Talk:Brisingr/Archive 1

Archive 1

Crystal Ball

I would say that this article differs from the Harry Potter articles for a number of reasons. This is filled with suggestions and ideas from fans, not with actual known facts about the next novel (see Prior speculation on Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince.) However, I believe that this style of writing provides some valid ideas about the next book. The article requires editing for consistency and style, and I am prepared to continue doing this, but it requires a lot of work. I have added a clean-up template to bring in outside help. However, there is one section that I do not believe adds to the speculation: comparisons between Inheritance and Star Wars and LotR. I feel we should delete this. Others? Ck lostsword|^queta! 17:25, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree. It does not improve the article in any way (that I can see). I say delete it. (11987 07:27, 27 April 2006 (UTC))

Delete it and I will copy and paste it again and again until you are tired of deleting it.

Why do you want it up anyway? Whats so good about it that you feel inclined to do anyting to keep it up? (11987 08:26, 30 April 2006 (UTC))

It sometimes helps me on my speculation.

I wouldn't have come up with half of my ideas without it.

Yes, but we could find comparisons for almost every book, but we don't always have to note them. (11987 20:33, 5 July 2006 (UTC))

Speculation Page

I just came up with a possible solution for all the speculation. Would it be possible to create a independent page for all the speculation/theories/original research/similarities and on this page just have all of the facts and statements made by the author. i would be happy to create a page and move all of the speculation to that page. Does anyone else agree/disagree with this plan? (11987 10:03, 2 May 2006 (UTC))

We could create a sub-page of the article. However, a simple page move might be more effective. The only problem is, there would be very little left on this page. If we include a Known Facts section at the top of this page, perhaps including interviews with Paolini and other related text, whilst keeping the speculation at the bottom, I think it is fine as it is. The current article is conspicuously lacking in actual, citable fact. Another problem that I have seen is the lack of order and structure to the article: "Unconfirmed Rumours" and "Speculation" are in essence the same section. I therefore propose:

1. A new section called Known Facts, which would include definite, citable information
2. A replacement of the old sections with Speculation, preferably with all new additions at least mentioned on this talk page first
3. A major revamp of the speculation section's content (I have already tried to start this), removing sections that repeat themselves, cleaning up, using subheadings, &c.

I am fully prepared to make most of these changes, and I'm sure that 11987 will be equally happy to help. Any comments? Ck lostsword|^queta! 17:21, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I think that is a great idea and would be happy to help with whatever I can. I can definetley start the Known Facts secion soon and then help the Speculation ssection. (11987 22:30, 2 May 2006 (UTC))

Adding a edit block for Book III

Who here thinks that the administrators should block anonymous users and newly registered members from editing Book III due to the persistent adding of speculation?Arlika1507 11:07, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

See above. Also uses of protection. Whilst it could be useful, it is very unlikely that this would happen. Sorry! Ck lostsword|^queta!|_Suggestions? 14:48, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Well at least it can be said that this is the most standardized place of information for Book III on the net, thats a good thing.Arlika1507 17:38, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Speculation

An anonymous user stated under the speculation heading that, "In order to kill Galbatorix, Eragon may need to kill himself." Due to a lack of any sort of reasoning for this statement, I've removed it. I don't quite understand where this concept came from and so I'm offering the decision to be open made. For the time being, I've removed it. Aznph8playa2 21:59, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

can we keep anything that doesnt have anything to do with the book out of here please. THAT INCLUDES THIS PAGE AND THE ONE AFTER AND BEFORE IT. thanks(64.252.114.56 00:27, 6 March 2007 (UTC))

Deletion of speculation

I've deleted all speculation that is not related to anything confirmed by Paolini or verifiable sources. If I deleted anything that is legitimate in that fashion, please restore it. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not some discussion board where opinions are stated loosely. Speculation belongs on the discussion board, and please keep it there. The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:68.198.239.81.

We have had this discussion repeatedly before, and I believe that the time has come to resolve it finally. We cannot have single users deleting and reverting the section. I feel that a straw poll of user opinions is necessary to provide an overall view of opinions on removing the speculations on this page. In the mean time, I have reinstated the speculation on the page; please do not remove until his discussion has been concluded (2 July 2006?). Ck lostsword|^queta! 09:24, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

July 2nd sounds good for me. (11987 01:12, 1 July 2006 (UTC))

---

Support deletion

1. I have to support the deletion of speculation. There is way too much of it, and people keep adding more. The speculation does not improve the article, and it is all original research and SPECULATION. I believe it should be deleted. (11987 16:26, 25 June 2006 (UTC))
2. Delete all speculation as wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Or at the most, keep all speculation on this page.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91^{(review me!)} 17:22, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
3. Please delete most or all of it! For heaven's sake, it seems like every single possibility has been covered. I think the stuff that Paolini has confirmed should stay, but not much else. BTW, is there an Inheritance wiki? We could transfer the speculation there if people really want to keep it all someplace. — 75.4.98.151 02:47, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Oppose deletion

1. See above (Crystal Ball. I believe that much of this fan information provides valid ideas about what might happen in the next book. However, the information that is included must be carefully vetted for style and repetitions, and it would be preferable if most of the speculation were kept on this page, with only some very likely 'facts' on the main article. Ck lostsword|^queta! 09:24, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

---

Final result

Support Deletion - 3; Oppose Deletion - 1. I have deleted the speculation section. Thanks everyone - not a bad numbre of responses! Ck lostsword|^queta! 12:42, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Why can't we just get along?

Come on! Just keep the speculation there! It's not doing any harm. Here's an idea. Make a page called Inheritance 3rd Book Speculation! There's nothing wrong with that.

We've already discussed this. If you have a problem with it, you should blame yourself and everyone else who didn't vote for not voting. (11987 06:47, 4 July 2006 (UTC))

I talked to people and they want the speculation to stay. 5 people to be exact on my neopets guild.

And 4 people voted. That's not a large enough sample.

I'm really sorry, but as wikipedia is not a crystal ball, and thus, speculation is not allowed. If you want to have speculation, you should do so on speculation forums, or at the most, on this page (the talk page). --May the Force be with you! Shreshth91^{(esperanza elections!)} 15:48, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

THEN MAKE A PAGE CALLED SPECULATION FOR INHERITANCE BOOK 3! I have nothing to do without the speculation there! I'm bored to death!

NO article on Wikipedia can contain speculation, so we can't create a separate page for speculation. --May the Force be with you! Shreshth91^{(esperanza elections!)} 15:53, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

What about the before Harry Potter book 6 page (something like that)?! That's an artical without facts!

I didn't know about that and if i did i would try to delete it. But the fact is we voted, and the vote caused the speculation to be deleted. 5 people on neopets won't help you now. Besides, that harry potter page should be deleted. No speculation! (11987 16:11, 4 July 2006 (UTC))

The page was Prior speculation on Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince, and was nominated for AfD thrice, but not deleted. I'll nominate it for deletion.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91^{(esperanza elections!)} 16:46, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Done.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91^{(esperanza elections!)} 17:20, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

It's been there for a while though...

Its been nominated, and so far it seems like its going to be deleted.

Why did I mention it?!

Deal

Ok. We'll copy and paste the speculation onto here, and people can add stuff.

Onto the Talk Page? (11987 16:19, 4 July 2006 (UTC))

Yes.

I think that can be allowed. Just not on the article page. (11987 16:24, 4 July 2006 (UTC))

That seems perfectly fair to everyone. Thanks 11987! Ck lostsword|^queta! 19:11, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Great. :-)

Look...

-Roran could succed Orrin as King of Surda

DR7 >.< Why wouldn't he just succed Galbatorix?

We graciously allowed speculation to be allowed on the talk page, but if people keep adding speculaton to the main article, im gonna request it be protected. Which means people cant edit it. (11987 02:21, 14 July 2006 (UTC))

But that would mean all of the people that don't keep putting it onto the mail artical wouldn't be able to add things.

Yup, but we'll unprotect it to add REAL info. We made a deal, so people like you should keep it. (11987 23:53, 14 July 2006 (UTC))

So is it going to be protected or not? I vote for not.

I've got to say that protceting seems a bit excessive. However, there seems to be some case for semi-protecting, banning non-users from editing. I would agree to this, but not to full protection. Ck lostsword|^queta! 16:19, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

That's not fair.

Im not saying were gonna ban it; this is a warning. speculation doesn't belong on the articles page. Please dont overreact. I mean, its not fair that people like you r going back on our deal, is it?(11987 23:00, 16 July 2006 (UTC))

I never agreed to anything and since this page is open to so many people, you should not protect it or do anything that would not allow people to make additions or changes.

Look, dont spaz out. all i ask is that speculation be kept on this page like we voted on, but not the article page becuz speculation is not technically allowed on Wiki. Please, dont get worked up over nothing. Just a simple request. (11987 02:47, 17 July 2006 (UTC))

Just keep it unprotected people!

There will not be any protection of the article, please see WP:PPOL#Uses for reasons. If a highly visible and vandalized article like 2006 FIFA World Cup was not protected except once or twice, why should this comparatively _{insignificant} article be protected. --May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| ŗ 3 $ |-| ţ |-|) 15:14, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I dont really care, the problem hasn't persisted. Dont add speculation to the main article. That WAS the deal' dont even try to deny it. Kepp speculaton here. (11987 22:21, 17 July 2006 (UTC))

who put this as top-importance?

I did, and it obviously is; it's a book in the series the project is all about, for Christ's sake! An it receives a lot of speculation which needs to be cleared up, and replaced with proper verified info.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| ŗ 3 $ |-| ţ |-|) 14:29, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, we decided to keep the speculation here, so people can put all of their crazy ideas without people taking them off...like my one theory about the piece of a green dragon egg that eragon stepped on.

Can We Call the Article "Empire?"

Hey I'm curious whether the title of the article can be changed to Empire. This seems to be the confirmed title of the book and the cover of the book says "Empire" (if that picture is legitimate). Just curious. Thanks, Demosthenes 1 14:35, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

It used be called "Empire" (see Requested move above), but was changed because that's not official, its just fan speculation. That cover is just some fan's drawing, so I don't know why its on there. I'll remove it.--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:35, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Alright thanks. I felt like there was something fishy about that cover. Does anyone know when the author will announce the title? Because "Book 3 (Inheritance trilogy)" bugs the heck out of me. Demosthenes 1 01:11, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

It seems to be up to Random House, Christopher said last December that he had a title but that they didn’t want him to release it at that time. My guess is that we will get it early 2008.Mixed5000 18:04, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Sourcing Status

Because of the regular problems with speculation being inserted to this article, I’ve done some work with the citations. I’ve improved and confirmed the ones I could, and marked other information as lacking a citation. Citations for the notes so marked should be provided, or they will be removed from the article.--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:42, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

For those that don't seem to understand how this works, two things: first, don't just add random things and think you can get away with it with a cite needed tag. Secondly, don't remove the {{fact}} tag unless you actually add a citation.--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 04:41, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Excerpt

There's an official excerpt of Book III in Eldest, D.E. Could somebody add that to the page? It would be really cool!

I Agree all of us who haven't got Eldest D.E. are kept in the dark about Book III chapter one59.100.208.174 14:16, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

i think it was chapter three not one, and its a real cliffhanger.

what is Eldest D.E.???

its like delux edition or something like that. it has an excerpt of the third book in it, and a picture, but thats the only difference.

We can't include a copy of the excert on any of these pages. That material is copyrighted and protected by law. We cannot reproduce it without explicit permission from the author and I highly doubt any of us could get that. --pIrish ^{talk, contribs} 13:12, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

The official website for the Inheritance Triology (www.alagaesia.com) now offers registered users a chance to read an excerpt from Book III.

Knopf has changed the title of Book 3 from Empire to an another title relating to the content of the book against Christopher Paolini wishes.

Is this a true fact or is this more BS?

No "BS" I know someone who works at Knopf and there was talk of an argument that Paolini didn't want the title changed from Empire but Knopf said the title doesn't relate to the book, But then again thats what he says.

Sorry. "I know someone" isn't a reliable source.--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 03:21, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Is this a JOKE!! 59.100.174.24 11:30, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

The sequal to eldest... when will this be coming out and what shall it be called?

EMPIRE!!!

Someone's giving a name for Book 3 without any sources... again

Ericaya

I removed it once agin this morning.

It first appeared yesterday in the Inheritance template instead of "Book III", so I reverted it. It happened again, only this time someone had copied the contents of Book 3 (Inheritance trilogy) and stuck it in its own article. I reverted the edits on the template, but Ericaya is sitting there. Fortunately nothing links there now. UnaLaguna 05:51, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I've redirected that page to this one and nominated it for speedy deletion. --pIrish ^{talk, contribs} 12:48, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

The Stupid Picture

(Unrelated note: I'm not going to read this book, I just came across it while looking for interesting articles to hone my editing skills with) Okay. That picture, which looks like some cheap piece of clipart lameness, doesn't look...professional, for lack of a better word. Since there is no cover at the moment, no cover image is needed in the article...I think. I'm new, so if anyone has a problem with it, then just revert my edit; I won't mind. However, at least make sure that you have a good reason to keep it there. If you think that that picture helps inform the readers of this article, then go ahead and keep it there. Dread Pirate Felix 01:23, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Possible ideas as to the future of this article

You guys might take a look at Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows for ideas as to how to organize this page, and what kinds of information to include. It's another major upcoming book, and highly anticipated, it might help you know where to go from here. Tuvas 16:52, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

• • ive noticed that like half the stuff on this page has absolutely nothing to do with the book, and ive also noticed that a lot of the stuff that had to do with the book got deleted. i was wondering if someone would like to delete all those sections that are of no relation to the books, or ill do it. i just wanted to put this idea out there. but i wont touch anything if someones gonna get really pissed, but all of that stuff about like support deletion and all that other crap is pointless. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.252.113.58 (talk • contribs)

i agree. i was looking through it and the first like seven sections have nothing to do with the book and are a complete waste in my opinion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.252.113.58 (talk • contribs)

Please do not agree with your own message through two different edits in an attempt to make it look like you are gaining consensus. Or don't ask your friend to do it for you (read: canvassing). This is rather sneaky and it undermines the system.

As for your actual message. I'm not even sure what you're talking about. Clearly this page is about the third book in the Inheritance Trilogy and it contains information only about this book. If you could clarify exactly where you believe the information is going off on a tangent, please point them out to me. The only stuff that gets deleted are edits that are included without being cited (IE: original research and speculation). --pIrish ^Arr! 20:19, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

kay i wrote the first thing and i didnt agree with myself cuz im not some idiot that has conversations with myself and i didnt ask anyone to do it for me, so dont try and get all smart with me and pretend that you know everything cuz you dont.

the book is supposed to be called empire and that does fit by beign six letters and starting with an e but he could possibly change it sometime in the future also i think that the third rider will be female and almost certainly if not definantly related to eragon and murtgauh( i did not spell that right)66.25.134.251 23:55, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

All those points you mentioned are speculation. Until you can find sources which confirm them none of those points can go into the article. UnaLaguna 05:44, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Moved from Glaedr(Inheritance Trilogy)

Apart from the incorrect formatting of the title (there's meant to be a space), no sources were provided. So, I reverted it all back, which took at least twenty minutes of blood and sweat. This is at least the second time something like this has happened (previously with "Fricaya") and it annoys me to hell that I have to spend time reverting this rather than furthering Wikipedia in more useful ways. UnaLaguna 07:05, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Release Date?

Hi, I was wondering if anyone has an approximate date on when Book III will be available. Thank you. ~Megan R.

No date has yet been announced as far as I know. MelicansMatkin 19:32, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

No release date, heck the title has not even been released. Random House said it would be out sometime in 2008. So I wouldn’t be surprised if we see it next summer maybe in July or August.Mixed5000 18:05, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Why is there even a speculation section on the talk page?

The point I'm making is that you come to wikipedia to see facts that have been confirmed by the author or other realable sources. If you want to discuss what could happen in the next book, go to a forum of that book to talk about it. For example, if you want to talk about what might happen in the new Harry Potter book (which seems pointless at this stage as it is only 11 days away), you go to the mugglenet forums or something similar. A talk page is ment to be for discussing how to improve an artical, not for this sort of thing.Wild ste 15:32, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Very true - I've removed it per Wikipedia is not a forum. ck lostsword•T•C 16:36, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, didn't think anyone would actually listen to me.Wild ste 17:50, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

Someone added "He has sex with angleica". I've removed it.

wow...

So there's no way we can block the stupid vandalism that constantly shows up on this page? ~ User: Sophiakorichi

There's not really enough real vandalism to warrantprotection or anything. Most of the bad edits seem to be from people who just don't understand sourcing requierments and so forth, and its easy enough to revert.--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 03:16, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Eh, true enough. Its just so annoying! Sophiakorichi 03:21, 4 August 2007

So... it IS called Empire and the release date IS 28th March 2008?

I reverted an edit which changed the title from Book 3 to Empire... and judging by content I didn't read, it looks like we may have to make these changes.

I have no idea how reliable http://www.awesomefantasybooks.com/ is, but if what they're saying is true then we've got a lot of find-and-replacing to do. Before I commit myself, can someone confirm the reliability of the source? UnaLaguna 09:42, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd wait for some other confirmation...I can't find this anywhere else, and that includes official sites. It may be true, but it doesn't seem (to me, at least) to be enough to go with by itself.--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:37, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I agree, there isn't any other record of the letter that I can find. If Paolini revealed it in a personal letter, you would think that it would also be in the alagaesia.com newsletter, which I do not believe it is. I think we should wait to rename the article and post a date until it is varafied on the official site. Or at least on eragon.com. Sophiakorichi 19:18, 4 August 2007 (UTC)Sophiakorichi

You mean alagaesia.com, right? --Essence 01:59, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I’m sure a lot of fans write to Christopher asking about the title and release date. If this is true why did the site not just post a scan of this letter? Why wouldn’t CP just post this in one of his newsletter, he’d have to think that if he gave this information to someone in a letter that it would find its way online.Mixed5000 20:09, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

im fine w/ waiting for the 3rd book, but it would be nice if Paolini gave a release date to his fans as a courtesy and to let us know he working on it 9-5-07

Menoa Tree weapon

It says in the article that Eragon has yet to get the weapon under the Menoa Tree. But was the weapon that transformation he went through?--74.230.88.184 19:05, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

No. Read the interview the section is sourced to and you'll see the author has said that he is yet to receive it.--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:16, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I am a book seller for a large company and am asked alot as to when the 3rd book will be released and of course its title most authors ive dealt with usually have there follow on titles decided by this stage which seems strange to me that theres no release date or name for this so-called book has it even been started yet.

lucy —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.109.166.177 (talk) 18:03, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Book 3 to Book III?

Perhaps we should move the article from

Book 3 (Inheritance trilogy)

To

Book III (Inheritance trilogy)

who would argee?--Sunny910910 ^{(talk|Contributions)Neither will alone, nor strength alone} 04:05, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Is there any specific reason why we should? We may just be creating more work for ourselves by fixing all the redirects and such. Una Laguna^Talk 06:05, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I don't think there's any need for a move until such time the actual title is confirmed. Book III (Inheritance trilogy) already redirects here. --Mark H Wilkinson ^{(t, c)} 06:20, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Good point.--Sunny910910 ^{(talk|Contributions)Neither will alone, nor strength alone} 23:07, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Semi - Protected? Why?

There hardly seems to have been enough vandalism to this article in the past few months to be valid justification for semi-protected status. Can anyone provide justification? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.158.222.61 (talk) 01:13, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I beleive it is already semi-protected.--Sunny910910 ^{(talk|Contributions)Neither will alone, nor strength alone} 01:45, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Correct - it is semi-protected - but has no history of vandalism to justify such 'protection'.207.69.137.36 04:36, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Anomynous IPs had a habit of changing the name from "untitled" to "Empire", "Glaedr", "Fricaya", or something else without providing a reliable source. Sometimes they even moved the entire page without prior discussion. Reverting these changes just got irritating. Una Laguna^Talk 17:32, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

It takes 3 reverts in a single day to be considered 'out of line' per Wikipedia policy. Even a dozen inaccurate posts within a months time does justify semi-protecting the article in violation of the spirit of wikipedia's open editing policy.207.69.137.28 16:11, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Anonymous Dissident was the one who put the protection up. The protection expires tomorrow; if you think it's such a bad thing that those who can't be bothered to register can't edit this article, then you might want to ask him. Una Laguna^Talk 16:25, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

No Source for "Brom may be Eragon's father"

Sure there is - havent you seen Star Wars? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.69.137.36 (talk) 04:47, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

What I mean is, while it is possible that "Brom may be Eragon's father", it isnt mentioned in any reliable webpage or source. Therefore, it is just speculation and should not be included (see WP:CRYSTAL).--Sunny910910 ^{(talk|Contributions)} 20:00, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Star Wars is a perfectly reliable source for material produced by Paolini. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.69.137.7 (talk) 19:10, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

No, it isn't. Per WP:OR (in particular WP:SYN), if you need to extrapolate information/draw conclusions from what is being said, you're doing the wrong thing. You can't say "x says this, suggesting y". You can only say "x says this", unless it actually says y. Using Star Wars as an example, nowhere in Star Wars does anyone or anything say "Brom may be Eragon's father". What you would need to do would be draw upon alleged similarities between Paolini's and Lucas' work, take specific pieces of dialogue, and draw a conclusion from these points. If this isn't a violation of WP:OR then I don't know what is. Una Laguna^Talk 19:43, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Besides, while "Star Wars" may have similarities with "The Inheiritance Trilogy" in plot details, it has no relationship with the "Trilogy" other than that.--Sunny910910 ^{(talk|Contributions)} 01:09, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

What - none of ya got any sense of HUMOR?

We're editing an encyclopedia, not making petty jokes. Una Laguna^Talk 09:28, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Darth vader may be saphiras grandfather! I know for sure from the website, alagasia.com! - Buba Joe(idaho)

Wikipedia is a place people come to see facts, not to see stupid jokes. Until it has been confirmed by the book, it can not be on the page as it is speculation and therefore has no place in the page.Wild ste 18:33, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Brisingr

How the heck did we get 'Brisingr' to act like the new annouced title? The ref for it links to this phone conversation recorded online that doesn't say anything about 'Brisingr'. ~ Bella Swan 03:42, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, when I click the link it sends me to the first one, which is a .pdf of a press release issued today announcing the title. seresin ^{wasn't he just...?} 04:04, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Yep. The official press release and Shurtugal.com both corroborate on the cover and title. At last, people will no longer have an excuse to change "currently untitled" to "speculated by fans to be Empire/Glaedr/Fricaya"... Una Laguna^Talk 07:03, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

well...at least this book has a title now. Can't wait for it to come out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Demonteenager (talk • contribs) 18:17, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't think anyone had fixed the ref when I looked at it, so I didn't know. ~ Bella Swan 20:41, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Every site I looked at had said it was a green book, with the title "Empire." I mean, it's following a pattern up till the third book. Eragon- starts with an "E," Has a picture of Saphira (Eragon's dragon, obviously.), and refers to Eragon. Eldest- Starts with an "E," Has a picture of Thorn (Murtagh's dragon) and refers to Murtagh. Brisingr? Doesn't start with an E, Has a picture of Glaedr (Who's already been introduced), and probably refers to no-one. It doesn't make any sense. 65.223.58.226 (talk) 23:56, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Not true. Brisingr is again a reference to Eragon. As stated on the page, it refers to the first magic he ever used, and also refers to (apparently) how important it is in the third story. 75.5.181.182 (talk) 01:09, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Pronunciation

Should we offer a guide for this, in case people are confused by the gr? Or is that just me? Does anybody know how it IS pronounced? 69.210.130.47 (talk) 18:46, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Not a bad idea. The press release just says "BRIS-ing-gr". That probably should go up in IPA. I'd do it, but I really have no clue how to work with that stuff, makes my head hurt.--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:20, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

The author himself pronounces it [ˈbɹɪsɪŋˌɡəɹ]. My fiancée knows someone who works with him, and she has soundfiles of him saying this and other words from the books. 91.107.173.194 (talk) 22:23, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

is it posible for you to give wikipedia one of these soudnfiles for references prupsoes only?`Smith Jones (talk) 22:24, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I stuck 91's IPA and the press release's guide in the lead section, where it seems most appropriate. Not sure if the method I used to lay it out is consistent with the rest of Wikipedia though :/ Una Laguna^Talk 18:50, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

dont worry about it User:UnaLaguna your IPAs look kickass and if their wrong then someone esle will stop by and reformat them properly. :D Smith Jones (talk) 22:08, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, UnaLaguna! Your IPA references are correct, with one problem, and again it comes down to pronounciation: Is the final 'gr' a hard g or an English J? Your IPA suggests that it's J, but from what I can remember, I thought 'brisingr' (as terrible as it sounds, unfortunately) is pronounced with a hard g. But besides that your correct. Also, kind of on a tangent here, but do you guys think that the Ancient Language's orthography is indecipherable and needs revision to be (a little more) convincing. (not that that would help its legitamacy issues.) I welcome your comments. 69.238.198.100 (talk) 17:49, 30 January 2008 (UTC)Theodore from California

I originally listened to the audiobooks and I am about 95% certain that it is hard "g." I can check it, if anyone wants. Agent0042 (talk) 04:26, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, you're right. I've removed the IPA until we can correct it. Una Laguna^Talk 06:51, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

The actors who played Eragon and Brom in the movie pronounced it Bris-sing-er. 75.5.181.182 (talk) 01:11, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

don't even mention that despicable movie 74.37.228.44 (talk) 21:52, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Empire

This page doesnt mention what the third book was originally going to be called (Empire)or the fact that until the change all books in the trilogy had seven letters and started with E. I know that was the original idea. so I guess we should find sources and add that detail. I will do it later, but to busy now. unless someone wants to do it before next week, becasue i wont be able to tell then.(Masterxak (talk) 08:23, 2 April 2008 (UTC))

This page doesn't state the book was going to be called Empire because there's no hard evidence to verify that claim. Una Laguna^Talk 07:25, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Content

"Eragon has yet to acquire the new weapon referred to in the first book, wherein Solembum said, 'When the time comes and you need a weapon, look under the roots of the Menoa tree'."

Wasn't Eragon's transformation in Eldest the weapon he received? Or is the weapon literally under the tree? --71.174.241.40 (talk) 12:40, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

No, in an earlier message, Christopher stated that Eragon had NOT received the weapon yet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.208.207.39 (talk) 01:44, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

That has not been confirmed one way or the other. Until then, the quote will remain here.

Spinach Dip 21:33, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Subtitle?

The article states that Brisingr has a subtitle, "The Seven Promises of Eragon Shadeslayer and Saphira Bjartskular ". Does anyone have a source for that? 76.246.158.41 (talk) 00:08, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Yep! Says it right on the title page. And yes, I am holding a copy right now! This is SO AWESOME!! --Alinnisawest,^{Dalek Empress} (extermination requests here) 20:32, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

It's not a subtitle, it's part of the title. --The Guy _complain ^edits 00:32, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Isn't it "OR The Seven Promises of Eragon Shadeslayer and Saphira Bjartskular"? I thought it was more of an alternate tale, kinda like how the book The Hobbit is "The Hobbit, or There and Back Again". Anakinjmt (talk) 02:14, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

It is "Or", so this is an alternate title. Nazarenenut (talk) 20:57, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

You are correct. The four titles of the book are, 1. "Brisingr", 2. "The Seven Promises of Eragon Shadeslayer and Saphira Bjartskular", 3. "Eragon Shadeslayer and Saphira Bjartskular", and 4. "Saphira Bjartskular". It names those four titles on the page after the front cover page. (The page with the big dragon eye, I think.) --The Guy _complain ^edits 21:38, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm looking at the book right now, and the page you mentioned says "Brisingr, or the Seven Promises..." Nothing with just Eragon and Saphira's names or Saphira's name. Anakinjmt (talk) 15:30, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

It's in small text. I will copy the exact text: "I. Title. II. Title: Seven Promises of Eragon Shadeslayer and Saphira Bjartskular. III. Title: Eragon Shadeslayer and Saphira Bjartskular. IV. Title: Saphira Bjartskular." It's on the page opposite the dedication page. In other words, open it up to the dedication page, and look at the page before it where the very top text says "THIS IS A BORZOI BOOK PUBLISHED BY ALFRED A. KNOPF" --The Guy _complain ^edits 19:06, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

That's in the Library of Congress in-publication cataloguing information. Those aren't referring to actual "published" title, but more to information contained within the title. The two titles for this book should be Brisingr or The Seven Promises of Eragon Shadeslayer and Saphira Bjartskular. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nazarenenut (talk • contribs) 20:27, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

If anyone is intrested I could post a link to a immage of the title page here to solve any further argument? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Superbun (talk • contribs) 17:50, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Development

I'm not exactly sure what I'm doing here (I'm not allowed to edit the article itself), but when it says: "Paolini said that this book was longer than both Eragon or Eldest" shouldn't the "both" be an "either?" You can't say "both...or"

I fixed it. Thanks for the tip.

And for your information, the page has been semi-protected because there was too much vandalism going on. Spinach Dip 09:27, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Plot

Shouldn't we put spoiler warnings at least? And isn't it much too long and detailed compared to other books and novels? just sayin [ 99.237.214.41 (talk) 00:20, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is meant to be a comprehensive document of encyclopedic content, including plot details. I would say the word "Plot" heading the section is warning enough anyways. We also don't compare content to other articles, even in the series. The other books' plots may need to be re-written, though, I agree. I just think the plot section in this article needs expansion, and I intend to provide it. --The Guy _complain ^edits 00:31, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

The plot summary here is currently 1600 words - much longer than suggested by guidelines. Wikipedia:Plot summaries suggests 300 to 500 words; for comparison, Wikipedia:FILMPLOT suggests 400 to 700 words. The plot summary here needs to be cut back, not expanded. But a section called "Plot" doesn't need any further spoiler warning. Gimmetrow 01:07, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I have condensed the plot a bit, but I guarentee its still over the limit. Keep in mind, though, that many other things go toward character count as well, such as pipe linking. That said, what is the character count? Also, when I said expansion, I didn't mean enlargement; I meant replacement of insignificant plot details with more detailed accounts of the significant events. --The Guy _complain ^edits 02:02, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Now down to 850 words and 5000 characters prose - that's rendered text, not wiki text. Gimmetrow 02:07, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Now is the text at the desired amount? --The Guy _complain ^edits 02:15, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I think that the plot summary is far too short it leaves out lots of major parts e.g. the warriors who feel no pain and Arya's talk with Eragon on the way back to the Varden's camp. Monkeyman389 (talk) 16:19, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

The warriors feeling no pain is not a major plot point, and Arya's talk with Eragon is not either. The section is meant as a very broad, short summary of the major events of the story, like Eragon killing the Ra'zac, Brom being revealed as Eragon's father, et cetera. The warriors who feel no pain would be going into too great of detail, and I still have much condensing to do with the section as-is. --The Guy _complain ^edits 16:51, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Well if it leaves out too much and people disagree with putting in more details, then maybe someone should consider creating and article with much more detail regarding Brisingr. Then this argument wuld be settled.

Please don't delete my previous comment to add yours.

In regards to creating separate articles for a more detailed analysis, you couldn't. It would go up for AfD faster than you can say "BRISINGR!" and it would be a violation of a couple of guidelines. As for expansion, no. It would go against guidelines. This is settled at that. I'm saying, I myself don't disagree with putting in more details, but certain guidelines do, and those we must follow. Likewise, I agree with the rules over my personal judgment, lest I violate WP:OR in using my own judgment to determine how much content should be contained, rather than follow guidelines on that. --The Guy _complain ^edits 20:06, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Current plot length is about 560 words. Just for comparison, a few other articles on novels when promoted to featured status: Uncle Tom's Cabin - 925 words, The Well of Loneliness - 600 words, Starship Troopers - 850 words, Oroonoko - 600 words, To Kill a Mockingbird - 550 words, The Country Wife - 820 words, The General in His Labyrinth - 825 words. These novels are studied in literature courses. Gimmetrow 20:48, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

At this point, we should probably keep the plot summary where it is. I do agree that it should be slightly more expanded if we are going to get it to FA status, but it would be better to wait for things to cool down before doing it, or else people will get carried away with the adding to the summary. ~ Bella Swan^? 20:11, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

For example: "Arya stabbed the Shade through the heart, killing him." Insignificant, it was explained in the first book that that was the only way to kill a Shade, so isn't that implied? Also: "Every time Eragon says "Brisingr," the blade bursts into flames." That's not significant to the story, either. It might be in the next book, but in this book, its just a cool little feature, not worthy of mention. Same with the whole killing Sloan part. That's not significant to this book. Especially the detail, "in cold blood." People keep reverting these insignificant details, and they're just that: insignificant. --The Guy _complain ^edits 20:45, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

One thing about plot length though, shouldn't the length be sort of determined by the length of the book? For example, the plot section for Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows is longer than that of Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets because DH is longer than CoS. This is the longest book in the series (thus far), so a longer plot section should be expected. In addition, I added to the making of the sword, adding that the elf (forget her name for the moment) took control of Eragon's body for part of the forging of the sword so that she could avoid breaking her oath. I feel that's an important thing to note. I'd say as for the fact that the sword bursts into flame every time he says its name, just add the phrase "causing it to burst into flame every time the name is spoken" after "he names it Brisingr." Doesn't need to be a separate sentence. Anakinjmt (talk) 02:20, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

The trouble with Brisingr is that is has an awful lot of content which isn't critical to the plot (the semi-immortal soldiers, the God, Elva etc). I think if we tried to make a plot summary proportional to the length of the book we'd end up with an excessively-long summary (and do remember, it's meant to be a summary of the plot so doesn't need to give every detail). Una Laguna^Talk 06:04, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

True on the amount of content. A good chunk of it is description, or detail that doesn't need to go in (like the exact forging of Eragon's sword). I guess the question is, what do we think are the main plot points that need to be addressed? My thinking is this (based on a single read of the book which I haven't looked at since Sunday, keep in mind and not necessarily in order):

1. Eragon and Roran go to kill the Ra'zac after convincing Arya and Nasuada.

2. Eragon comes across Sloane, tells Saphira to go on ahead, and eventually sets Sloane on his way to go to Du Weldenvarden.

3. Nasuada reaffirms her leadership of the Varden with the knives trial

4. Eragon meets up with Arya and they make their way back to Surda.

5. Eragon marries Roran and Katrina, but not before fending off an attack by the undead soldiers and Murtaugh and Thorn

6. Eragon leaves for the dwarves with a Kull and fends off an attack by the dwarf clan.

7. Orik is crowned king of the dwarves

8. Saphira rejoins Eragon and they return to the home of the elves

9. Eragon learns from Oromis and Glaedr about dragon's heart of hearts and how it is the source of Galbatorix's power, with Glaedr giving Eragon his heart of hearts

10. Eragon and the elf blacksmith (forget her name again at the moment) forge Eragon's sword

11. Eragon and Saphira join the town the Varden attack and run into Arya where they kill a Shade

11. Roran is punished for disobeying his direct superior before being given command of a group of Urgals

12. Eragon sees Murtaugh kill Oromis and destroy Glaedr's body, sending Glaedr's consciousness into his heart of hearts which Eragon has.

That's what I can recall right now. That may be a lot, but if we can have a plot summary with just those things, giving the appropriate amount of detail so that the reader will not be confused but understand what exactly happens, then anything else can be considered extraneous. I plan on re-reading the book once I've finished The Force Unleashed book, so I can work on a brand new plot summary going with those points if no one else wants to do it in the meantime. But does everyone agree at least those points should be included in the plot summary? Additionally, if anyone thinks there is a main plot point that I forget (which is very possible), please mention it. Anakinjmt (talk) 17:28, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) Someone has added plot summaries for Nasuada and Roran. I think these are unnecessary as the plot points cover relatively unimportant details, not to mention the summary should be kept as one block of text rather than being split up per character. Anyone object to me removing these? Una Laguna^Talk 15:27, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

They don't need their own separate areas, no. My suggestion is intercut Nasuada's and Roran's parts with the main story of Eragon, like how the book is. Anakinjmt (talk) 17:28, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the book is filled with many unimportant details. I think, we should ask ourselves this for EVERY detail: "Does it advance the plot?" Does the sword bursting to flames advance the plot? No, it doesn't. Even in the Acknowledgments, Paolini noted that it was just a cool idea of his, and bears of no significance. I think it should be kept to a short plot, only stating the things that were significant to the previous books, things that advance the plot, and significant mysteries left unsolved at the end of the book that were brought up in the book. That being said, we should not go into excrutiating details, either; but rather briefly touch on each subject, keeping prose. An example of going into too much detail would be saying "The Shade fell to the duo, with Arya delivering the fatal blow." It should rather be "The Shade fell to the duo," simply to keep it shorter. As for removing the separate characters' stories, I object, unless you can find an efficient way to lay the plots of separate characters out in extremely good prose. I just generally object to jumping around from character-to-character. --The Guy _complain ^edits 19:18, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Just because the sword bursting into flames doesn't advance the plot doesn't mean we can't mention. My thinking is something like "Eragon helps the elf blacksmith forge his new sword, which he names Brisingr, at which point he discovers saying the sword's name causes it to burst into flames." This is why I made the list of major plot points. We can't just take those plot points and stick them in and go "Okay, here's the summary." We'll need a bit more detail to make things flow together well. We need to be careful when adding in things, yes, but we don't need to go to the other extreme. If you object jumping from character to character, makes me wonder how you managed this book or the previous book. I think it will work much better and look better if we intercut like how the book does between characters. Anakinjmt (talk) 19:27, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but my point is what significance does the flame sword have? Zero! It might in the next book, as I suspect it does, but that's just speculation by myself. Also, I don't mind jumping around from character to character in a novel (albeit, sometimes I do just read the individual characters chapters, not intertwined), but in a plot summary that is supposed to be just a short little summary of the major events that happened in the book to advance the plot, intercutting characters could become confusing. That is why I said I object unless somebody can do it skillfully. I still object to adding anything about a flaming sword -- that's unimportant. --The Guy _complain ^edits 19:49, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

In your plot summary you say that glaeder dies. I believe that you are incorrect. On page 735 it state that ormis dies but glaeder was only bit on the back of the skull and his vision failed, then it goes on to tell how he morned. Maybe I am misreading, but I do believe that glaeder is still alive. ~~eragonfan~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.142.20.181 (talk) 03:48, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid you're misinterpreting the story. It tells how Oromis died, and suddenly Glaedr was enraged, and foolishly charged Thorn. Determined, Glaedr failed to remember any battle techniques. He felt a sharp strike to his skull, and suddenly all was black. He could not feel the presence of Murtagh and Thorn anymore, but of Eragon, Arya, and Saphira, which means he died, and his soul was transported full-time into his heart of hearts while he mourned. --The Guy _complain ^edits 03:59, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Issue Regarding plot summary

I understand that wikipedia has a limit for everything included in it's articles, but this plot summary is very rushed, not describing everthing including the conversations in the book(the important ones of course). I think that the summary should be re-written as it does not give enough information. I would do it myself,, but I am not good with this sort of thing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.92.234.79 (talk) 08:11, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

It may not be as detailed as some people would like (I even agree), but it fits standards, without shifting its focus to little details. What I plan to do is to further cleanse it of insignificant details, and expand upon the main points of the plot, such as the murder of Oromis. --The Guy _complain ^edits 20:50, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I really have to agree with Guy. Paolini could have shaved off a good chunk of the book without affecting the plot (Tenga, anyone?). Therefore, the plot summary will be rather short. Also, I thought the flamebursting was another 'headmeetdesk' moment, and should not be included. And please, fans, I know you want to get your thoughts out, but please don't resort to bad grammar to do so.

Presentiment (talk) 01:53, 6 January 2009 (UTC)Presentiment

External Links

I just wanted to apologize to User:UnaLaguna for adding the 'official' part to the external link. I didn't even look at it and I just assumed it was the official website. Honest mistake, sorry and thanks for rv it. ~ Bella Swan^? 20:08, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Not at all, everyone makes mistakes :) Una Laguna^Talk 06:43, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Spoilers

I think we should add a spoiler tag to the top of the plot summary. I'd add it myself, but I can't remember what the proper code is. {{tld|spoiler}} doesn't work because all it gets is {{spoiler}}. I wasn't able to find out what to type through Wikipedia's Help, either. dogman15 (talk) 20:19, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not label spoilers, so no. This has already been discussed. --The Guy _complain ^edits 20:56, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Wiki used to have spoiler warnings until about a year and a half ago when people decided a section called "Plot" didn't need further warning. Gimmetrow 21:01, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Doctor Who reference

Should the reference to Doctor Who be noted in the article?

On page 204 and 207, this is written by Arya (I've connected the two different pages)

Adrift upon the sea of time, the lonely god wanders from shore to distant shore, upholding the laws of the stars above. The trickster, the riddler, the keeper of the balance, he of the many faces who finds life in death and who fears no evil; he who walks through doors.

In the Acknowledgments section at the back of the book, Paolini states that this is a reference to Doctor Who 67.241.11.157 (talk) 21:48, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd say so, especially when the author confirms it himself (I thought he was talking about Doctor Who, although having never seen the show myself I wasn't sure). Anakinjmt (talk) 02:18, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I would not agree, only because it raises the questions, "where would this fit in prose?" and "how is this notable?" It also brings up the question of how do we know to which statements he is referring? It would violate WP:OR because he never says he is referring to those specific statements, he just says whoever gets the reference, gets it. --The Guy _complain ^edits 03:03, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe this would be considered OR because Paolini states the area in the book it is in, he specifically says "The Doctor", and he also states that the Doctor can travel to alternate realities, which he does multiple times in Doctor Who. I'd call that a verifiable source about the reference 67.241.11.157 (talk) 03:53, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Look at it this way. I did not get the reference, even after I read the acknowledgments. He did not even mention where the reference was, and therefore it could technically be anywhere in the book. I mean, you found it, but its not verifiable that that is the statement to which he was referring, so it's original research. --The Guy _complain ^edits 15:32, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Just because you did not get the reference doesn't mean he didn't make it, or that he did not say "yes this is a reference." He specified that he was referring to the description of the dwarf god. I don't see how that is OR when the author told us what he referenced AND what it is a reference to. Anakinjmt (talk) 17:40, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

He did no such thing. He said thanks to everyone who got the Doctor Who reference when Eragon and Arya were sitting around the campfire. That is not a description of the dwarf god, and it would be OR, because for all we know, he's talking about when Arya was talking about her love. That's what I'm getting at, it's not verifiable that that is the statement he is getting at, by any visible means. I'm not denying that he didn't make the reference, at all, because he said he did. I'm denying that you can verify where the reference is in the book. WP:V: The threshold for inclusion on Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." Just because its true, does not mean you can verify it without your own judgment. --The Guy _complain ^edits 18:15, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

WP:IGNORE: Just because you're dumb doesn't mean you're right. /vote add. 75.182.89.73 (talk) 22:17, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

WP:IGNORE does not apply in a situation where you cannot verify the content you are posting. Also, I would like to see your evidence that adding this would improve the article, anyways. On another note, please refrain from personal attacks. Dumb or not, I am not a fan of Doctor Who, and I did not catch the reference. Even after I read Paolini's comment in the Acknowledgments, it left me going "huh?" It's just not verifiable. --The Guy _complain ^edits 01:27, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Mentioning a vague reference like that just seems incredibly trivial to me... MelicansMatkin (talk) 18:06, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't get any of this. Is the argument being put forth by 'The Guy' that even though he knows its true it can't be included because it isn't vertifiable? Its like arguing that you can't include the plot because its in the book and some people wouldn't understand it and therefore its not vertifiable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.217.154.106 (talk) 07:24, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

No, that's not the same because in the plot, the character's actions are clearly defined. The reference, however, is not. --The Guy _complain ^edits 00:23, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Critical reception

This section is currently unsourced and looks very much like original research. A bit of Googling does show there are some reviews of it; however none of these seem to be from reliable sources. Should we remove the current section? Una Laguna^Talk 14:40, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I had removed that twice in a day a while ago, and I hadn't realized it was re-posted. I'll remove it. --The Guy _complain ^edits 16:53, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Brisingr Reviews

(Gets out Megaphone)

Attention People: Reviews from biased websites (either positive or negative) will be deleted! If you want to add a review, make sure it is from a reputable source, say, the New York Times or Publishers Weekly. Of course, other widely distributed papers will do.

Also, if a review mentions both positive and negative aspects of the book, you MUST include both when you sumarize said review!

Thank you.

Spinach Dip 21:20, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Hey Spinach Dip,

As one of the linkers to the "biased" site, I would like to know what the definition of biased is. Since, as far as I know, all reviews are by necessity biased. A NYT reviewer isn't somehow less biased than anyone else--he still has an opinion on the book. Esillisar (talk) 06:34, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

"Bias" isn't the issue at all. If that site is a regular media outlet with a reputation for professional book reviews, it can be used here. If it's a blog, the rules on self-published sources apply, and it most likely cannot be used even if the blogger is completely "unbiased". Someone could write a reception section based on the WPost and SLTribune reviews, though. Gimmetrow 13:17, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

DarkSpoodge (talk) 06:50, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

The review that was posted was from a professional review site; just because the overall opinion from the reviewer was negative does not mean that it was biased. It means that the reviewer didn't like the book. Please take note that the Wiki sections for the Harry Potter books, and other popular children's fantasy, have both positive reviews and negative reviews posted under "Critical Reception". I believe that whomever deleted this section was BIASED. The SL Tribune is a reliable source. Link: http://www.sltrib.com/themix/ci_10638340

Here's a second review that I found, which has a differing opinion of the book: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...8092403239.html

Your Washington Post link is broken; this should work. But thanks for finding the articles. Una Laguna^Talk 05:48, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Specifically, the review I was referring to can be found here. This was on the page for several days before a fan removed it. Esillisar (talk) 05:44, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

As explained above, it looks like a non-professional blogger's review, and we don't really use blogs here except in rare circumstances, and when the blogger has some relevant expertise. Is that the case here? Gimmetrow 05:53, 14 October 2008 (UTC)