Talk:The Sword of Truth

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
This article is part of WikiProject Novels, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to narrative novels, novellas, novelettes and short stories on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit one of the articles mentioned below, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the General Project Discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

Article Grading:
The following comments were left by the quality and importance raters: (edit)

Assessed as B class. However this article need to more more rigorous on the "referencing front". I needs to incorporate a "Literary significance & criticism" section. Generally move away from a "Fansite" tone. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 09:37, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Tasks you can do:

This article is within the scope of the Sword of Truth WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Terry Goodkind's Sword of Truth. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.

Contents

[edit] The Keeper

I don't think that the Keeper should be noted as a Satanic character. The series portrays the Keeper more as the yin to the Creators yang. He is a force that must exist in order for creation to survive as intended.

You are correct. But, it should also be noted that the people of the world who are less knowledgeable DO view the keeper as a satanic figure becuase of his undieing hunger for those who live. But yes, the Keeper is nothing more than a force opposite to the Creator. - Omnilord March 20, 2006
yeah, well screw the people of the world. include a cross reference in the mention to yin/yang and leave it at that. if they cant be bothered to click on a link to learn more about what is what then they souldnt get all in a tiff about something that upsets them. we cant spend all our time dumbing things down for people that are willfully ignorant. to do so is a dis-service to them and everyone else - Patrickjsanford 06:33, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removed sentence

I also believe it has something to do with Middle Eastern mythology, but nothing more.

first person - removed User:MyRedDice

[edit] Ideology of series

It can be noted that the series has become more ideologically conservative (or more apparently so) over time. This has become particually noticable in the Faith of the Fallen and Naked Empire books. There is however not enough content on the series to add this fact with out causing excessive non-NPOV distortion; if there was sufficient agreement on the observation anyway. - User:138.130.225.134 June 29, 2004

Goodkind would not agree with the view that his books have become more conservative...it has come up in interviews at times. The books are of course more right leaning than left. While the author's views are more libertarian than anything else...the books do seem to fit modern conservative viewpoints minus religion than a true libertarian view. - Athalus 17:25, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)
i'm not sure if i agree with that or not. we do have to remember that a good number of writers are influnced by current events. it could be that he's just trying to maintain appeal with his audence. and besides, it's not like this is a fairytale happy ending kind of series either. sometimes you just have to be a dick to live in this world - Patrickjsanford 06:38, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Themes and Novels

After reviewing the page and discussing it with Terry, we felt that the page needs this addition. Please feel free to add to it. Time is limited to add more and apporiate material at this time mystar 68.188.220.8

You're right, this is a useful section. I will revise and expand it when I have a bit of free time. - Runch 03:58, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

At the moment, it breached NPOV in about every second word. Also, juding from some of the other edits by this IP/User, I'm not entirely sure that we should assume good faith. So I removed the section for the moment.-- Mystman666 (Talk) 19:44, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I added a noncompliant tag to the Themes section as it contains statements and claims that are unsourced, original research and POV. Examples:
  • "...in stark contrast to this genera's reputation for failing heroes"
  • "Goodkind's characters books show the moral truth to society’s decay unlike many other authors in the genre"
This is not a soapbox for Terry Goodkind, it doesn't matter what he thinks should be added, this is an encyclopedia, not a free autobiographical web hosting service. This section needs to be cleaned up and the wording changed or third party sources added or it will be deleted. NeoFreak 02:23, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

To be quite honest, I'm getting sick and tired of you acting recklessly and in bad faith, Mystar. I've already told you before NOT to delete any discussion from the talk page, certainly not when it is relevant to the article, and again you go and delete multiple of my posts as well as another's. I've restored it, so just leave it there. - Runch 03:25, 26 August 2006 (UTC)


I've no clue as to what your on about. I've deleted nothing from the discussion page. I did revert my earlier edit. I added a Themes and Novels section to which you stated and I quote, ":You're right, this is a useful section. I will revise and expand it when I have a bit of free time. - Runch 03:58, 25 August 2006 (UTC)" So now you have changed your mind?

The section is useful. It is also something we see on many other fantasy series’ pages.

Just because I've discussed it with Goodkind doesn’t make it "his soap box". He has a voice as well as you or I. The Themes and Novels is an encyclopedia section, and has every right t to be on this page. If you seem to think it hasn't, then it should also be removed from every other authors and series page as well. You cannot have a double standard or you have anarchy. mystar 68.188.220.8 05:13, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Technically you are incorrect. Anarchy is known for no standards. A better comparison would be to say monarchy, despotism, perhaps communism in it's applied use (which was really pretty much despotism). In those cases, some people got a bunch of stuff, and everyone else got shafted with lower quality goods and different treatment. Which is also what you're going for here, you are saying that your opinion should win out, while everyone else's is not worth keeping. Specifically because you have Terry Goodkind's ear doesn't mean that you get to be the only one to write stuff about the books. Don't you think the fact that a whole bunch of people disagree with you, and not a single person is on your side for this edit, might indicate that you're heaidn in the worng direction with this one? Maybe? And saying that Goodkind shines is an opinion, therefore not neutral. And sayin ghtat Goodkind's books say something moral about today's society without a reference to some sort of comparative literature is just an opinion. And saying that the entire genre has a reputation for failing heroes is a bit much, isn't it? How about a source saying the genre has a reputation for failing heros. Actually, the wikipedia says the genre features brave heros, not failing. Admittedly not a perfect source, since you could go in and put a sentence saying it's full of failing ones, but still, that's what it says right now.

64.230.3.111 20:56, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh..btw... Why then are you singeling out Goodkind's Sword of Truth page's addition of Theams and Novels stateing it to be "NPOV" when ASOFAI has the exact same thing... I don't see you taking action there? I quote from A Sone of Fire and Ice "==Themes of the novels== The books are known for complex characters, sudden and often violent plot twists, and intricate political intrigue. In a genre where magic usually takes center stage, this series has a reputation for its limited and subtle use of magic, employing it as an ambiguous and often sinister background force.

The novels are narrated from a very strict third person limited omniscient perspective, the chapters alternating between different point of view characters. The first volume uses a false protagonist; Martin has a reputation of not being afraid to kill any character, no matter how major, unlike many other authors in the genre".

So what gives?

mystar68.188.220.8 05:17, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure where but we are having a breakdown in communication somewhere. As I've already stated the problem isn't with the section itself but the tone, content and lack of sources. You just put up a section where you stated your (and Terry Goodkind's) opinion on his series which is not allowed on wikipedia. Period. If you have an interview or a critic's review by a un-biased third party that covers the theme of the novels then great, put it in and source it. If not then putting in original research and your personal opinion is not allowed.
Terry Goodkind doesn't get to get his friends to come in and write an encylopedic artilce about him and his books the way he wants. Could you imagine if (not to compare Goodkind character to any of these people) Bush, Stalin, Poe, or Alexander the Great could come in a write their own articles? That would be anarchy and defeat the entire purpose.
Finally I'm not talking about ASOIAF, I'm addressing a problem here in the manner it is supposed to be: on the discussion page. If you have any issues with the ASOIAF pages or any of its sources then by all means go to those pages, raise your issue on the Talk page and the editors there will address your issues. That is how it works and I hope to see you engaging in a constructive dialouge about ASOIAF in the Talk page. NeoFreak 05:25, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
I second NeoFreak's points. And as a corollary, check your edit history Mystar, you did delete two of my posts as well as a post by Mystman666. The post that you quoted in your tirade was deleted by you, except that I had already restored it by the time you got around to posting a reply. Perhaps it was carelessly deleted, or perhaps it was done maliciously; either way, you need to pay attention to what you're doing. - Runch 14:12, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels

On another note, I've been working hard on revising the pages of the individual books in the Sword of Truth series to conform to WikiProject Novels standards, and I have to say most of the pages are looking pretty good. However, the pages for Naked Empire, Phantom, and Debt of Bones are still in stub status and need attention.

Since Phantom has yet to be released, stub status is expected. But, if you have recently read either Naked Empire or Debt of Bones, consider updating the Plot Summaries and Character Lists on the novel pages. Thanks for your help! - Runch 01:09, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Phantom is looking good. Thanks to all those who have contributed! - Runch 03:58, 25 August 2006 (UTC)


I will happily add/edit some of the summary sections. I have but one question: Are the summaries supposed to be so detailed? I understood a summary, especially here, is supposed to entice/intrigue a reader as well as explain (not with POV statements) the general story line. It seems to me that the summaries give away too much of the storyline and too much incoherent detail for an avaerage reader that is not familiar with the storyline. Spoilers here are an understatement! They tend to read more like *Cliffnotes*. Either way I am happy to help. "Knowledge is the Destination-Truth the Journey"-Terry Goodkind 18:46, 13 November 2006 (UTC)Addicted2learn


Welcome addicted to learn! Yes you have hit on a point Runch and I have been discussing the past couple of days. I made mention of it a few months ago, but got tied up with business. Personally, I wanted to do away with the whole summery thingy and only have a plot intro. I think the summery just gives too much away, but I may well be in the minority on that issue. A few of us are still deliberating it out ~shrugs~ :) As for editing please have at it. I'm woefully behind in doing that task due to my work load of late, but have a hand at trying to update and upgrade the plot intros and/or the summerys. Please do not heasitate to ask for any assistance or to double check your facts. As I am the worlds foremost authority on all things SOT related I can be a big help with the facts etc. Again welcome and please do sign into the SOT project on the page.. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Sword_of_Truth AND happy editing! Mystar 14:02, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sword of Truth Miniseries Announced

Recently I found out that Sam Raimi, the director of the Spider-Man movies, has gotten Goodkind's consent to begin planning a Sword of Truth miniseries, similar to the one made recently about the "Dune" series. The series would begin production sometime next year. I don't know at what point that news items like this should be added to the article, but I wanted to point it out. I've only got very limited experience at editing Wiki pages so it probably wouldn't be a good idea for me to start it. Just putting it on the table. Thanks! - Blitzrhenzai 22:38, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

The related information will make its way into the article shortly. There are other things going on, and I don't think the details have been passed down the grape vine yet, atleast not to me. As soon as the information is passed along, Mystar will make sure appropriate attention is given to this topic. Omnilord August 1, 2006

[edit] Sword of Truth Stubs

There is a huge pile of rather useless SoT character and concept stubs that need to be compiled into a single page. Because there is no Wikiproject for the SoT series I'm posting this notice here. Most of these articles are about characters and concepts that do not have enough information or are not important enough to warrant their own pages. I'm going to AfD these pages in the next few days unless there is an editor that wants to merge these pages as I have neither the time nor inclination to do so myself. The SoT category page has a listing of these SoT stubs. For deletion and merging information see:

NeoFreak 05:54, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, Mystar and I were talking about this at one point. There is a lot of attention given to insignificant characters, and there are major characters who don't have a page at all. I think it might be a good idea to prune out the lesser character pages.
Omnilord 6:14pm (EST) August 27, 2006
I would sugest you compile all the minor characters into a "Characters of The Sword of Truth Page" with a brief paragraph dedicated to the one or two primary protagonist and antagonist characers and a link to their repective pages (if they warrant their own pages). You can do the same with "Organizations" and "Items or Artifacts". With what is there now when all is said and done you shouldn't be left with more than a half dozen pages. If you and anyone alse that plans to get started on this and do so in the near future than I can hold off on a Afd. NeoFreak 22:51, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
I'll try and pull a list of characters together in two categories: primary (page-worthy plot-moving contributing style characters) and secondary (lesser characters that don't do much) Omnilord 23:13 27 August 2006 (UTC)
I've found that pages devoted to individual primary characters and then a seoncd page of "everyone else" works best but if you think that will work out best than I'd say go for it. NeoFreak 23:46, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
I took a look at the Category:Sword of Truth characters, and as I said on the talk page there, I think some that have separate articles now don't even deserve to be mentioned as minor characters, nevermind have their own page. Unless you're really going to compile an exhaustive list of ALL SoT characters, no matter how minor. Otherwise I agree with Neo - the primary characters deserve their own page, the rest should be compiled on one page (or on several; you could for instance make a separate page for all Sisters of the Light, and one for all Sisters of the Dark). Paul Willocx 13:40, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
You might as well start a Wikiproject for SoT while you're at it, seems to me there would be enough people willing to participate. Paul Willocx 10:11, 30 August 2006 (UTC)


Well reading the information I can see a major over haol is in line. Much of the information is in fact incorrect. Such as the Great barrier. The fact that it states that it could haev been used to win or victory is nothing more than speculation, as the book doesn't even insinuate that. The barrier is a dead lock stop gap measure. I see a great deal if misinformation, incorrect application and personal spectulation on events and what they supposedly mean.

There can be no room for personal speculation on events etc, as the books only give so much information, we cannot have people adding their own spectiulative assumptions and assuned infreance.

As soon as we get a mediation situation underway with Goodkind's main page I will be taking up this cause. Mystar 13:28, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I've been talking with several individuals who are very familiar with the novels having read them several times over, and possessing a thorough knowledge of the content. My idea is to coordinate them, independent of the current controversy, to start utilizing that knowledge base to compile accurate information regarding plots, elements, and charaters. This has been second priority discussion since probably february to get some people who are familiar to polish up the book articles and the associated element articles so they are factually correct. If any POV seeps in, we can pick it out with a fine-tooth comb. Any objections/commentation? Omnilord 21:41, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I would say that before adding extra content (which is certainly welcome, the first thing coming to mind would be biographies of Richard and Kahlan that include their life during the series), someone should organize the existing multitude of pages and try to get a far lower amount of pages of greater length and quality (see my comments elsewhere). Not just the characters could be merged, but also things like, I don't know, magical concepts in SoT, objects in SoT, and so on. You can then always turn the pages themselves into a redirect to the matching paragraph in the new combined article (so that, to take a random example, if someone enters "Wizard's Life Fire" on Wikipedia, he is redirected to a page called "Magical Spells in Sword of Truth", to the paragraph about Wizard's Life Fire). Paul Willocx 21:51, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
I agree and would be willing to help on both accounts. - Runch 23:05, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
That sounds like a good idea. Omnilord 23:14, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sword of Truth Characters

So I've noticed that there is a preponderance of pages on characters in the Sword of Truth. Unfortunately, nearly all of these pages are for characters in the first two novels of the series. Consequently, characters of almost no importance from Wizard's First Rule have extensive descriptions while major characters from later novels receive miniscule attention (such as Nathan Rahl and Emperor Jagang) or have no character page at all (such as Berdine, Raina, etc.). A (presumably up to date) list of current character pages is located at Category:Sword of Truth characters.

Essentially, what we need is for several collaborators to take upon themselves the (monumental) task of creating pages for the major missing characters in the series and updating the pages for the existing major characters so as to be representative of their actions throughout the whole series. I would love to help in this task, but seeing as I haven't read the majority of the novels in several years, I don't feel qualified to do most of the work. If anybody is interested in collaborating on this project, though, let me know, as I'll definitely be willing to help by revising, editing, formatting, and doing all the minor tasks associated with major rewrites. Leave me a message on my talk page! - Runch 01:09, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I think that some characters that now have their own page should keep it, other should be merged, and others still should be removed entirely due to being too insignificant. My personal opinion on who falls in what category is as follows, disagreement and debate is of course welcome. I'm only using those names that appear in the Category:Sword of Truth Characters.

First category (own page): Richard Rahl, Kahlan Amnell, Zeddicus Zu'l Zorander, Cara, Nicci, Adie, Emperor Jagang. Arguably Abby (due to being the Debt of Bones protagonist), Prelate Annalina, Verna.

Second category (merge into one or more minor pages): the ones that were named as "arguably" in the first category; Chase, George and Michael Cypher, Darken Rahl, Demmin Nass, Denna, Jennsen, Nathan, Warren, Shota (with mention of Samuel), Savidlin (with mention of Weselan and Siddin), Violet and Milena, Rachel, the Sisters of the Dark, Panis Rahl, Gratch, the Bird Man, maybe Giller, and a number of arguable cases.

Denna clearly qualifies as a major character, although she does not stay in the series for a long time. The experiences Richard has in captivity have profound and far-reaching effects in the series.
Zuiram 21:27, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Third category (delete): Emma Brandstone, Innkeeper Bill, Shar, Anargo, Dennee (doesn't even appear in the books themselves, only important as background to Kahlan), and the arguable cases mentioned in the second category (i.e. everyone not named elsewhere). Paul Willocx 23:49, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

How about we just generate a list of all characters, then categorize them with 'Page', 'Blurb', or 'List at End.' I include the 'List at End' category because I know that it would be helpful for people to know that a character name was used somewhere in the series if they are having a memory lapse. So a sample of the character's page would go "Abby: blurp; Denna: blurp; Rachel: blurp; ... Shar: blurp; Violet: blurb; Insidental Characters: Anargo, Dennee, Emma Brandstone, Innkeeper Bill, Johnrock..." but if someone desided to add one sentence or soemthing to state how that character was used, I don't think it would make that big of a deal for lesser characters. Omnilord 00:29, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps we should move this to Category_talk:Sword_of_Truth_characters? Omnilord 00:32, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] If you are Editing Please check your facts=

This way you will not provide misinformation. Speculative opinion is not fact! Mystar 16:22, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] High D'Haran

I just noticed that there is no entry for High D'Haran on the wikipedia. anyone want to get something going with this? i'll be checking this talk page in the next few days to see if anyone wants to work on this. i'd also like anyone serious about this to e-mail me at patrickjsanford at hotmail dot com so we can get a better meeting place untill a perm page is setup.
Patrickjsanford 20:32, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I created a new page High D'Haran to get this going. can anyone tell me how to setup a project or something to get people interested in helping with this? it's a stub right now, and i'd like to get that part going. personaly i'm really interested in seeing a good page on that.
Patrickjsanford 06:47, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
There really is not enough notable information to warrant it's own page. Maybe a side note or section in the D'Hara article once it is done, depening on how the primary SoT editors decide to work that out. The best place to find editng help on SoT related articles is right here! I would also suggest you look into starting a wikiproject if you plan on coordinating alot of SoT work in the future. Make sure that you fufil the recommend pre-reqs for a wikiproject before hand, otherwise you'll just end up with a dead wikiproject. Please look around at the other SoT articles and stubs before creating any others by looking in the Sot Category at link at the bottom of the main article page. NeoFreak 12:48, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
You know, that was really mean what you did. it was uncalled for, and not helpfull because the redirect lead to a page with no information on it whatsoever about the page i had started. i've changed it back, and added more stuff. if you think that High D'Haran doesn't deserve more than a mention then check out the page not >:(
p.s. I'm now proposing that all further talk about the High D'Haran page be moved to the approprate talk page. i'm going to copy/paste this conversation there now. - Patrickjsanford 16:36, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
I've left a note on the Talk:High D'Haran about this article you've created. I would appreciate other editors weighing in there. Cheers. NeoFreak 17:01, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] SAVE MY PAGE

NeoFreak done put up my High D'Haran page for AfD. please help me keep it up. i've been getting no help with this and neofreaks just one person who's been going on about deleting it all day. please check out the talk page there and then help if you want to. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Patrickjsanford (talk • contribs).

You might find that most of the others would agree with me. I've already added the mention, ref and link about High D'Haran to the Sword of Truth page so the readers won't lose anything. The AfD is legit, I'm sorry, I really am. By all means I encourage others to check out the talk pages over at the High D'Haran page and the AfD nomination page. NeoFreak 20:00, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Drafan Rahl

just noticed that theres no page for Drafan. there is a page for Oba, and Jensen so i think that Drafan also deserves a page. he is at least as important as the other two i mentioned, and maybe more so because he was married to Kahlan if even for a short time. this marrage allowed her to later become richards third wife, and it affected the events of the next book heavily. - Patrickjsanford 14:37, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I think you're using some faulty reasoning here. It's not that Drefan deserves a page, it's that Oba and Jensen do not deserve pages. We've actually already had this discussion (located on this page under Sword of Truth Characters) - you'll find that the concensus is that only a few characters deserve individual pages while the others (Oba, Jensen, and Drefan among them) deserve no more than blurbs in a "Minor Characters of the Sword of Truth" page. If you're interested in contributing, just let the contributors on this talk page know, we'll probably get started on the issue soon.
Remember, don't always think in terms of more pages and more information, but in terms of better information quality. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a fan site. - Runch 14:58, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
I think what is needed here is a better deffinition of major and minor characters. Just because a character apears several of the books doesn't mean they're a major character, and just because they are only around for a few chapters doesnt mean they're minor. there needs to be a concensus about what is and what isnt.
about about the wiki being and encyclopedia: yeah, it needs to have good information, but that information needs to be setup in a way thats easy to find. most always if you type something into the search box it'll take you the the appropreate page. but craming a lot of info on to one page just because you believe something doesnt deserve a page of its own makes searching a lot more difficult. the search may find a page that it thinks is relivant, but then without reading the whole page you arent going to find what youre looking for. keep in mind that most people only search for something for a few minutes before they give up and go to something else. making sure that information is easy to find is just as important as making sure its correct. - Patrickjsanford 15:10, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
If you'd like to argue the case of who is and isn't a major character, I urge you to do so in the above section, Sword of Truth Characters.
As far as information being easily accesible, that's what redirects are for. If you create a redirect sending someone from Drefan Rahl to Minor Characters in the Sword of Truth, then the reader can access information on a slew of different SoT characters. So, using redirects and one all-inclusive character page, I contend that information is acually more accessible to the reader. - Runch 15:41, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm very suspect of any indivdual character articles esp in fiction. Unless s/he is a huge and notable persona in popular culture like Darth Vader or Sherlock Holmes I've just never really seen the need for them. All the characters are best compiled on group pages like "Major", "Minor", or by faction or nationality or even by antagonist/protagonist. This is backed, in my opinion, by WP:FICT. NeoFreak 17:14, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
yeah, but if youre going to go to all that trouble, then why not just have the information on its own page with a link to a category page, or a listing page? if you use redirects then it also helps to make sure you send them to the right section on that page, not just the page itself. (im replying to Runch, anyone know a way to make that show better?) - Patrickjsanford 00:26, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
You seem to be arguing that redirects are a good thing, which was my point. Regardless, I stand by my arguments; minor characters certainly are not notable (see WP:FICT and WP:N). - Runch 05:12, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
no, i'm saying that they are a bad thing if used too much because they can create a whole slew of pages with no information that end up bouncing someone all over the place, and they can make it harder for people to find the information they are looking for. there have been several times that i've been redirected when what i really needed was a disambiguation page. this makes it pretty difficult to actually find what youre looking at times - Patrickjsanford 18:48, 14 September 2006 (UTC)


Patrick, I'm sure you mean well. In reading your arguments and concern, I understand what it is you are saying; however I feel that Neo and Runch are correct here. The Characters do have specifically written values that are contributing to the story, usually in more than one area, that doesn't mean they are necessarily worthy of having their own page. It is honestly a better fit to have them redirected to a page where they all have been included. It saves time searching, it saves time moving from page to page and it saves the searcher from getting lost....IMHO

Lets all work together for a better page. I appreciate your enthusiasm and your tenacity! But lets just redirect all that wonderful energy to getting the pages edited with proper information and honest content! Mystar 16:07, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

MyStar: well, its nice to see someone who's willing to at least make a case of an argument instead of just spouting tripe about unrelated issues. i get what youre saying about saving time on searcing, and browsing. the one page method also saves bandwidth on server side in some respect. but i think that people are too willing to deny an entry a page because they feel it isnt, or isnt as, noteworthy. i disagree with this. several smaller pages with a good, easy to find, index (as in a link back to the index from each page) can in many ways be more valuable then fewer pages with a slew of information. what good is a page if it's unreadable? having information about many diffrent articles on a page can lead to information that is poorly categorised, and to overwelming a reader. what if someone is wanting to find information about all the characters of Rahl bloodlines? so far in the series there are Panis, Darken, Richard, Nathan, Jensen, Oba, and Drafan Rahl. Now, if you have all of that on one page you can have a note with each entry describing their relation to each other which will give you a great deal of information in one spot, but then we all know that Richard Rahl should be on its own page. so what do you have? you have one large page with a lot of information about Richard Rahl, and maybe a few notes about the others at the bottom, or you have a page about Richard, and information lost on a giant "minor characters" page. it makes more since to me to have several smaller pages that are linked to from a page called "Rahl Family" which could either serve as an index, a page with information about the Rahl family, or both. what good is having all this information if you cant find anything? craming too much on a page just ends up is things being lost, and can result in confusing the search function. now dont get me wrong, the search is very good in 99% of cases, but just putting in "Richard Rahl" and clicking search brings up 4 pages of links. if i'm wanting to find one peice of information then i'm going to have a hard time sorting through all that. - Patrickjsanford 19:35, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
I get the feeling you might be more interested in contributing to a specific Wiki about the Sword of Truth. In a SoT Wiki, pages like Rahl Family Bloodlines would be a great addition, but as I've stated before, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and currently, there is way too much information and "fancruft" about fictional series as it is. There is currently a Wiki about the Sword of Truth here at Wikia. Feel free to contribute!
Also, I'm not sure how you're using your search feature, but when I search for "Richard Rahl", my browser takes me straight to Richard Rahl, not some 4 pages of links. If you're having trouble with your search feature, feel free to ask me on my talk page, or just ask for help. - Runch 19:58, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Request for peer review

hold on a second! it's not this page i'm wanting peer review on. i edited the Princess Violet page and want interested parties to review what i did, and see if they can improve it. i know that this isnt the documented peer review method, but theres no since in getting the whole wiki involved in a big thing. anyway, i added the last sentace to the third paragraph about the box in princess violets room, and put in the last paragraph about how richard kicked her. just wanting people to help with it. - Patrickjsanford 16:55, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Request for article, or stub

DRAGONS! i would like to request a short article/stub on the 3 kinds of dragons mentioned in the sword of truth series. there are a few sentances in "Wizards First Rule" describing blue, green, and red dragons present in the SOT universe. wondering if anyone would like to find this and make a page about it. i would presently, but i am rather inebreated at the moment, and don't think it would be a good idea to write a drunken article. anyway, don't know if anyone will take this seriously, but just wondering. also! i want to know if anyone is interested in creating a SOT wikipedia group. kinda like a project i guess. i just think that this area could be greatly improved if some people would take an intrest and edit on a regular basis. i've seen the wiki do some great things, and want to get SOT involved. if not i guess i can make my own website or something, but this is a lot better due to all the editors. thanks. man, i wish that the communication on here where a lot better though. seems allfully lonely on the wiki with so few people resonding. there arent enough people that take an interest in categories and then stick with them for a while. seems like everything i like is dead. it was nice when people took an interest in Sword of Truth and edited it like mad trying to get the best article they could. thanks. Patrickjsanford 05:43, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

The dragons artilce would fail WP:N and WP:FICT and would get nom'd for AfD by me. Because you think it's a cool little part of the Goodkind universe doesn't make it worthy of an encyclopedic article. Remember the High D'Haran page? Same concept.
As for the Wikiproject, yes, that's a great idea. I was thinking about starting one and if we can get a few others here like Mystar, Runch, Omnilord, WLU, youself and three or four others that really want to take part I will fire up the wikiproject. I've already started on but I'm no expert so help would be appreciated from anyone. NeoFreak 05:50, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
If you had searched for Dragon (Sword of Truth) you would have been redirected to Creatures in The Sword of Truth, which not only has info on dragons in the SoT universe but also information on a number of other notable creatures.
As far as the Wikiproject, it seems as if we're all on the same wavelength there. I know me and Mystar had talked about starting up a Wikiproject, and I was going to look into it and start one for the SoT. If you're already in the process of starting one NeoFreak, let me know, otherwise I'm going to get the ball rolling on that. - Runch 14:54, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:WikiProject Sword of Truth

The Wikipedia:WikiProject Sword of Truth is now up and running, although there will undoubtedly be many changes, updates, and revisons over the next few weeks. Please join if you are interested! You can use the shortcut WP:SoT for easy access. - Runch 17:11, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Slight edit to "Magic."

I altered one sentence. It was originally, "It is stated that Witch Women are able to see events in the flow of time, which is also a form of prophecy." I changed it to "It is stated that Witch Women are able to see events in the flow of time, which is also a form of prophecy, however the events that they can see, while true, ultimately don't occur as one might expect." I feel this is accurate, as in Wizard's First Rule Shota told Richard that both Kahlan and Zedd would betray him, Zedd be using Wizard's Fire against him and Kahlan by touching him with her power. While it is true that both Zedd and Kahlan used their powers against Richard, a wizard's web cast on Richard by Darken Rahl caused both Zedd and Kahlan to think that Richard was Darken. So it wasn't truly a betrayal, as Shota's words had Richard and Kahlan thinking. -- NME 06:34, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Critical reception

Thoughts on adding the following heading to the SoT main article?

  • Definitely. There are several websites dedicated solely to hating Goodkind, and it's especially prevalent among WoT fans, considering how badly he rips off Jordan. I think RJ even made a comment about it on his blog.

[edit] WLU's attempts at more Critical attacks

The Goodkind's sole body of work to date, the Sword of Truth series, has received both criticism Reviewers discuss the awkward and repetetive prose and violence of the series. However, critics have also noted improvement in his writing over the development of the series, his ability to construct a detailed and creative world, and his writing of heroic characters with a powerful sense of morality. Goodkind himself has defended his inclusion of items such as torture, stating that (regarding Wizard's First Rule) his purpose was to highlight the helplessness, degredation and irrationality of an abusive relationship, not to shock or disgust. WLU 16:40, 2 November 2006 (UTC)


Well, again you seem to have over looked the rules. These are nothing more than blogs, most are personal attacks. We have stated that these are not acceptable for use. Also having never read the series, we are then forced to conclude that you have no idea as to their validity. People can say or write any thing they wish...so what? That in no way makes it valid. Peddle your disdant for Goodkind elsewhere please. Mystar 02:48, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

What rules have I broken? There is not a single blog. The closest to a blog is the Christian Fantasy one, which could easily be replaced by one of several others. They are not personal attacks (inchoatus being a possible exception, which could again be replaced, perhaps by the infinity review). Several praise Goodkind. This section opens the door to including other positive reviews as well. WLU 13:59, 9 November 2006 (UTC)


Sadly you must not have read any of them. Least of all Flag thingy who outright attacks with vehement and repugnant attacks...sorry we all have discussed this before. They are blogs, not professional reviews and all only offer attacks rather than reviews. Again, as you have so stated you care not for the Author whom you've admidtedly never read, so go peddle your whares elsewhere.Mystar 22:42, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

  • I'm not so sure that the guy who maintains Goodkinds's MySpace is all that neutral either.


Notes from past arguments on this crapola.... · To WLU: Anything on a blog is not a reputable source (See Wikipedia:Reliable Sources). In addition, anything that TG may have said to any of his fans really is a completely trivial piece of information, and as such, it is not of an encyclopedic nature. · Finally, to Mystar: Please stop accusing everyone who disagrees with you of vandalism (Please read Wikipedia:Vandalism and specifically the section entitled What vandalism is not). I've been contributing to this page for months now, and I have yet to see one instance of true vandalism by a regular contributor. As always, lets all be civil here. Thanks, Runch 23:05, 21 September 2006 (UTC)


Terry is not a sadist, don't make him out to be one just because he is able to create evil villains who can portray evil traits (IE sadism, violence, sexual-misconduct). If you want to address this, keep it local to the books/series, and don't make it sound like you are labelling the author with the same sweeping judgement. We can work on making it read appropriately in the appropriate article(s). Omnilord 22:29, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Again we seek creditable sources...professional and NOT POV driven or attacks simply because the bloger feel threatened by Goodkind's success Mystar 00:40, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

WLU, you need to realize that there is more conversation that goes on about these articles than is present on these talk pages. Talk pages are somewhat inefficient to realtime colaboration efforts. In most of our cases, Mystar happens to be the person who makes the edits for the group. Some of us who are able to make use of their time to perform edits will login to wiki and do so, but of late many of us have been quite overburdened with work and the impending holiday season doesn't help to aleviate time constraints. So when Mystar speaks, he often does not speak only for himself, but for a large number of editors that just don't have more time to contribute than to have a brief instant messenger conversation with mystar about the direction something should take.

Mystar is a very blunt person after a point, and you passed that point a long time ago by refusing to yield your constant and consistant insistants on including material that the concensus has deemed inappropriate and un-encylopedic. Not only have you presumed to be the only authority on editing and have "owned" pages, you have repeatedly been cited as deliberately stating that you want to see mystar banned, you want to see Terry Goodkind shamed on Wikipedia, and you are now trying to use the wikipedia dispute resolution process to do so.

If you have such a strong aversion to Terry Goodkind, why don't you just walk away from all things Goodkind like a reasonable person would? Omnilord 05:44, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

What "group" does Mystar represent? Maybe you mean the members of the Goodkind sanctioned fansite www.terrygoodkind.net that Mystar runs or the official Terry Goodkind fan club that Mystar heads or the Terry Goodkind MySpace page that...Mystar runs. It doesn't matter and nobody cares who "Mystar speaks for" unless he is the legal agent of Terry Goodkind (he's not) which would give him the authority to speak to the wikimedia foundation about any legal issues that come from the policies of writing a "living persons" biography article. I know that Mystar is a friend and fan of Goodkinds but it is already established that taking a straw poll from other Goodkind fans from any of his fan organizations means squat here. Each editor is on the same footing here restraied or empowered only by the policy of wikipedia. That's it. I would like to say that Mystar has done an excellent job (from what I can see) of avoiding spawning or enlisting any meat puppets from these places and I would imagine that will continue. If an editor wants his opinion heard then he needs to voice it, Mystar doesn't get any extra weight due to any affiliation with Goodkind fan organizations. NeoFreak 20:01, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New section - audience

Thanks for the addition Omnilord (realizing you're away for Turkeyday - research shows that transitory increases in calories such as through single days like Thanksgiving resulted in brief elevations in metabolism, not long-term weight gain. Have some gravy!) My problem with the section as is conflates fantasy with a youthful audience. I am an adult, and I read fantasy, as does my brother and many of my friends, my mother and my step-father, I'm guessing many of the editors of the Song of Ice and Fire pages as well, but we'd have to take a poll. Also, Sword of Truth is without a doubt fantasy, pretentions of TG aside. Reading fantasy does not mean you are a kid or immature. Plus it really sounds like an apology for TG's adult themes. The conflation of fantasy with children is one of the things I find irritating, as if writing fantasy is somehow something dirty or shameful or childish. Fantasy is a genre like any other - there's good and bad. Writing good fantasy, even though TG disagrees and this is a page on TG's novels, is not inherently bad, and right now I find the paragraph to be prejudicial against fantasy. Wikipedia should reflect a NPOV, not the POV of the author (o'course he can have opinions on the page, but with references and it should be obvious that it's his). Also, references to names past the first should be last names (i.e. replace Terry with Goodkind). I've already taken the liberty. WLU 02:16, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

I re-worked the paragraph to remove the whole 'fantasy is for children' bit - now it talks about two of the things that make it adult - philosophical themes and violence, but I hope I phrased it in a way that doesn't portray TG as a raving sadist. WLU 15:39, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A simple proposal by a mediator

Just have a staw poll. WikieZach| talk 21:19, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

A what? Omnilord 22:19, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Politics

The sentence under Themes is wrong: "The Sword of Truth series is also known for its intricately woven political intrigue, offering a stark contrast between Objectivist and socialist or collectivist beliefs." I may not know too much about collectivist beliefs, but I do know that, although he may portray an anti-socialist (or anti-communist) Americanized POV, that does not mean that is what he's actually referring to. I believe the term(s) needed here would be despotism, referring to the oligarchy involved. Do not use the term socialism when it simply isn't. There seems to be a large difference between what most North Americans view as socialism, and what the rest of the world views as socialism. At best, you could say that the contrast is between libtertarianism, and authoritarian communism. At best. However, it would still be much better to leave politics out of this. Especially seeing as how the comparison made is actually between a philisophical POV, and a political POV. It makes no sense. It's like comparing apples to oranges. If no one has any objections, I would like to remove that sentence.

Well, the assertions is unsourced and the opinion of several editors here. While it is your prerogative to remove any unsourced material that you choose to contest I would say that this particular statment is not controversial. Goodkind has made seeral statments about that being his position (which I can't cite now) and he has also made cited commments that he is an objectivist and his books reflect that position in contrast to that of collectivist beliefs. All objectivists (or Randians) are anti-collectivist. I don't really understand your position on there being a diffrent interpretation of "socailism" as it is a pretty wel agreed upon term. Maybe the differing points of view on "Leftism", "Communism" and "Liberalism" but not "socialism". Regardless, I would suggest you read some on the objectivist position and look at some of the source citations for his political positions pertaining to his books before you remove the comment. NeoFreak 22:51, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
I will definitely disagree with the idea of leaving politics out of this entirely. Goodkind focuses a good chunk of the novels to this and it's a very prominent theme throughout. Should it be cleaned up? Perhaps. But to be removed entirely? Absolutely not. --pIrish 23:11, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Needs a face lift. how about:

"The Sword of Truth series is intricately woven with political intrigue designed to embody the stark contrast between Objectivism and collectivist beliefs." Omnilord 01:17, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

From my limited understanding of the series, there's less political intrigue as much as there is a clash of political ideologies (political intrigue to me is backfighting in boardrooms and between nobles in a court; clash of political ideologies is meeting in combat and overt disputes over the relationship between rulers, ruled and countries). I'm not saying either is right, but the as someone reading the article with little background of the series, the two different ways of phrasing it gives two very different perceptions. WLU 02:27, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Typo?

However, Darken Rahl and the Sisters of the Dark learn subtractive magic, though the Sisters of the dark learn by making a pact with the Keeper of the Underworld, where as Richard is born with the natural right.

[edit] Warlock/Witch/Wizard

Isn't it common knowledge that a warlock is a male wizard, and a witch is a female wizard? I highly doubt it is different in this series.

Just as 'human' applies to both men and women, 'wizard' applies to both witch and warlock.


Someone should just remove that part, and edit it to : there are only four types of magic-users... or something like that.

Madking 18:35, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../t/h/e/Talk%7EThe_Sword_of_Truth_a7bf.html"