The effect of the edits was that the plot was returned to its minimal status, which helped Brown and the publisher, but not the Wiki article. I ask for consensus now on restoring the edits in the box below. The admin in question has given a green light to this consensus request on her talk page. I'm not saying the material is perfect, but that's what other editors are for, to tweak as needed. Please register your comments below, and if there is approval I will restore them Sat or Mon. They go in various appropriate places in the article. 5Q5 (talk) 18:55, 25 September 2009 (UTC)  Mal'akh destroys Katherine Solomon's Smithonsonian-sponsored laboratory, where she conducted successful experiments in the ability of the human mind to affect subatomic particles, in a fiery nighttime explosion.

Katherine enters the room and is reunited with Peter, who informs her that he had secretly made copies of her computer research records, which proved experiments that "demonstrated the effect of human thought on everything from ice crystals to random-event generators to the movement of subatomic particles."

[people are not God's subjects, but in fact possess the capability to be gods themselves]: the Second Coming is actually the Second Coming of man.

[In the end, Langdon realizes that the word is Hope.] The "lost symbol" in the context of the story, however, is revealed to be a copy of the Bible secreted away in the cornerstone of the Washington Monument deep underground. Unretrievable, it and whatever other secrets may be contained within are lost to time.

Also, here is supporting evidence that the "Lost Symbol" in the book's title is a tangible object, that being a copy of the Bible: Pg 471 : (style as written): Peter: "The Lost Word is buried in D.C.... and it does rest at the bottom of a long staircase beneath an enormous engraved stone." Pg 486 : Langdon: "The Lost Word was buried in the cornerstone of this monument on July 4, 1848, in a full Masonic ritual." 5Q5 (talk) 19:01, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

 * The plot needs to be longer. I came to this article after reading the book, and I really hoped it was so short because no one had bothered to expand yet. While I understand the desire not to be excessively long, the current summary is a joke. It is ridiculous how little is included here: It even completely leaves out the pyramid and the capstone! It seems to have the first few and last few chapters covered, only giving a list of locations for all the rest! There shall be spoliers on Wikipedia, and I hope that this article is significantly expanded to include all of the major and minor plot elements of this fantastic book. Reywas92 Talk  23:38, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

 * I restored the above plot detail to the article and added more. Still needs tweaking. 5Q5 (talk) 16:00, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

 * Plot section is currently at 750+ words, needs to be reduced by about 1/3. Yworo (talk) 16:12, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree that the plot section is too long. It keeps creeping up to a large size, and then someone condenses it, and then it creeps larger again, and we condense it...  It'll probably continue like this for awhile, so we'll just need to keep pruning until things calm down. --Elonka 20:06, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Umm, there's still nothing about the bulf of the book in the summary. It seems someone just added more detail to the final five chapters, but absolutely nothing about the actual search with the pyramid, the clues, the chase, and so on. This is a long book with lots of information, and I expect the plot here to be longer than a generic publisher's summary. Reywas92 Talk 21:04, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

 * Wikipedia policy is that the plot summary should be 300 to 500 words. It is not intended to be detailed or comprehensive. This is an encyclopedia, not a book review site. Yworo (talk) 21:06, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Yworo is correct. For more information, see the Wikipedia Manual of Style on this, at WP:MOSFICT and WP:PLOT. --Elonka 21:50, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * You seemed to have forgetten to read the rest of that paragraph at WP:PLOTSUM. "There is no set length for a plot summary" - If it's such a long book with so much information, there is nothing against it being a little longer. "Well-written plot summaries describe the major events in the work" - This one sure as hell doesn't do that. It wouldn't take much to cover the many events, but they are not currently in the article. It lists the locations in the book, but provides absolutely nothing about the major events at the National Cathedral, Library of Congress, SMSC, etc, or even about the pyramid, which drives the entire story. The last four paragraphs go into too much detail about the conclusion, and the first four are just an amalgamation listing places and objects mentioned, not a useful summary.

 * Right, this shouldn't be a "Plot-only description," but it should actually have the major points of the plot. It's not actually length I want, just the book's events (which take some length). I'm not asking for trivial detail, just a step-by-step representation of what actually happens. Rather than debating lenth, the entire thing needs to just be rewritten; it's absolutely terrible now. I can try do it but I'm not really great with writing new prose. Reywas92 Talk  22:06, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

 * I quit. Why are Brown's other novels allowed to have lengthy plot sections and not this one? I'm giving up on this article; too many suspicious edits attempting to keep the plot a secret, a situation worthy perhaps of a Brown novel itself. Here is my last plot-expanding edit on Sep 29 '09. Hey, Elonka, I notice you are mentioned by your full real-life name and quoted on page 7 in a publication currently in Books-A-Million titled Solomon's Key: Understand the Secrets of Ancient Symbols and Their Meaning, with an above the title blurb: "Companion Guide to the Lost Symbol (Dan Brown's New Novel)." Looks unofficial, but more will come. How many other editors are here with a direct or indirect connection to the book. I'm outta here, folks. You Brownies can what you want. Thanks. :) 5Q5 (talk)
 * I am mentioned where?? I checked Books-a-Million and saw this book, but if I'm quoted there, it's news to me!  What do they have me saying? --Elonka 18:13, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Page 7, far right column, 86 words about or quoting you on the Kryptos sculpture. "According to Elonka . . . " 5Q5 (talk) 15:37, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Interesting, thanks! Can you tell who the author of the book is?  There's no information at the Books-a-Million page. --Elonka 15:51, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Expansion of development section
I see that someone has tagged the Development section as needing expansion. However, to my knowledge, there just aren't that many sources that could be used for expanding this section. So since expansion doesn't really appear to be an option, should we merge this section with another? Or just remove the tag? --Elonka 03:54, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * His other two books do not have Development sections. I say remove the tag and merge or retitle the section. The only info that seems important is the publishing date and largest first printing in Random House's history. The other lines could go. 5Q5 (talk) 15:28, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

copyright
Interestingly for the first time there is the following paragraph in the copyright section:

''This book is a work of fiction. Names, characters, businesses, organizations, places, events, and incidents either are the product of the authors imagination or are used fictitiously. Any resemblance to actual persons, living or dead, or actual events is entirely coincidental.''

What a difference to the old days, when Brown trumpeted:

''FACT: The Priory of Sion — a European secret society founded in 1099 — is a real organization. In 1975, Paris's Bibliothèque Nationale discovered parchments known as Les Dossiers Secrets, identifying numerous members of the Priory of Sion, including Sir Isaac Newton, Botticelli, Victor Hugo, and Leonardo da Vinci.'' ''The Vatican prelature known as Opus Dei is a deeply devout Catholic sect that has been the topic of recent controversy due to reports of brainwashing, coercion, and a dangerous practice known as "corporal mortification". Opus Dei has just completed construction of a $47 million World Headquarters at 243 Lexington Avenue in New York City.'' ''All descriptions of artwork, architecture, documents, and secret rituals in this novel are accurate.'' Cheers, --84.190.11.192 (talk) 01:05, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

 * The first quote you stated is in vitrually every fictional book nowadays, so I don't see what's so controversial about that. Also the page immediately prior to the Prologue of The Lost Symbol is pretty similar to the second section that you have quoted, so I don't see much of a change there. Most importantly, what does any of this have to do with the article itself?  black ngold29  03:16, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

 * First quote - boy, but they weren't in the other dan brown books (please check yourself if you don't believe me). And second: The discussion page is supposed to be the forum to put together bits and pieces of info that probably will get more important in the near future and maybe make their way into the article. is that so hard 2c? cheers, --84.190.15.75 (talk) 20:17, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

 * Actually the discussion page is not supposed to be a forum. We can't add anything related to this discussion to the article without a reliable source which directly brings up this point, while also specifically referencing The Lost Symbol. So is there something here we can actually add to the article?  black ngold29  20:28, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

 * what about the fact that for the first time the publishing house felt obliged to add this fictitiousness-paragraph whereas in the past they did let Brown write about the correctness and factuality of every single detail in the books - all that based on the broad discussion of the factual inaccuracies in all of his books? but don't worry, I will wait and see, if there's a reliable external source for that before adding something to the article! --84.190.14.117 (talk) 14:51, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

 * Just to add to this discussion that in the portuguese translation there isn't any paragraph about ur first quote. Only the usual Fact thing that he uses in his books. So im guessing that "this books is a work of fiction ..." thing only appears in english books81.84.190.173 (talk) 06:30, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Washington Monument as the highest point in D.C.
"Brown claims the Washington Monument is the highest point in the city. This is false: the tower of the National Cathedral is the highest point. The Monument is the tallest building - 555 feet - but the Cathedral, which is just over 300 feet tall, is built on Mount St Albans, a 400 foot tall hill."

I believe what Brown wrote was that there was a kind of city ordinance prohibiting any structure over 555 feet in height being built. An ordinance that controls the actual highest point in the city when counting elevation is a silly notion, and not one I think Brown was asserting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Indil (talk • contribs) 07:56, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

 * Yeah, I think a few of these "factual inaccuracies" are stretching the term a bit. If you take a look at the National Geographic article currently cited in that section it states, "It's long been suggested that powerful Freemasons embedded Masonic symbols in the Washington, D.C., street plan... The Lost Symbol is expected to prominently feature "Masonic mapping"" Not only does The Lost Symbol not do that, it actually does the opposite by stating if you look for it in other cities you can find the same symbols—the book is actually debunking it. What does that say for the reliability of the rest of the article? As The Lost Symbol is a work of fiction it could say "Everything in this book is true", that doesn't change the fact that it can say anything because it's a work of fiction.  black ngold29  15:58, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The hightes point in the city (= DC) is Hughes Memorial Tower --84.190.33.161 (talk) 18:50, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The height of buildings in Wash.,DC is restricted by the Heights of Buildings Act of 1910 and that has again nothing to do with the Washington Monument. --84.190.33.161 (talk) 18:58, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

plot vs. spoiler
i think it's really childish to revert every time a decent, complete description of the plot is online, argueing that there might be spoilers for readers. come on! is this a kindergarten or what? wp is supposed to be an encyclopedia, even though so many collaborators haven't understood that yet. it's a pity. in an encyclopedia there necessarily has to be a complete description of the book. otherwise it's some sort of advertisement for the book. is that what you want, you reverters? --84.190.40.237 (talk) 22:38, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

The Shape of this Article
I'm starting by declaring an interest - I've written a book on Dan Brown's Lost Symbol (published tomorrow). I'm probably disqualified from editing the article myself. As a result I've spent a month thinking about this book. Points which seem relevant to this article:

 * My plot summary is 853 words, and I worked hard to get it that short. The Lost Symbol is a long book which is plot intensive. I think this sort of length is the minimum for a plot overview. Anything shorter will be commenting on just a selection of plot events (probably the start and the end) and therefore be an interpretation and distortion of the plot by the person who has written it. The concept of a plot summary in 300-500 words for this book is a non-starter - I don't think it can be done without such severe distortions that it is simply wrong. If 500 is seen as a maximum then far better delete the plot summary - it just can't be done in this few words without introducing errors.

 * Characterisation in this book is not an important element. Characters are flat and don't develop (both the author's intention). There are not many characters for a book of this length - certainly very few who have more than a walk on part. I don't see the point of a list of their names in this Wikipedia article. Maybe there could be a discussion of the main ones - but surely delete the list.

 * The initial critical reception was in my view of shockingly poor quality as newspapers competed to produce reviews in an unrealistically short times. Most (in my view) demonstrate just a skim of the book or reading of just the first few chapters and seem to have been at least partly written before the book was published. This Wikipedia needs to convey that these early reviews are impressions.

 * Surely something is needed on the themes of this book. Three big ones are the Masons, the CIA and Mystical Christianity. The pre-publication speculation was all around the Masons and the CIA and Mystical Christainity have to an extent been left out of much published comment.

The suggestion therefore is: add a proper plot summary, delete characters list (maybe comment on main ones), note that the reception is an initial impression, add a section on themes. Graemedavis (talk) 20:28, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * What you may wish to do is provide a rewrite of the article in your userspace, for example at User:Graemedavis/Draft. That way you can write the article the way that you think it should be written, but are not running afoul of conflict of interest policies.  Once your rewrite is complete, you can link to it from the talkpage here, and if other editors agree with your changes, things can be copied over.  Which still doesn't mean anything will be in stone, but it's a way to proceed. --Elonka 21:26, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * that's a thought, thanks. Graemedavis (talk) 12:59, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Length of plot section
This was already discussed briefly in an above section, but I wanted to create a separate section, to ensure that consensus is clear on this, as there appears to be edit-warring about the matter.

Wikipedia guidelines state that plot sections on articles should be kept relatively brief. "Brief" can vary depending on context, but in general the plot section should not be the longest section of the article. In the case of this article on The Lost Symbol, the plot section should be around 300 to 500 words. We have (or had) such a section in this version, at 530 words, but one or more anonymous editors on shifting IPs keep reverting to a longer version, with over 1100 words. The longer plot summary is also jarring to look at, since it includes so many bolded names.

If it were just one anon doing the reverting, we could block them, but since the IPs keep shifting, it is my recommendation that we request semi-protection of the article for awhile (2 weeks?). Semi-protection would still allow established editors to continue working on the article, but would prevent edit-warring by anonymous editors. Before requesting this though, I wanted to check consensus here. Are other editors in agreement that the shorter plot summary is the way to go? --Elonka 17:02, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

 * Well, it seems that quite a few anons are insistent on keeping the long plot summary. If bold names is your concern, I woould suggeest unbolding them. But in my opinion, 500 words is too short to properly communicate a plot. I would suggest a summary of 700-800 words, but that's just what I think. The long summary could certainly use some trimming down, but not so much that it just gives a brief description. Reminds me of the little blurbs on the back of novels on plot. I won't be editing this article myself, as I have decided not to in the wake of the edit-war. Just giving my opnion on the matter. (Iuio (talk) 22:54, 31 October 2009 (UTC))

To gain more opinions, so as to help gauge consensus on this matter, I have posted links to this discussion at WikiProject Novels/GeneralForum and Wikipedia talk:How to write a plot summary. --Elonka 15:59, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

 * There is no need to go too far into this as the established policies say what needs saying. Certainly the real world element on this or any novel should take precedence. My view is that the longer version of this one is "too much". However the single paragraph plot summary style is also too little. :: Kevinalewis  : (Talk Page) /(Desk)  16:45, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

 * I Don't understand the whole fuzz - the long plot description is perfectly okay with me. It's informative, it gives me an insight in structure, plot and characters, and I definitely do not think that it's too long. and wp:rules say, that plot descriptions can be as long as they have to be, depending on the subject. So I would really appreciate if we were to stop this discussion that is leading nowhere. cheers --84.190.5.240 (talk) 01:01, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

 * Personally, I prefer long plot summaries, but I could adapt to a shorter one, provided it has important plot points. I like the longer summary, but it could stand to be trimmed down a paragraph or two. I just think that the short one is unacceptable, since it's just not informative. The Wikipedia guidelines state that plot summaries are meant to help people who have read the book remember what they have read. That meants including how characters got from Point A to Point B. I don't like the short summary as it doesn't fit with that criteria, as well as missing out on several plot points. In addition, I would suggest not putting in the short plot summary if an anon reverts it to the long one again, just until this problem is resolved, so as to prevent further edit-warring. (Iuio (talk) 10:19, 3 November 2009 (UTC))

 * Just jumping in to clarify that the essay How to write a plot summary cited above is not a Wikipedia guideline and does not represent established policy. It is an essay representing the editorial point of view of some number of Wikipedians and should be used as a tool toward creating consensus, not as a tool toward edit warring or other disputation. --Dystopos (talk) 00:15, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

A Published Plot Summary and Other Info
As suggested by a poster above I've placed some information from my book on The Lost Symbol on my personal draft page. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Graemedavis/Draft The book is "The Lost Symbol - Found: Unauthorized Analysis of Dan Brown's Novel" and is available now on Kindle, and available in paperback format also in a day or two. I've put on my personal draft page a plot summary (in 853 words) which might contribute to the discussion on this talk page. I've also posted the introductory paragraphs from my book (which are already on-line in promotional material). If it is of use for this article I can provide other material. Graemedavis (talk) 14:05, 2 November 2009 (UTC) I've added a couple of paragraphs on critical reception, particularly criticising the newspaper critics who appear to have rushed into print after an ill-considred skim of "The Lost Symbol". Graemedavis (talk) 14:21, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * On reflection I've taken down the critical reception section. I've left the introduction (which is public domain anyway) and the plot summary which is offered for discussion in relation to the plot summary debate on this page (or indeed as an alternative, complete plot summary). Graemedavis (talk) 10:47, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

This page now deleted. Graemedavis (talk) 19:25, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Bestseller list
I would just like to note that this book is no longer the no. 1 bestseller. It has passed down to number 2.

The ref. link is outdated. The new one (where you can see that it's on no. 2 is : http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/22/books/bestseller/besthardfiction.html?ref=books —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.90.9.82 (talk) 15:24, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Codes on Cover
I think someone should try and create a section for the nice number of code hidden by Brown on the cover of The Lost Symbol. I've seen many other books where the Wikiedia page does this, and this book certainly deserves one. 74.215.173.84 (talk) 00:55, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Characters
I'm thinking Nuñez, the security guard at Washington Capitol should be added into the list of characters. Lwines97 (talk) 21:40, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * He's a minor character of no importance. Nightscream (talk) 21:39, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Nola Kaye
I have added the Nola Kaye character to the list of characters, along with the namesake for the character, Elonka Dunin, which is, well, me. I've also added a few third-party sources which verify the information. Since it's about myself, per WP:COI, I wanted to declare the information here on the talkpage, and invite other editors to review the information. --Elonka 15:47, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Merger proposal
I propose that The Lost Symbol (film) be merged into The Lost Symbol. I think that the content in the film article can easily be explained in the context of the book article, and the book article is of a reasonable size in which the merging of the film article will not cause any problems as far as article size or undue weight is concerned. 94.5.197.230 (talk) 03:36, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

 * That ignores the fact that as the film moves forward and is eventually completed and released, this will no longer be the case. A good illustration of this are the articles The Da Vinci Code (film) and Angels & Demons (film), which both posses content that is distinct from the articles on the books on which those films were based. By the time the release of the film version of The Lost Symbol is imminent, it too will likely bear a closer resemblance to the aforementioned film articles. Just be patient. Nightscream (talk) 05:26, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

 * It just seems a bit premature. The film doesn't have a script yet, and has lost the director. It's in a worse state than when this page was created, so it seems unlikely that it will be released in the next couple of years, if ever. Anyway, everything in the film article is covered in the book article, so for now it doesn't seem worth having an extra page. 94.5.197.230 (talk) 14:29, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

 * Oppose merge. It's standard practice to have different articles for book and film. If the film were a "maybe it'll happen, maybe it won't," I could see merging, but it's pretty clear that it's actively in production, so a separate article is appropriate. --Elonka 17:57, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose merge - They are two different artistic endevours. Rlendog (talk) 15:34, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose merge. Most films made from novels often cut swaths of material so as not to overload the film. Now granted, "The Lost Symbol" as a read was about as close to a script version as any book I've ever seen but I still think it'd be better to maintain the separate entries. Natty10000 | Natter  20:20, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on The Lost Symbol. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090424013621/http://news.yahoo.com:80/s/ap/20090420/ap_en_ot/books_dan_brown to http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090420/ap_en_ot/books_dan_brown
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/blogs/risky-business/dan-brown-lost-symbol-screenplay-61760

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 16:52, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on The Lost Symbol. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090423103238/http://www.thebookseller.com/news/83123-random-house-announces-dan-brown-date.html to http://www.thebookseller.com/news/83123-random-house-announces-dan-brown-date.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 11:15, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

title: Talk:The Lost Symbol


text:
2005 Japanese Grand Prix

The 2005 Japanese Grand Prix (officially known as the 2005 Formula One Fuji Television Japanese Grand Prix) was a Formula One race which was held at Suzuka International Racing Course on 9 October 2005. It was the eighteenth and penultimate round of the 2005 Formula One World Championship, the thirty-first running of the Japanese Grand Prix and nineteenth to be held at Suzuka.

Kimi Räikkönen won the race after starting from seventeenth, overtaking long-time race leader Giancarlo Fisichella on the final lap to win a race that saw many overtaking manoeuvres. Fisichella’s teammate Fernando Alonso completed the podium, having come through from sixteenth, including an overtake on Michael Schumacher around the outside of 130R corner.

The race marked Ralf Schumacher’s sixth and final pole position in Formula One.

This was also Räikkönen's last win until the 2007 Australian Grand Prix, his last win for McLaren and McLaren's last win until the 2007 Malaysian Grand Prix.

Background
Fernando Alonso was crowned world champion at the previous round in Brazil, but the battle for the Constructors’ Championship between McLaren-Mercedes and Renault continued at the penultimate round, with McLaren leading by two points.

At a press conference before the Japanese Grand Prix, Honda announced the acquisition of all shares in BAR. Toyota decided to bring the renewed TF105B to the last two races of the season.

Antônio Pizzonia, who was already at the wheel of Williams in the three previous Grands Prix, was confirmed as a replacement for the injured Nick Heidfeld for the last two races of the season as well. One option to replace Heidfeld's in the last two races was test driver Nico Rosberg. The fact that two races are run on new tracks prevented this possibility.

Practice
Teams that finished fifth or lower in the 2004 Constructors’ Championship were entitled to run a third car in free practice on Friday. These drivers participated on Friday, but did not compete in qualifying or the race. Of the six teams, only four had third drivers at Suzuka: McLaren (Pedro de la Rosa), Red Bull (Vitantonio Liuzzi), Toyota (Ricardo Zonta) and Jordan (Sakon Yamamoto).

Pedro de la Rosa was fastest in first free practice, completing 23 laps and finished more than half a second ahead of Ricardo Zonta, who was more than a second faster than Michael Schumacher in FP2. The weather took a turn for the worse on Saturday and had an effect on the amount of running in the final two practice sessions. Michael Schumacher ended up top of the timesheets in FP3, over two seconds quicker than Kimi Räikkönen, with Giancarlo Fisichella clocking the fastest time in final practice, edging out Narain Karthikeyan by 0.014s.

Qualifying
Qualifying was held on a wet track, with conditions later deteriorating, forcing some of the usual front runners to qualify near the back of the grid. Ralf Schumacher qualified on pole, edging out Jenson Button by 0.035s. Fisichella was third, with home favourite Takuma Sato in fifth. The end of qualifying saw the top finishers from the last race attempt to set a lap time. But by this point the conditions had worsened and Michael Schumacher, Fernando Alonso, Kimi Räikkönen and Juan Pablo Montoya all qualifying in fourteenth, sixteenth, seventeenth and eighteenth places respectively. Montoya did not set a lap time. Jarno Trulli and Tiago Monteiro also failed to set a time.

Qualifying classification

 * Notes:
 * – Kimi Räikkönen received a 10-place grid penalty for an engine change.

Race
Ralf Schumacher maintained the lead off the start, with Giancarlo Fisichella jumped Jenson Button and Red Bull's David Coulthard moved from sixth to eighth. But local hero Sato ran wide into the gravel at turn one and his right-front tyre was sideswiped by Rubens Barrichello. Both continued, but the left rear of Barrichello's Ferrari was punctured, leading to a pit stop at the end of lap one. Alonso made a flying start and was up to seventh by the time the field was completing the first lap. Raikkonen went straight on at the Casio Triangle chicane, before teammate Juan Pablo Montoya crashed heavily while coming onto the pit straight after trying to drive around the Sauber of Jacques Villeneuve, but the Canadian squeezed him and onto the gravel, making the Colombian the first retirement of the afternoon and severely damaging McLaren's Constructors' Championship hopes. The accident resulted in the safety car being deployed.

On lap 10, Sato attempted to overtake Trulli into the chicane, but never looked like pulling the move off and the resulting contact forced Trulli into retirement. Ralf was the first of the leaders to pit, coming in for the first of three stops at the end of lap 13. This counted him out of the running for the race victory, with Fisichella assuming the lead.

On lap 19, Alonso pulled off one of the most audacious overtaking manoeuvres with a pass around the outside of Michael Schumacher at the infamous 130R corner. Raikkonen had a sniff of passing the seven-time world champion into the very next turn, the Casio Triangle, but had to settle in behind the Ferrari. Alonso stopped first of the trio, but because he pitted for fuel before Michael and Raikkonen, he came back out behind the duo, with Raikkonen passing Michael on the pit straight on lap 29. On lap 32, Michael went deep into the chicane, giving Alonso the opportunity to pass again, which he did down the pit straight and swept into turn one ahead of the German.

Raikkonen made his final stop on lap 45, handing the lead back to Fisichella. But as he emerged from the pits, Raikkonen was about to go on a thrilling charge. Alonso had closed up to the back of the Williams-BMW of Mark Webber by the end of lap 49 and despite being forced onto the grass, the world champion was able to complete the overtake on the Australian and took third place. Raikkonen took 1.3 seconds out of Fisichella's lead on lap 49 and was now right on the rear-wing of the Italian. Raikkonen lined up the overtake going into the chicane, but Fisichella went defensive, leaving him vulnerable to an attack from Raikkonen, who was given all the motivation he needed to slingshot past the Renault into turn one to complete a brilliant recovery drive for his seventh win of the season.

Post-race
Jacques Villeneuve had 25 seconds added to his race time for causing Juan Pablo Montoya to crash out on the first lap, while Takuma Sato was disqualified from the final classification for his lap 10 collision with Jarno Trulli which caused the Italian to retire from the race.

Race classification

 * Notes:
 * – Jarno Trulli started from the pit lane.
 * – Jacques Villeneuve was handed a 25-second time penalty for his collision with Juan Pablo Montoya.
 * – Takuma Sato finished thirteenth but was disqualified from the final classification for his collision with Jarno Trulli.

Championship standings after the race
Drivers' Championship standings

Constructors' Championship standings

 * Note: Only the top five positions are included for both sets of standings.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: 2005 Japanese Grand Prix


text: Talk:List of storms named Javier

title: Talk:List of storms named Javier


text: Talk:List of storms named Jennifer

title: Talk:List of storms named Jennifer


text: Talk:List of storms named Jewel

title: Talk:List of storms named Jewel


text: Talk:List of storms named Jimena

title: Talk:List of storms named Jimena


text: Talk:List of storms named Joanne

title: Talk:List of storms named Joanne


text:
Talk:Hurricane John (1994)

Longest Lived Hurricane
NOAA says this is in fact the case. They make no mention of Pancho. The disturbance stages are included in that storm's best track, which may be why there is a discrepancy. -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 01:35, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

What is Pancho? ThatDudeThatLovesRollerCoasters (talk) 18:36, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Todo
Some kind of stucture...maybe a separate "records" section, I dunno. Jdorje 02:42, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

 * It's lacking any sources or an external links section! Jdorje 19:54, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

ACE
The most interesting part is the ACE of this storm. It was a long lived cat 5 hurricane. Maybe the hurricane with highest ACE. juan andrés 21:06, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

See Talk:Accumulated Cyclone Energy and talk:Accumulated_Cyclone_Energy/EPac_by_ACE. — jdorje (talk) 08:49, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

That proves me I'm wrong. Typhoon John had the 3rd biggest ACE overall. But the biggest East Pacific ACE. Thank you, really I was curious for the info. juan andrés 01:40, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

 * Note that John was both a hurricane and a typhoon. Note also that the Nancy ACE is overinflated because it's taken from the advisory data (Nancy was credited with 215mph winds).  So probably John ranks 2nd. — jdorje (talk) 03:55, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

 * San Ciriaco had an ACE higher than 73, which, according to the above tabulation, would be larger than John. 141.161.119.206 (talk) 18:51, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

A Class
Call me a bit biased, but I'm upping this one to A class since it's under consideration for a FAC. — C uivi é nenT on Thursday, 1 June 2006 at 20:13 UTC '''
 * No problem, as I was coming to do that myself. Tito xd (?!? - help us) 02:00, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Got another one! Great job Cuivienen. Hurricanehink ( talk ) 02:07, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Ophelia
There is a variable with Ophelia's record: the disturbance stage is included in the best track. I don't know if that would reduce the distance it is estimated to have traveled because I don't know if the disturbance stage was included in the measurement but it could be an X-factor with regards to that record. -- § Hurricane E  RIC § archive 23:46, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, the best data we have gives Ophelia an edge on John. If we could dig up a report on Ophelia, we could use that to check the data. —Cuivi é nen 03:08, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

WPac storm history
WPac storm history is really lacking. Not a single use of the JTWC ATCR - it's important because the JTWC failed miserably operationally with John (see 1994 Pacific typhoon season) – Chacor 14:05, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I've added a separate section on forecasting difficulties. I don't feel it really belongs in the storm history itself, and the storm history in the WPac was uneventful to say the least. —Cuivi é nen 03:04, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

John's lowest pressure
http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/archive/storm_wallets/epacific/ep1994/john/public/tcp2309z.gif

I know that this is operational data, but should we take it into account? ABC paulista (talk) 21:47, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Since you have provided a source, I believe this should be the minimum pressure for John and should be clearly stated in the article and its infobox. Just check with other users just in case they have something to say. Typhoon2013  (talk) 22:14, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
 * It's not in the best track for some reason or another so I'd be hesitant to include it. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 01:56, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
 * It should at least be given a mention in the text of the article.--Jasper Deng (talk) 22:20, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm going to add that in, with a source. Also if that's the case, and to note, then John would be the strongest storm in the 1994 PHS since Gilma had only 920 hPa. Typhoon2013  (talk) 00:39, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
 * This might be a problem and I might rv my own edit. If John's pressure was 910mbar estimated (in that source), then therefore it would be the strongest TC in the CPac basin, beating Ioke by 5mbar. We need to do some rewording in the "Records" section. Typhoon2013  (talk) 01:01, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
 * A record like this needs to be verified with the NHC/CPHC since it's not explicitly in HURDAT. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 01:44, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry I accidentally pinged the wrong person. Anyways, what should we do now? Do we just leave it? Should we discuss this with other users? Typhoon2013  (talk) 01:49, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Nothing should be done with the article for now. Next step would be to email the NHC/CPHC to verify if the pressure is reasonable or if there's a reason it's excluded from HURDAT. I'll ask around at the NHC and see if anyone knows what's up, though. I suspect that it's simply all non-observed pressures being excluded but we have to be certain. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 01:52, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
 * In this case, would be wiser to ask CPHC directly about this source, since that the cited advisory came from Honolulu, and like I and showed for Cyclonebiskit, there are many discrepancies between NHC and CPHC best track anda data. ABC paulista (talk) 02:58, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Yeah. Try contact them. The problem is that when I contact some agencies like BoM and PAGASA, they don't reply/message you back. :(  Typhoon2013  (talk) 04:09, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

I think those pressures were rough estimates given operationally. Not really analyzed thoroughly enough to be included in HURDAT since they all appear to be in 10 millibar increments. Supportstorm (talk) 18:06, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * To be honest, I don't trust HURDAT when talking about CPAC data. That's why I prefer to check with CPHC first before doing any judgement. ABC paulista (talk) 20:47, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Hurricane John (1994). 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:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/archive/storm_wallets/epacific/ep1994-prelim/john/prelim01.gif
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/archive/storm_wallets/epacific/ep1994/john/tropdisc/nep1094.001
 * Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/5gsJuFzTf?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.aoml.noaa.gov%2Fhrd%2Ftcfaq%2FE7.html to http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/tcfaq/E7.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www4.ncdc.noaa.gov/cgi-win/wwcgi.dll?wwevent%7EShowEvent%7E197724
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/orders/IPS/IPS-53E370C8-CDF6-4B89-9E1F-6A310071F216.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 23:29, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 24 April 2017

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (non-admin closure) TonyBallioni (talk) 21:54, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Hurricane John (1994) → Hurricane John – Very |Hurricane_John_(2006)|Hurricane_John_(1982)|Hurricane_John_(1978) prominent John since it's one of the longest living tropical cyclones worldwide. And, even the 2006 page is much more larger in bytes, i'm pretty sure that this John IS a primary topic. --SMB99thx XD (contribs) 10:28, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose no benefit to readers in removing the year of a regular event, and not the only Hurricane John. In ictu oculi (talk) 11:37, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
 * There are more Hurricane Johns than this i admit! And, reason why i want to change it (even it would not benefit it) because it was a very prominent hurricane (much more damaging or much more intense, causing the popularity of that storm) and beats any other hurricanes with this name, causing this hurricane to be stand out from other hurricanes with this name. --SMB99thx XD (contribs) 13:35, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose – seriously? Hurricane John (2006) was much more significant. There's no clear primary topic here, but 2006's John is closer. –  Juliancolton  | Talk 15:16, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose I disagree with the fact it stands out. Yes, it's the longest lived system, but one could argue the 2006 version, which is one of the more destructive 2000's EPAC storms, was more significant. YE Pacific Hurricane  15:56, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose There were numerous "Johns" at the EPAC and, although 1994's one was the most intense, it was neither the most damaging nor the most fatal one. In the Tropical Cyclones Project, when there are muliple storm's article with the same name, the primary topic is usually defined by the one that caused the retirement of the name, but John is still present in the EPAC name list. So, it's fair to say that there's no clear primary topic yet. Finally, in the Tropical Cyclones Project damage and death toll are bigger criteria for significance than intensity and lifespan. ABC paulista (talk) 16:10, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Infobox winds
In this kind of Infobox, it is only meant to show the winds when the system attained its peak intensity, and in John's case, its peak intensity was under CPHC's area of responsability, not JMA's one. Also, it would be confusing for the reader to understand that both 1-min and 10-min are reflective to different basins and different since we also apply unnofficial JTWC winds to non-NWS agencies' areas of resopnsabilities. That's why in all mutiple-basin storms, we only add the peak intensity of them, regadless the basin where it achieved it. So infoboxes about storms like Gay, Paka, Oliwa, Dora, Leon–Eline and others don't include winds and pressure of the other basins that they travelled. ABC paulista (talk) 16:08, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh, didn't realize that. Thanks for pointing that out :P --MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 16:21, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Hurricane John (1994). 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080924074803/http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/tcfaq/E6.html to http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/tcfaq/E6.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/tcfaq/E7.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www4.ncdc.noaa.gov/cgi-win/wwcgi.dll?wwevent~ShowEvent~197724

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 08:16, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

WP:URFA/2020
I am reviewing this 2006 FA as part of the FA sweeps to determine of older FAs still meet WP:WIAFA. I did not uncover any indications of too close paraphrasing or copyvio or copying within Wikipedia without attribution. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  04:36, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
 * A wikilinking review is needed (eg Category 5).
 * One independent news report, and all the other sources weather sources? Odd considering the significance described in the lead.  Not mentioned in any other general news or books?  Staff Writer (August 26, 1994). "Island braces for Hurricane John". Gainesville Sun. p. 4. Retrieved December 12, 2009.  All other sources are government weather-related ?
 * Citations should be checked for completeness, eg "Cold and Warm Episodes by Season". August 4, 2014. Retrieved August 11, 2014 all citations need a publisher.
 * Update (still true? as of when ? The sources are 1995 and 2004.) "Hurricane John, also known as Typhoon John, was both the longest-lasting and the farthest-traveling tropical cyclone ever observed. "
 * A copyedit for redundancies would be helpful. See User:Tony1/How to improve your writing for redundancy reducing exercises. Samples only:
 * Over the course of its existence, John followed a 7,165-mile (13,280-km) path from the eastern Pacific to the western Pacific and back to the central Pacific, lasting 31 days in total. --> -->
 * John lasted 31 days and followed a 7,165-mile (13,280-km) path from the eastern Pacific to the western Pacific and back to the central Pacific.
 * The origins of Hurricane John were thought by the United States National Hurricane Center (NHC) to be from a tropical wave that moved off the coast of Africa on July 25, 1994.[3][4] The wave subsequently moved across the Atlantic Ocean and Caribbean without distinction, ---> (the wave could not have moved across the ocean before it originated off the coast of Africa)
 * The United States National Hurricane Center (NHC) thought that Hurricane John originated from a tropical wave that moved off the coast of Africa on July 25, 1994.[3][4] The wave subsequently moved across the Atlantic Ocean and Caribbean without distinction,

 * More independent news sources can probably be added but no promises. Tropical cyclone discussions from the NHC and CPHC should also be incoperated when posible; a 17kb article for the longest tracking TC ever is a bit underwhelming. YE Pacific Hurricane 09:08, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

How far exactly did Hurricane John travelled?
I noticed that the distance travelled provided in this text is inaccurate. Does anyone have the original track data that can directly indicate the travel distance?

Besides, does the track of extratropical cyclone count in travel distance? Clearly, we didn't count the lifetime of extratropical form of a cyclone when saying "Hurricane John has a lifetime of 31 days". Ustczyh9 (talk) 18:46, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

 * I use the best track data collected from IBTrACS and got the length result of 13,856 km (8,611 mi). Ustczyh9 (talk) 19:49, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
 * WMO and NHC both seem to agree that it tavelled for 13,180 or 13,280 km. And no, its extrtropical life doesn't count per both. ABC paulista (talk) 21:49, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I noticed that the "WMO" record is from Arizona State University. The data is confusing since it use "miles" which should be "nautical miles" instead. I've emailed the manager of the website. Also, the data is different from its citing source (NOAA).
 * The extratropical path length is very short for Hurricane John, as from the track data it is less than 50 miles, so my estimation is not exaggerating. Ustczyh9 (talk) 16:25, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Freddy and John
The WMO has announced that it will be looking into whether Freddy has broken the record for the longest-lasting TC. As such, I advise that the lede not be updated till the WMO releases its report.  Java Hurricane  13:18, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

 * could you mention what RSs you are thinking of? I would avoid normal news sources, even if RSP mentions that they are otherwise reliable; I'd wait for the WMO, RSMCs or some other experts in tropical meteorology to say this; and even then the record is unofficial till the WMO certifies it.  Java Hurricane  16:05, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I disagree. Like I said on other discussions on the matter, I don't think that we need to wait for the WMO on this, since their methodology seems to be unknown for us, since we don't know how much they consider the RSMC data on it, how long it will take, if the investigation will ever finish, and how reliable is their record-keeping, since there are seemingly outdated info and inconsistent data, like the "Smallest Eye", "Largest Eye" and "Smallest tropical cyclones" ones, for example. I think that, as long as we have reliable sources on the matter, we're good to go and should only be reverted it if the WMO directly states that their findings contradicts with this record. ABC paulista (talk) 16:12, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't count WaPo news articles, or even NYT, sufficiently reliable for this. We need either subject experts, RSMCs or the WMO to officially certify this to count it as official. To not count news articles as wholly reliable for scientific topics is not a new viewpoint; WP:MEDRS is a case in point. Though medicine is also admittedly a rather different beast.  Java  Hurricane  17:11, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
 * As for the inconsistencies on the WMO records page, that seems to be lazy updating rather than actual issues in recognising data from RSMCs; and we have a solid RS, such as the NHC for Marco and Wilma. I'm not averse to noting that Freddy might have broken the record, but mentioning it as an official record is just wrong till it is WMO-certified.  Java Hurricane  17:14, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Call it what you prefer, but it still constitute as inconsistencies that do undermine its reliability. ABC paulista (talk) 19:21, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Reliability is determined by what other sources say about the source, not what we think about the source. Show that the WMO's reliability has been questioned multiple times, or we'll have to treat it as a full RS as that's what most sources refer to it as.  Java Hurricane  03:42, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
 * It falls on the Inaccuracy and WP:OLDSOURCES categories, which both are to be assessed by us, comparing to other reliable soruces. And both decrease reliability. ABC paulista (talk) 13:44, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Yet the overwhelming consensus of other RSs is that the WMO is a reliable source. This is evidenced by the fact that other RSs routinely use WMO data in their reporting and treat the data as reliable. I am yet to see a case for us to go against the consensus of RSs here; and one poorly updated website is not sufficient for that. Which brings us back to the original point: until the WMO certifies the record, it is not official, and that is what the article should reflect.  Java Hurricane  15:39, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
 * The talk point is not about the agencies themselves, but the specific case of their record-keeping, which I assume was never deeply discussed. Also, just because a source is considered reliable doesn't mean that everything that comes from them should be accepted without any analysis, reliable sources can be outdated or mistaken. Also, the fact that the WMO's records section cite them with little to no contextualization or discussion, serving more as a compendia could make it fall into WP:TERTIARY. ABC paulista (talk) 16:32, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Now that I think of it, I have to say that we've gone off on a tangent here which is not really related to whether Freddy's records should be mentioned. Let me give an analogy: suppose there has been a discovery of a record-breaking phenomenon. This discovery is widely reported in news sources and commented on by experts. However, the record is provisional, or unofficial, till the observations are scrutinised in depth, i.e. a peer-reviewed paper is released on the matter and widely accepted. This is the situation here: the WMO has announced a research project to investigate the records of Freddy. Until the report, which will likely be peer-reviewed, comes out, the record is provisional, and the articles should reflect this. And as far as the reliability of the WMO itself is concerned, WP:RSN is thataway if you want a full discussion on this.  Java Hurricane  08:31, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
 * The thing is, there's no prevously known process of peer-reviewed record-tallying from the WMO or the other RSMCs, for us this is quite new territory, so there was little regard in TC records to what was official or not and all of them were lumped together, since the RSMC had the data and never showed much care for "trivial" records like this one before. I, for example, the one who brought up to the NHC that Typhoon Ophelia, the previous record-holder of the farthest-tavellng cyclone, had is travel distance inflated by its extratropical phase, and when I got the answer they said that they just treated the data points and didn't verify the status of the system, thus why it was erroneously included there. They care about Best Track and advisories, not much for trivial info as such.
 * What I'm trying to say is two points: 1) The WMO and the RSMC don't give much attention to record-tallying, so in this specific subject, they shouldn't be considered more reliable or hold more WP:WEIGHT than other reliable specialized sources, and their info should be jugded on the same basis that the others are; and 2) Because the WMO and the RSMC don't give much attention to trivial record-tallying, the distinction of a record being official or not doesn't matter enough for this distinction to be made, as long as the supposed unnofficial one doesn't directly confronts or contradicts the official data provided by the aforementioned agencies.
 * Freddy's record pass in both points: It is supported by reliable specialized sources, and its data can be verified in MFR's operational and current Best Track data. ABC paulista (talk) 16:38, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
 * It's not just news media, but also specialized media like Wunderground or The Weather Channel, being backed-up by reputable professionals, like Jonathan Erdman, Michael Ferragamo, Wes Peery, Jason Nicholls, etc. I think that's enough for now, and if WMO debunks these statements, we can treat them as WP:OLDSOURCES and revert all back. ABC paulista (talk) 19:49, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
 * This would justify marking as an unofficial record, but not official, unless an RSMC or the WMO explicitly state so.  Java Hurricane  03:44, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
 * IMO, whethever it's official or not is not that important for now, and I don't see any article making distinction between official and unnoficial ones. ABC paulista (talk) 13:38, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
 * That's because as a rule we don't mention unofficial records.  Java Hurricane  15:30, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Never heard of such rule on this project, and since many of the records cited in the articles that are within the project's scope aren't backed-up by the WMO or their respective RSMCs/TCWCs, and pretty much none of them cite the distinction of being official or not, I doubt that this matter was ever seriously discussed. ABC paulista (talk) 16:38, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Any examples of such records not backed by the RSMC data?  Java Hurricane  08:21, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
 * The List of tropical cyclone records has some of them, like Typhoons Carmen and Wiknie having the Largest eye, Wilma having the smallest one, Patricia having the fastest intensification, Ivan causing the fastest seafloor current, etc. ABC paulista (talk) 16:44, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Hurricane John (1994)


text: Talk:List of storms named Jova

title: Talk:List of storms named Jova


text: Talk:List of storms named Juliette

title: Talk:List of storms named Juliette


text: Talk:List of storms named Julio

title: Talk:List of storms named Julio


text: Talk:List of storms named Katherine

title: Talk:List of storms named Katherine


text:
Talk:List of storms named Kathleen

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Hurricane Kathleen (1976) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 02:45, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

title: Talk:List of storms named Kathleen


text: Talk:List of storms named Kay

title: Talk:List of storms named Kay


text:
Talk:Hurricane Kenna

Todo
More impact. Jdorje 20:35, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
 * How's that? Is it a B-class? I doubt it, but I'm just checkin'. íslenska hurikein #12 (samtal) 15:16, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Not quite. A damage total would be nice, along with more info in general. Retired hurricanes should generally have a higher standard for articles. --Hurricanehink ( talk ) 18:18, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but retirement means so much less outside of the Atlantic and West Pacific. In terms of actual damage this storm was comparable to 2005's Bret, so I wouldn't expect a very big impact section from this storm. However as a Category 5 hurricane a fairly hefty storm history should be possible. In particular the NHC struggled with the intensity forecast, look at this graph.--Nilfanion (talk) 18:29, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * True, but how do you know the actual damage was similar to Bret's? The article says that 80 to 90% of the houses were damaged in one city, a few houses were destroyed. Also, Kenna is one of 5 retired EPAC hurricanes. You're right though, storm history should be longer. 48 hours before becoming a Cat. 5 it was only forecasted to get to 85 mph winds! --Hurricanehink ( talk ) 18:33, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah its crazy on the intensity, they admit that they always have problems with rapid intensifications. The TCR gives $5 million damages in Puerto Vallarta (population about 150K). According to this site San Blas has about 12K inhabitants. From that fact, my guess that the damage is about that is reasonable I think. However, reasoning (good or bad) is no good for the article, a number would be good...--Nilfanion (talk) 18:49, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I should look before I speak shouldn't I? this USA Today article says early estimates of "more than $50 million". However my guess is almost certainly correct to within an order of magnitude, and <$100 million in Mexico will not give much info.--Nilfanion (talk) 18:56, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I would say the damage in Puerto Vallarta is much more likely to be in the $50 million range than the $5 million. One hotel had a whole residential block demolished which alone would account for $5 million. Also 'hundreds of buildings were destroyed along coastal areas of Puerto Vallarta', seems a bit over the top. There was nothing like that much destruction. If you said between PV and San Blas then that is much more likely, though there was a lot of damage to businesses due to storm surge and flying debris though this was mostly not structural.--189.164.158.44 (talk) 04:21, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Failed GA on hold
I recently reviewed this article and I really feel that it is not ready to be a Good Article. After comparing this article to Hurricane Andrew (which is a Good Article), I rated it in the following way:

Well written: Failed, see below

Factually accurate and verifiable: Passed, many good references.

Broad in its coverage: Passed, includes all necessary information

Has Neutral Point of View: Passed, seems to be NPOV, statements about its destructive power and notability are stated objectively.

Stable: Passed, not frequently edited

Pictures: Passed, five meaningful pictures

I feel this article is poorly written. There are a few instances needing copyediting for grammar. Several confusing phrases appear (the first paragraph includes the phrases "strengthen lesser" and "favorable upper-level conditions" which made me scratch my head). The "Storm history" section is repetitive ("shortly after" is used far too many times). And overall, it just doesn't seem to flow well. This article does seem very promising (and I think that next time around it will be one), but I feel that this article needs more time and rewriting before it can be considered a Good Article. Thunderforge 21:23, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I apologize for not being clear of what I meant. Basically, I mean that there are some sentences that are overly complex, such as the second one. I think that by reading the article aloud a few times, the instances where things just don't sound right will become evident. As for instantly failing the article, I apologize for that too. It's been a long time since I've reviewed Good Article Candidates and I wasn't aware that there was an "On Hold" status now. I would have given this article that rating had I known at the time. Thunderforge 22:25, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah, ok, that makes sense. I gave it a copyedit, and I don't see anything wrong after two reads. Hurricanehink ( talk ) 22:39, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Passed GA
I made a few needed copyedits, and it's now suitable IMHO to be passed as a Good Article. So have you wished it, so shall it be... - Aerobird Target locked - Fox One! 16:36, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Hurricanehink ( talk ) 17:10, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

typos everywhere.
why are all these hurricane articles so poorly written? Did someone just copy/paste this their term paper?

"There, sustained winds reached an estimated 06 mph (170 km/h).[" 68.38.197.76 (talk) 02:39, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Hurricane Kenna. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140716085913/http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/2002kenna.shtml to http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/2002kenna.shtml
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ifrc.org/cgi/pdf_appeals.pl?rpts02%2FmxHurricaneIB01.pdf
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://reliefweb.int/node/112276
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://reliefweb.int/node/112210
 * Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/67w70qET4?url=http%3A%2F%2Fgcportal.guycarp.com%2Fportal%2Fextranet%2Fpopup%2Fpdf%2FGCPub%2Ftropcyc_02.pdf to http://gcportal.guycarp.com/portal/extranet/popup/pdf/GCPub/tropcyc_02.pdf
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.vallartaonline.com/news/HurricaneOlafisNowaTropicalStorm/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140716085913/http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/2002kenna.shtml to http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/2002kenna.shtml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 23:37, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Hurricane Kenna. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081006122021/http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/2001juliette.html to http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/2001juliette.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://gcportal.guycarp.com/portal/extranet/popup/pdf/GCPub/tropcyc_02.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 08:18, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hurricane Kenna. 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:
 * Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/67w6TZUcM?url=http://www.vallartaonline.com/news/HurricaneOlafisNowaTropicalStorm/ to http://www.vallartaonline.com/news/HurricaneOlafisNowaTropicalStorm/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 23:20, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

WP:URFA/2020

 * duplicate links
 * Alt text needed
 * Decent bit of academic lit

Listing at WP:FARGIVEN. CCI check not done. Noah Talk 23:31, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

title: Talk:Hurricane Kenna


text: Talk:List of storms named Kenna

title: Talk:List of storms named Kenna


text: Talk:List of storms named Kenneth

title: Talk:List of storms named Kenneth


text: Talk:List of storms named Kevin

title: Talk:List of storms named Kevin


text: Talk:List of storms named Kirsten

title: Talk:List of storms named Kirsten


text: Talk:List of storms named Knut

title: Talk:List of storms named Knut


text:
Talk:Bronson Pinchot

High school
Did he really go to Pasadena High School? The site famous-alumni says he went to South Pasadena High School. (South Pasadena is an entirely different city from Pasadena.)-- Bovineone 06:05, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
 * For reference, IMDB confirms that he actually graduated from South Pasadena High school in 1977 . I see the article has already been corrected by someone to reflect the correct school. -- Bovineone 02:06, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Regarding this line:

"In 1985, while appearing on the short-lived TV series Sara, he briefly jerked off on Johnson Ct. in North Hollywood with several roommates."

...I'm not sure whether the author meant to type something other than "jerked off", or perhaps was from another country and is unaware that in American English, to "jerk off" means to masturbate. I would edit the line, but I'm not sure what actual meaning was intended. Can someone confirm the meaning of the Ct?

Please see http://ffc.fcstuff.com/viewtopic.php?id=6179 for details.

Ct. is the abbreviation for "Court" - typically a dead end street.

No, you're wrong. There is no court on this street.

 * Yes, and one imagines Johnson Court intersects with Penis Place. - Nunh-huh 23:58, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Perfectstrangers.jpg
Image:Perfectstrangers.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 06:35, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Perfectstrangers.jpg
Image:Perfectstrangers.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 23:37, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Ashkenazi Jew?
User 201.235.161.132 has added Bronson Pinchot to the List of Ashkenazi Jews. I have flagged this here because of the four changes made by 201.235.161.132 to date, the other three have all been vandalism. Please could someone with a better knowledge of the man identify whether this is true or false? -Stelio 12:51, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

He is not Ashkenazi. He is Bukharian Jewish on his father's side of the family. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.236.160.1 (talk) 16:19, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Difficult?
What's the source for saying that Mr. Pinchot is difficult to work with? --From Andoria with Love (talk) 14:49, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Since nobody has responded or supplied a source for this line, I will remove it from the article. --From Andoria with Love (talk) 12:27, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Someone keeps putting the comment back in. --139.142.208.98 (talk) 18:51, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I saw that and I'm glad it was dealt with properly. I love how the anon said it was common knowledge yet he couldn't provide a source for it. If it were common knowledge, there would be a valid source. --From Andoria with Love (talk) 04:34, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm the one who put that item in and it is common knowledge that Pinchot is (or should I say 'was' ha ha ha) difficult to work with. My dad worked on "Perfect Strangers" for about a season and said Pinchot was a major pain in the ass and the whole television community knew it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.150.243.48 (talk) 03:14, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

 * Unfortunately, your father's unpublished (and thus not capable of being cited) opinion on the matter is ineligible for inclusion.  Vincent   Valentine  04:26, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough, how about this then? http://news-briefs.ew.com/2009/10/21/tom-cruise-bronson-pinchot/  Or this? http://celebedge.ca/Dramarama/ContentPostingDramarama3column?newsitemid=a730f89e-19db-40d2-ac7f-15e60814ec7a&feedname=RYAN_PORTER_GOSSIP&show=False&number=0&showbyline=True&subtitle=&detect=&abc=abc&date=False .... I could go on. Do I need to? Think I proved my point.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.93.186.237 (talk) 15:56, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

 * Those links both refer to an interview where Bonson Pinchot spoke about other actors (many years after they actually worked together), they say nothing about him being difficult to work with.  Susan118   talk  21:08, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

And I removed the comment again. Just because someone's daddy says he is 'the most difficult actor to work with' is certainly not enough for the inflamatory comment to stay in. Even if ONE article states it, it just isn't enough to have such an inflammatory remark written. Keep it in the blogs or other personal internet sites, not in Wikipedia. Mylittlezach (talk) 19:12, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

more recent pic?
I'm no long term wikipedian, but isn't the pic from 1987 a bit dated? Can't we use a more recent one?

How about http://www.nndb.com/people/634/000025559/bronhead.jpg

207.237.198.131 (talk) 21:49, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree, a more recent picture would be nice. I'm not familiar enough with the copyright/fair-use issues to upload one myself. Susan118 (talk) 15:50, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

 * Here's a photo of Bronson from 2012 and it's free to use under Creative Commons: http://www.flickr.com/photos/goodrob13/8221479226/ 74.102.78.224 (talk) 13:04, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Statements not supported by references
Some claims are made that Bronson Pinchot "tore down the town center" and "made the fire department move outside of town". These claims are not supported by the articles referenced. Susan118 (talk) 15:50, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

PA land issue (under "Personal Life")
I've revised this section a few times to clarify and to remove unsupported statements, but am starting to question whether it needs to be included at all. It seems that this is a minor local issue that got spread through the media simply because he is a celebrity, but not something that is significant enough in his life to be included in a bio. Susan118 (talk) 02:28, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Since no one seems to have anything to say about it, I'll remove the text in question.--Susan118 (talk) 21:13, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Youtube as a source
A Youtube clip is cited as a source for mentioning that he was engaged to Amy Heckering. According to Wikipedia's Reliable source policies, youtube clips are not generally a reliable source, but "In some cases, video clips published on YouTube may be acceptable as primary sources if their authenticity can be confirmed, or as a secondary source if they can be traced to a reliable publisher, but even then should be used with caution". I would say this is not true in this case, especially as it is an audio-only clip of an interview that is supposedly of Amy Heckering. Anyway, is it worth mentioning that they were engaged? I wouldn't think so, although it is interesting that she involved him in some of her projects while they were engaged (which isn't mentioned in the article). I could probably dig up something that would better support the statement of their engagement than a youtube clip, but I'm not sure it should even be mentioned.--Susan118 (talk) 21:48, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

 * I'm going to give it a couple of more days, and if no one objects, I will remove that line, since the youtube clip is dubious as an acceptable source. --Susan118 (talk) 23:29, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Another category?
Does he also belong in the "People from Pennsylvainia" category given his considerable interests and apparently large periods of time spent there? 75.200.0.32 (talk) 00:53, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Pinchot on Fox News
Pinchot just appeared on Fox & Friends (02/11/2012 9:01 AM EST) promoting his upcoming show, The Bronson Pinchot Project. Fox & Friends' Clayton Morris kept calling him "Brosnan" (as in Pierce Brosnan). Pinchot interrupted Morris and then went off on Morris at the very beginning of the interview (!), asserting that non-professionals such as waiters often call him Brosnan, but not professionals. Pinchot then told Morris to just sit there with his good hair and be quiet. Morris then interviewed Bronson, seemingly unaffected by Bronson's comments. Later in the short interview, after Pinchot refused to do his Balki character, Morris did the Balki character and Pinchot told him that it was terrible (it wasn't) and how it was like a stagehand stepping forward to do the impression until they could get a professional to do the impression. The article could be improved by bringing out this side of Bronson's personality (might help explain his lack of work) or his views on work staff (e.g., waiters and stagehands), which probably appear in prior reliable sources should someone decide to spend the time to look. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 14:20, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

 * I agree, he has a decades-long pattern of this, which does show up from time to time in articles about him bossing other actors around, and even in an interview where he disparages wait staff (http://www.littlereview.com/getcritical/interviews/pinchot.htm). I added a link to an interview with one of his Perfect Strangers co-stars (https://perfectstrangersreviewed.wordpress.com/2020/02/06/interview-with-rebeca-golden/), who says that he constantly sexually assaulted her during the show, but it keeps getting removed. 97.81.89.5 (talk) 16:17, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Semiprotected
I have semiprotected this article for a week. A reminder that we cannot use self-published sources like blogs for any type of controversial statements about a BLP, per WP:BLPSPS. --M asem (t) 22:38, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Filmography
Pinchot was in a 1990 made-for-TV movie called “Jury Duty: The Comedy” (https://m.imdb.com/title/tt0099907/reviews) 108.26.228.73 (talk) 17:29, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Bronson Pinchot