Talk:Eragon/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
← Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 →

Contents

NOT JUST STAR WARS

When I read Eragon, I was able to forgive it's similarity to Star Wars. There is a limited amount of ways to begin a story like this. But when I read Eldest and saw noticed how much it felt like both The Two Towers [the defense of Carvahall / the defense of Helm’s Deep] and the Empire Strikes Back [finding that Rider trainer guy / finding Yoda], I thought “Whoa, Whoa, Whoa! WTF is this?” It’s just disgusting. What other stories did he borrow from? These are the questions we must ask ourselves. Not just STAR WARS and LOTR. This is why I hate what I call "The Ring Wars" trilogy. ________________________________________________________________________________________ [Note: This Line has been placed by User:Whytecpress to seperate the above unsigned post from his own.]

Many books/movies/things are like that. Some philologist wrote a paper on it called The Hero With a Thousand Faces(there's probably an article i could link to, but I'm to tired @ the monment.) the Pendragon Series is similar also. WhYteCypResS

The Anti-Shur'tugal site has an extensive list of books Inheritance resembles. And the article, I think, has a list of the 'derivative'-ness of the books. Although some could be concidental. Sorry if my previous posts on the talk page haven't been NPOV, but I read Anti-Shur'tugal a LOT... 169.229.121.94 03:19, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Also, there's now an article called List of derivative natures in the Inheritance Trilogy, which pretty much includes everything. 169.229.121.94 03:20, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

He was a teenager when he wrote it...give him a break. Brentt 03:57, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Who cares if he was a teenager? That doesnt give you the right to foul this world

Please, everyone. This talk page is a page for discussing changes to this article, not for voicing your own opinions on how this book's plot is similar to that of other works by other authors, directors, etc. Regardless of how you may see it, this article is used to provide information on the book, and if it was written in a certain way that was reminiscent of other works, so be it. Whether or not its storyline is "borrowed" is irrelevant to how this article gives information on it. So let's maintain a neutral point of view and give information on the book, not our opinions of it. Arknascar44 19:57, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Created an article, List of derivative natures in the Inheritance Trilogy

List of derivative natures in the Inheritance Trilogy

I am not an Eragon fan, but I am tired of seeing people with different views flaming each other, arguing on both talk boards and the article itself, the continuing circle of flame-delete-flame-delete war going on Eragon and Eragon-related articles. So, people who would like to have their say about the (arguable) plagiarisms that exist in Inheritance trilogy, now here is a page where you can actually analyse them in a Wikipedian-like manner WITHOUT flaming on neutral articles. And for Eragon fans, here is where you can source counter-critisms and not overflow Eragon/Eldest articles there.

Remember, this is still a Wikipedia article, NOT a free chat board or place to force your opinions and flame each other about it. Remember to cite published reviews (preferably not from Eragon fan sites or anti-Eragon sites) and remain neutral and formal. That includes the talk page. Tinned Butterfly 22:19, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Plus, you don't really need an artical. Anti-Shur'tugal does pretty much everything for us from listing all the links to other stories to a forum for bitching at each other. Wild ste 12:19, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

People keep on removing parts or all of the Inconsistencies section

The following IPs have removed some or all of the Inconsistencies section:

It feels like more than that number, though, and reverting the edits has become tedious. If you are considering removing a section of an article discuss it on the article's talk page! Consider that there are a lot of us working on this article, and that you can't remove a lot of work just because you, one person, thinks this should be deleted. I consider failure to justify such actions as vandalism. You may think otherwise, but you are being destructive rather than constructive in your work. UnaLaguna 07:02, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

whys is an OBVIOUS crticism article allowed to be on wikipedia! I thought it is was supposed to be a NON-BIASED article but then I see articles like this List of derivative natures in the Inheritance Trilogy
FLAMING Eragon for things arent facts. someone has to justify it or i will recomend the article for speedy deetion. Smith Jones 21:37, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
The inconsistencies are facts, or at least some of them were, as far as I could tell. [length of gestation period, anyone?] No book is perfect, and of course no book is completely bad. A neutral article about a book, then should contain thoughts on both sides, or else neither. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.39.68.69 (talk) 00:07, 6 March 2007 (UTC).

Separate page for inconsistencies

It seems as if a separate page for the inconsistencies would solve this "reverting war." Yay? Nay? BlueCanary9999 23:51, 29 January 2007 (UTC)BlueCanary9999

NAy there arre NO sources for the alleged 'inconstistences' in the book so you CANNOT make an article on WIKIPEDIA. if you want to do that, ythen you cam make your own bashing website and do it there okay! Smith Jones 22:18, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

...
If you can find reliable sources for the inconsistencies, provide them on this talk page. Otherwise, they're not really suitable for inclusion. Besides that, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, and I'm not certain if these things are encyclopedic. A few important examples, maybe. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 02:56, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
Wouldn't just finding the inconsistencies in the book and providing a page reference be reference enough? You don't need a professional critic to identify an inconsistency.
I think that all the criticisms should be lumped together in one article, similar to the Half-Life 2 controversies and criticisms page. This would include inconsistencies, and the List of derivative natures in the Inheritance Trilogy could be merged with this.
Thoughts? UnaLaguna 06:46, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
First, I'm sorry if I offended you. I didn't mean to.
Nevertheless, I would agree with UnaLaguna.
BlueCanary9999 18:41, 3 February 2007 (UTC)BlueCanary9999
No, that's probably original research. It might be okay in its own article, I don't know; a merge of the two criticism articles isn't a bad idea. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 22:00, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
"Original research (OR) is a term used in Wikipedia to refer to material that has not been published by a reliable source." I would say the book itself is a reliable source for information about the book.
BlueCanary9999 22:40, 6 February 2007 (UTC)BlueCanary9999

{{cleanup taskforce notice}}

Cleanup tag

I know there's a cleanup taskforce tag on the talk page, but it looks like there hasn't been anything discussed in the last week or so. It also doesn't look like it is going anywhere and it doesn't seem to be addressing the whole article, which needs to be cleaned up badly. So I added a complete re-write cleanup tag to the article page and am bringing up some things that need to be done over here.

  • The opening paragraph.
I really don't think this is too bad for the most part. However, the list of countries the movie was released in needs to be scaled down. It's far too long and, since this page is about the book, it is rather unecessary. Maybe simply saying it was released this day and have the movie article go more in depth with specific countries would be better.
  • Publication history.
I deleted the uneccesary dash at the beginning when I added the cleanup tag. The section is ok, but it seems a little wordy for some reason.
  • Summary.
This is where a re-write is in serious need. This is too long. Much too long. A summary should only be a few paragraphs at most. If people want to read a summary, they're going to want to read something short and to the point. This summary is basically regurgitating the entire book back to the reader, not summarizing it. It's not a summary at all if it contains sentences like, "Suddenly two Urgals appear from an alley and attack Brom and Eragon." You could have taken that directly from the book, which defeats the purpose of summarizing it in the first place. Basically, shorten it down. A lot.
  • Characters
Needs to be scaled back to only the most important ones. Perhaps create another page listing all of them, but don't list every single person who was even briefly mentioned in the book on this page. For instance, Gertrude. Yes, I know she was the town healer because I read her description in this article. However, if you had asked me after I read the book to tell you her name without looking it up, I wouldn't have been able to do it. Why? Because she wasn't a main character. This should probably be scaled down to about ten characters, maximum.
  • Reviews
There is only one review listed. There needs to be more than just one here. Period.
  • Criticism
This isn't too terrible. It could probably be kept as is.
  • Inconsistencies
This is original research and it doesn't seem like a really important section to have (do you see sections for mistakes in movie articles? No). It seems rather petty to have a section devoted to something that doesn't even come up in other articles, it just looks like it's trying to attack the books some more. A lot of this is also taken straight from Anti-Shurtugal, which leads me to my next point. The Anti-Shurtugal sources need to go; they aren't reliable or notable and this has been brought up on several talkpages including the talk page for no original research.
  • References/Notes
Shouldn't it be the other way around? You're noting that #whatever is the ISBN number, but you're referencing those articles. These should probably be switched around.
  • External links
This needs to be divided between official and unofficial sites. Anti-Shurtugal should probably go since there isn't a link to someone from the opposite bias there (a fan-site). The other two sites should go as well since they were created due to the movie. If the soundtrack review should be included, it should go on the movie article. However, the sword one shouldn't be here at all as this is simply advertising the site. The site doesn't add anything to the article(s).

I'll probably go through some of this stuff and help clean it up, but I can't do it all by myself. If anybody else would be willing to help out, that would be great. --pIrish 15:22, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

THE ARTICLE ERAGON IS NOT SIGNIFFICANYLT WORSE THAN THE REST OF THE INHERITANCE PARTICLES JUST LEAVE IT ALONE! PLEASE! Smith Jones 15:33, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Are you the one who wrote the majority of this article? If you are, when you wrote it, you agreed to the fact that your work can be edited mercilessly. If you aren't, why don't you think it is any worse than the other articles? While I do agree that every article pertaining to this series needs a bit of work, this one in particular is a trainwreck, as is evident by the points I brought up. That aside, I will be editing it and I'm sure others will be as well. That is one of the primary principles Wikipedia was founded on. Thank you. --pIrish 15:44, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
I did not write the article i just dont think that the mosst of the article i S ALL THAT BAD i agree with some of yourpoints like the original research but some of the rhtoses are just sniptick. my idea is to rewrite the summary to condense it. then Smith Jones 16:12, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
You completely freaked out at my message, capslock and all. My only assumption was that you have some sort of attachment to the article and don't want to see it changed for some personal reason. I've already done a ton of cleanup on the article, all of which have improved it, not deteriorated it. I'm not seeing what your fuss is about. All of my points are very valid, just ask any reliable editor. It's not nitpicking when you want the article to be good and of the highest quality. --pIrish 16:32, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Right, so movie and TV articles don't have sections on inconsistencies. I'll ignore the "goofs" sections which are identical in nature to our inconsistencies section. So yeah, I totally agree we should remove that section from Wikipedia ¬_¬. D'oh! UnaLaguna 12:17, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
Please show me a film article that is listed as a featured/good article that has this section. --pIrish 14:13, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
Casablanca (film) has an "errors" section which addressing the same thing. It is featured. I'll ignore all the articles about films adapted from book that have inconsistencies sections. UnaLaguna 15:57, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
Congratulations! I am truly impressed with your achievement. Afterall, it is rather difficult to find one of the only featured articles with a bloopers section that hasn't been taken off the list yet. Good job! Also, inconsistencies between a film and the book it was adapted from are not the same as bloopers. We're dealing with the article for the book, not the movie, so that point is moot. Now, as to the section for this article? It still can't go in, even though you managed to find that article. The points were either original research or they were copied almost verbatim from an unreliable source. Both of which are strictly against Wiki policy. --pIrish 17:00, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Summary re-write completed

The novel starts out with Eragon finding a blue stone that turns out to be a egg. he takes the egg to slaon after the butcher doesnt want to buy it he decides to keep it at home until it hatches. then he receives the gedway ignnasia that marks him as a Dragon Rider. shrotly aftewards, he meets the storyteller Brom of Carvahall and learns about dragons, the history of the Dragon Riders, and Galbatorix. It is after that then Eragon names his dragon, Saphira.

Eragon raises Saphira shortly until two evil creatures known as the Ra'zac come to his vilalge nad attack his home, killing his uncle and forcing them to fleet. ERagon runs away rom Carvahall then, accompanied by Bromm on his revenge quest to get vengeance on the RA'zac who killed his uncle.

After confronting a band of urgals, Eragon, saphira, and BROM decide to go to see the Varden, a rebellion movement who is trying to defeat Galbatorix. They get assistance from Brom's friend Jode and then Eragon receives a fortune from an mysterious witch calle d Angela. They continue onto their journey and are ambushed by Ra'zac, only to be rescued by Murtagh. This is sad because Brom dies.

Eragon decides to rescue the elf Arya from an evil sorcerer named Durza and hs band of Urgals. He does so but is captured and needs to be rquestuced by Saphira and Murtagh. Murtagh manages to shoot Durza between the eygs and make him vanish but this is only temporary. Later, they find out the directions to the Varden and are able to travel there, even after being pursued by Kull, Galbatorix's elite URgal troops.

Upon arriving at the varden, Eragon is greeted and Murtag is imprisoned by the leader, Ajihad, the leader of the Varden. There, they befriend Orik, a dwarf, and revive Arya as well as meet back up with Angela the witch who makes Eragon's prophecy and her pet cat Solembum, who can shapeshift. The safety of their stay at the Varden city of Tronjheim is broken when Galbatorix attacks with his entire army of Urgals and Kulls that threaten to destroy everything. The Varden manages to defeat them and finally Eragon stabs his enemy Durza through the heart, destroying the shade. Unfortunately, the result of the Battle of Farthen-Dur cauises him to go unconscious but he is rescued by a mysterious stage called Oromis, who beckons him to travel to the elven ctiy of Elemsmera, where he will be trained.

I wrote a new summary for the aritcle please cnegge me gfebdacke. Smith Jones 16:27, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Do NOT add that into the article yet. It's a great length for a summary, however, it badly needs to be checked for grammar and spelling. I haven't read through it either as I'm pressed for time. I can do that during my lunch break in about an hour and a half, but I don't have time to yet. If you can fix the errors, then go ahead and add it in, but please fix them first and then triple check to make sure you got it right. --pIrish 16:34, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
okay i'll leave it out but i thought that it should be put in the article so thatt people can haveve a chance to raed over it and make thier own edits but now that you tell me i wont put it back in utnil its at least been checked. i agreed with you that the original summarry is murch too long and really too dettailed to be less than ca cha pter analysis. It also violates NPOV and stuff. Smith Jones 16:55, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
The problem with you putting that in, word for word, is that it's going to get reverted because it looks like vandalism. By putting your version on the talk page, as you have done, people can edit, check, whatever, and then put a fairly completed version in the article, where it will then be nitpicked to death. It shouldn't be editing to fix spelling, grammar, and capitalization once it's actually in the article, it should be what tense to use or re-arranging sentences to sound better. To be blunt, nothing should ever go into an article if there are more than five errors in the first two sentences. As soon as I save this message, I'm going to go over it and try to fix what I can. --pIrish 18:36, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
tttthankky you if you need any help pleas ask mE. Smith Jones 18:49, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Ok, I just put an edited version of your summary into the article. Let me know what you think, though I won't be able to respond to any messages for a few hours. Thanks. --pIrish 18:56, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
i like your verion its much more clearer and polished than mine. i think it mide bit a good idea to add some links to the summary. Smith Jones 19:56, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I just wanted to get it in there to replace the current novel and I knew either you, me, or someone else would add them in eventually. Thanks! --pIrish 21:37, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I notice that the current summary has been completely rewritten to conform to the movie. The movie and book are vastly different, so which should be included in this article? Bio 16:53, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, considering that the movie was made from the book and the movie was basically a synopsis of the book, I really don't see your point. The current summary is a vast improvement to the novel it was before. Could you at least point out where the summary sides more with the movie than the book? While doing this, please remember that this is a summary, not a regurgitation of the book. It's supposed to summarize the main points of the book, hence, a summary. --pIrish 15:47, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Sorry the article appears to have been fixed. The last I saw, a synopsis of the movie had replaced the book, with certain details that were changed for movie purposes (ex. Brom being killed by Durza, instead of Raz'ac). Someone has fixed it, so no harm done. Bio 18:50, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
All righty. I was going to say, I was pretty confused there for a minute. ;-) --pIrish 19:06, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Typical Plonkers

HAHAHAHA Vandalism?


I think that the editing of the Eragon articles should be restricted to members only, or a few members. There too many people pranking these pages by needlessly editing stuff here. Would be good to stop that, it means a lot less work cleaning up.

Also, I think that only the base of criticism, plus a few examples should be posted, with a citation, and a link to articles or sites which have all the information ready, rather than listing it all here.N Dot W 01:36, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Nope, absolutely not. There aren't enough edits to the page to consider full protection at this time, let alone vandalism edits. I'd be genuinely shocked if we even managed to get semi-protection for it. For now, I suggest you just watch the page and revert vandalism when you see it. What we have now for the criticism secion is exactly what you described. It's pretty short, it gets the point across and highlights examples, and it has linked notable sources to back it up. No reason to slim something down that's pretty good as is. --pIrish 14:30, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

article is so good

i think that this article is a-class now. Smith Jones 04:59, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I really don't. It's short, somewhat vague and the like. But that's not why I'm posting, rather to point out this statement in Arya's character bio. "She was imprisoned by Durza in Yo mama..." Vandalism?

Agreed. This article is missing so much information. Look at other featured literature articles and you will see how little this article offers. The only thing it deals with are details regarding the book's plot and the critical reception it received. There is nothing about when Paolini wrote it, at what age, and how it was published. There is plenty of information available on the internet regarding this. The "Eragon in other media" section is, quite frankly, an embarrassment. The article also has barely any references.
We have A LOT of work to do if we want to get it to A-class, and it's certainly nowhere near such a high level of quality. UnaLaguna 06:26, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I smell a VANDALISM

"They travel through several cities, and Eragon is shocked by the way that the Empire is harming the land and its poop. Finally, after obtaining information in the town of Teirm, bob concludes that the Ra'zac reside in Dras-Leona, a city. There, Eragon, Saphira, and bob are lured into an ambush by the Ra'zac. Although they are rescued by a stranger, Murtagh, bob is gravely injured and dies shortly after geting poop flinged at him — but not before revealing that he was a poop eater whose deceased turd shared Saphira's name."

Yeah...

--Wassamatta 22:30, 25 March 2007 (UTC)Wassmatta

I've reverted it. I'm not too sure how long it sat that way, but it would have been nice if someone had reverted it sooner, especially considering that there are many people who watch this page for edit changes. I am slightly irritated that you took the time to post this message, but didn't revert it for some reason or another. If you don't know how, I do apologize. Vandalism needs to be reverted as soon as it's seen, and anybody can revert it. If you or anyone else doesn't know how, just go to this page. --pIrish 23:20, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
I DO know how to revert it, but I wasn't sure in what way to change it, as I have not fully read the book.

I just informed. I guess I should have looked it up in the history archives. Next time, I will. Has anyone been concerned to semi-protect it due to the ongoing vandalism? --74.133.238.232 23:24, 25 March 2007 (UTC)Wassamatta

It's ok if you weren't sure, it happens. Protecting the page has been suggested before, but, to be honest, it doesn't really need to be protected. Even if it was, it can't stay protected forever. Yes, it consistently gets vandalized, but not enough to warrent protection. It'd be easier to just revert the vandalism than go through the trouble of protecting it and then possibly denying access to those who may want to edit the article for the better. Times to protect usually occur when there are many edits of vandalism by several different IPs in a short amount of time. If it's just one person, they can be reported at WP:AIV. If it's just sporadic edits of vandalism, it really is just easier to revert the edits. --pIrish 01:56, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Criticism section vanished?

What happened to it? I couldn't see anything wrong with it (it was cited and well-written). I'll trawl through the history to try and find it and re-add it. Them cursèd vandals! UnaLaguna 05:17, 28 March 2007 (UTC)


I am not the person who wrote this, just an editor,and I think that if you see something wrong with Eragon, THEN FRICKN WRITE YOUR OWN BOOK!!

Just for the record, you don't need to be a chef to know when food tastes bad. You don't need to be an artist know when a painting's bad. Likewise, you don't need to be an author to know when a book, namely Eragon, sucks. HydrogenatedOil 9:19, 29 June 29 (UTC)

AAAAAUUUUUUGGGGHHHH!

I read Eragon and I'm going to die if I don't read Eldest but I can't get my hands on a freakn copy of it AAAAAAAUUUUGHHH!

You could always just watch The Empire Strikes Back ;) UnaLaguna 05:10, 2 April 2007 (UTC)


Question about Dune

Why do the comments on the similarities between Eragon and Dune keep getting removed?

202.160.44.85 13:56, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

It keeps getting removed because there is no reliable, notable source to back the claims up. Without one, it can only be assumed that it is original research and can't be included in the article. Find a source and it can be included. --pIrish 14:01, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Borneo Bulletin, Saturday 31st March 2007, Vol 11 No. 231

Please try to find something that can actually be checked by anyone, not a newsletter only received by a pretty small group of people. You could be giving me a source that briefly mentions that Eragon could be compared to Dune or something that goes really in depth with the comparison. Or it could have even just been an editorial by some reader making the claim (which would be original research itself)! There's no way for me to know that this is actually reliable.
I'm also somewhat critical of the source itself. From what few articles I've read, it seems like this stuff is written by some random group of people who put this out for the area, mostly just about stuff happening in that area. Not a major, national/international news source where they have to go by extremely strict regulations and their work has to be mercilessly checked by their peers before it can be published. Something from a source a little more prominent that can easily be checked would be best here. Thank you. --pIrish 13:56, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I get where you are coming from, however I respectfully disagree. The Borneo Bulletin is the major newspaper in Brunei, and is owned by the Singapore Straits Times, itself one of the major Asian news papers. You can buy it daily in many US cities. The online portal that you may have seen is very different from the print version.
I also fail to see the difference between a review on the Common Sense website and reviews in a newspaper. How is the website review not original research as you define it? In fact when we are talking about works of fiction, how is any review, and especially criticism not original research?
I read an article in my daily newspaper on Eragon. It talked about the derivative nature of the book and compared it to Star Wars, LOTR and Dune. Two of those had already been mentioned on this site. Dune had not. I have recently read the Dune books and agreed whole-heartedly. As Wikipedia is written collaboratively by volunteers; its articles can be edited by anyone with access to the web site. I felt that this is relevant and others may be interested.
I cannot prove to you that fictional characters in two different series are similar. To do so would be to prove that fiction is real. I am not vandalizing this website, I am not using profanity and I am adding to the value of the article. I request that you leave my addition to the article. 202.160.44.85 01:35, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

It may be a major newspaper, but the site for it doesn't show it. That's where my criticism of the paper comes from. That and only that. Most articles in any sort of major, reliable source can be found online in some form or another (whether free to the public through websites or through archives or databases that many people, especially students, can view through their school or work).
The people who review things on major websites and newspapers aren't pulling stuff out of thin air. They are taking information from many different sources and stringing them together. Once they've done that and written an article, it then gets checked for errors/misinformation and then edited by the person's peers. Just because it is from a human, doesn't automatically mean it is reliable or unreliable. Doing research and being checked before being published does.
This is the first time I've ever seen the comparison to Dune. Ever. As in, ever. That's why I'm so hesitant to leave it in the article. When I Google search Eragon and Dune, all I get are hits from unreliable sources. One person making some random statement who can get their ideas published doesn't automatically make it true. That's why some sources are reliable, or at least more reliable than others; they're reliable because many people made the statement, thus confirming its validity over and over again.
The reason I kept removing the statement, and what I've said from the beginning, is that you never provided a citation for the statement when you included it. I won't leave something in an already controversial article that isn't backed up with a citation, preferably with a link to something that can quickly show the connection without a second thought. And I'm not the only person who has removed your statement from the articles either. Clearly, I'm not the only one thinking this way. --pIrish 02:16, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
I just went over your actual edit to see exactly what you were including. I do have some concerns about the actual information. In the version that I reverted (only one out of three) you said that the series can be compared to Dune because this book has "a destiny to rule, unknown parentage." This is about the most general comparison anyone could ever make and it's very much grasping at straws. Almost all fantasy stories have some sort of destiny to rule and a LOT of them have unknown parentage. Both of these are interlinked. If the person doesn't know who their parents are, they certainly don't know their potential power and they must face obstacles to find this out. Even Disney's "The Sleeping Beauty" has these elements. These two comparisons are a little too loosely connected to be included. The reason Star Wars is consistently talked about is because there is a strong relationship between the two, going down to extremely fine details in the plot lines and characters, not because of some basic element found in many, many fantasy stories.
Now, as for the Alia thing. I've Googled "Eragon Dune Alia" and I came back with 615 hits, thus showing a possible loose connection, but not a very popular one. However, when I Googled "Star Wars Dune Alia" I got 19,400 hits. 317 hits come back when I search for "Star Wars Eragon Dune Alia" (more than half of the hits I got from just "Eragon Dune Alia"). Clearly the connection isn't between Eragon and Dune/Alia. It's between Dune/Alia and Star Wars and, since Paolini heavily used so many elements from Star Wars, of course it's going to have some similar qualities to Dune, but they aren't likely intentional because the original focus was clearly Star Wars, not Dune. The chance that Paolini took 4,472 things from Star Wars and only 1 from Dune is very unlikely. Eragon has a direct connection to Star Wars. Star Wars has a direct connection to Dune. Dune and Eragon have an indirect connection at best.
If we start talking about every similarity that was a similarity from something else, as in this case, or from those based on the previous two vague points I've mentioned, we could seriously start putting down every fantasy series ever created including those such as Harry Potter (Eragon must learn to use his magic, just like Luke has to learn to use The Force, just like Potter has to learn to use his magic), The Chronicles of Narnia (good versus evil), and Wizard's First Rule (the main character doesn't know his father was an all-powerful, evil ruler). Please find another reliable, notable source to back the claim up that can quickly be checked (a link to something else). After researching this, it makes me even more hesitant to include something whose source I can't even check for accuracy or see if it is based on something other than the connection already established between Star Wars and Dune. --pIrish 13:20, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Criticisms of Inheritance Triology article AfD nomination

I nominated the Criticisms of the Inheritance Trilogy article for deletion. If you have time please see the article and then go to this article's AfD entry and vote. So far its 7-1 in favor of deleting.

The reason I nominated it is because it's a very short article that doesn't have enough new information to warrant a new section in any of the Inheritance Trilogy articles let alone a whole new article. And attempts to make it longer have persistently been OR and personal musings of editors. Even though I agree with most of the musings, and its obvious to most people that the books are derivative and not great writing (by the standards of proffesional adult fantasy writers atleast, but arguably a great achievment for a teenager), its still against [[Wikipedia:no original research]|no original research policy]] to have such musings. And all published sources pretty much repeat the same criticisms, which can easily fit into the main article. Brentt 05:52, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I removed the defunct link to the now-deleted Criticism article. Users like Brentt who feel strongly enough to boldly delete articles should boldly ensure the deletion doesn't leave broken links! Dead links do not improve Wikipedia. The Jack 14:54, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Removal of "Themes, Motifs and Symbols" section

In case anybody is wondering why I removed a huge chunk of text just recently inserted, it is because it does not comply with Wikipedia's policy of No Original Research.

Taken from WP:OR:

  • Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought.
Implying, you can't write your own ideas down. The lack of sources in the inserted text suggests this is what the editor did.
  • Articles should only contain verifiable content from reliable sources without further analysis.
No sources whatsoever are given for the edit. S/he may have referred to the book and count that as a source, but that wouldn't count as clearly someone would have to give further analysis of the text.

It seems clear to me that the "Themes, Motifs and Symbols" section therefore goes against Wikipedia's policies, so I deleted it accordingly. UnaLaguna 20:46, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I apologize for not adding in sources for the "Themes, motifs, and symbols" section. However, it would have been slightly better to alert me to the problem and allow me to wikify the section accordingly. No harm done,

Anon44 23:21, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm a little put off by your second sentence here. We really have no responsibility to coddle you or your edit, however, you seem to think that this is what you expected or have a right to. The user handled this situation perfectly. They saw original research, reverted it, and brought it up here for discussion. Removing the edit really is the only course of action in situations like this.
We can't just allow unsourced, original research to sit while we tried to contact you and hope you fixed the edit as that allows time for people viewing this page to possibly acquire incorrect information from your section. It took you three days to respond to this message. That would have been three days where people could have been reading incorrect information. This course of action was correct. The next thing you should do is take the edit to a sandbox or notepad, find references for your claims, and cite them before putting it back into the article. --pIrish talk, contribs 02:11, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

I know absoutely nothing about Eragon (In fact, I came to the page for information), and the page is so heavily vandalized I cannot begin to understand it, and I can't find a decent place to just revert the entire article to. I'd just pick through and delete the vandalism, but I know so little on the subject, that wouldn't make the article any easier to read. If someone who knows the subject could fix this article, that would be greatly appreciated. --Sakaki22 08:41, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I very much agree with you -- someone

Just a Book

I have been reading all these discussions for awhile now, and what I can't understand is why people just can't pick up a book and read it anymore. Of course, the book won't be perfect, no book is. You can hardly write a book without it being similar to someone else's work. I personally enjoyed reading the book, but just reading the book. I don't feel the need to create my own website for or against it. Have you ever written your own book? It's no mystery that it's going to be difficult, anything you've read or seen in your lifetime is going to influence anything you write. Sure, the book is similar to a lot of things, but a lot of fantasy books are. I just can't believe that so many people are making such a big deal out of it. Is it really going to matter in ten years whether you didn't like the book or not? I doubt it. Why waste time complaining? Honestly, I challenge anybody reading this to just pick up the book and read it,unbiased, without comparing it to something else. I don't think the fact that it's similar to something else makes it good. I liked the storyline and the adventure in it. If you don't like it, that's okay, but do you really need to devote all your time against it? Why not just let other people read it? What can it hurt? --12.22.30.78 00:28, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

...and this relates to our Wikipedia article how? UnaLaguna 05:50, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I started reading it totally unbiased and noticed its striking similarity to Star Wars and LotR pretty quickly. And since you liked the storyline, I'm guessing you're a Star Wars fan?BabyCharmander 03:06, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Criticism article

I know we're not here just to downgrade the book, but I really think we ought to add an article on the controversies over the derivative nature of the books. All we have right now is an article on reviews, with just a passing mention of it borrowing from star wars and LOTR. We don't have to list all the points, but some more information would be good. If Harry Potter can have a full article dedicated to it's controversy, then I say this series merits one as well.N Dot W 00:32, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

There was an article. It was deleted. There just wasn't enough controversy for it to have an entire article, rather than just a section. It was also turning into a personal playground for people to add original research without citing from any reliable sources. --pIrish Arr! 00:44, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I see, I see. Oh well, then i guess the mention of it is good enough, at least until more of it comes up in the future.N Dot W 12:05, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Added a much-needed background/publication history section

It might not be particularly wonderful, but it's cited and it's there. This is something which it seems as if nobody else has mentioned, and if you look at any other reasonable article about a novel or book then it has a section discussing the publication history of the novel.

Hopefully that edit will get us substantially closer to a GA-class article. UnaLaguna 06:26, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Time for a peer review?

I'm no expert on novel articles, but I think we have a good B-class article rather than a bad B-class article. Having said that, we could get someone who is an expert on novel articles to push us in the right direction and who will know where this stands within the B-class threshold. That is, we put it up for peer review. I'd suggest putting it up for Wikiproject Novels peer review rather than the regular flavour as that peer review deals explicitly with novels, much like how I put Eragon (video game) (currently the only GA in Wikiproject Inheritance) up for Computer and Video Game Peer Review rather than regular Peer Review.

Unless anyone can think of anything significant this article could use, because I can't, I'll put it up for peer review within the next couple of days. UnaLaguna 20:28, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Third Part of Triolgy 'Untitled'

The article says the third novel in the series is as yet untitled - Is it even written?? How can it even be referenced if it doesnt exists. The references should all be to 'the planned Inheretence Trilogy' becasue so far only 2 parts exist and you cant have a 2 part trilogy.

It does exist in some form, since Paolini himself has given details about it. You might want to look at some of the sources at Book 3 (Inheritance trilogy). UnaLaguna 06:31, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Until it is published or made public in some form, it does not 'exist' in any meaningful form to be recognized in an encyclopedia article.
There are several reliable sources on the subject of the third book, including an excerpt of one of the chapters. See WP:NOTABILITY for why there is an article on the third book. See this discussion on why it's called a trilogy. UnaLaguna 07:05, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
The sentance in the introduction "It is the first book of the planned Inheritance Trilogy." was altered because "'planned' feels like an unnecessary word to me". While it may feel unnecessary, without the word 'planned' the sentance implies that a 'Trilogy' (i.e. Three Books) exist, which is untrue. Until the final book is published, it is not a trilogy, and the only accurate phrasing is 'planned trilogy'. Unless someone provides a better, accurate phasing, I will be reverting to that language next week. 207.69.137.21 01:38, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
But the thing is, it does exist, even if it isn't published. UnaLaguna 05:33, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
No other books are considered for articles until they have been published in some form. This is still part of a 'planned' and not actual trilogy.
COUGH Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows COUGH And look! That book hasn't been published yet, and read the first sentence! Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows is the seventh and final book in the Harry Potter series of novels. Not the "planned" seventh and final book, but the seventh and final book. And this is an article with many more people working on it (look at the history), so someone would be more likely to notice such a discrepancy, especially as it is in the first sentence. I rest my case. UnaLaguna 06:24, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
Other than the fact that HP:DH has an established and imminent release date, the HP article should also be using 'planned', but I am not interested in making that article accurate, I am working on this article.

High Importance???

Why in the world is this considered a High Importance article???

Eragon and Eldest have sold over eight million copies. That's reasonably significant, no? UnaLaguna 06:31, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
No - a sales figure does not make a NOVEL high importance for an encyclopedia. Sales figures should surely be represented in the article, but it does not make it a novel of importance.
According to the Assessment scale at WikiProject Novels something high-importance is "very notable or significant within its field of literature". Something mid-importance is "not necessarily [significant] outside [its field]". Eragon had been adapted into a film, meaning it is significant outside its field. Why isn't it significant? UnaLaguna 06:44, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
The high importance is for high importance within the field of literature and the mid-importance also applies to the field of literature. Whether or not the novel was made into a movie has little effect on its importance to the field of literature.
You may have a point. Tell ya what, I'll put it up for assessment at WikiProject Novels and see what they have to say about it. It may be the work of a vandal, since someone went through and changed a bunch of grades to something ridiculous (and almost made this page A-class!) UnaLaguna 05:32, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Home Schooled?

The article says that Paolini graduated from high school - I understand that he was home schooled Is there a source to verify a statement that "Paolini was home schooled and recieved his high school diploma at age X."

Look at the sources I gave for the Publication history section and you'll see one of them features text, written by Paolini, which says When I graduated from high school, I wanted to write a pure, dyed-in-the-wool hero story. That's source enough. UnaLaguna 06:31, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
The quote you provided still does not answer my question of whether or not there is verifiable evidence that he was homeschooled.
The article also says Christopher was homeschooled by his parents. Since it is from the official Inheritance Trilogy website, written by Paolini himself, I would say it is verifiable. UnaLaguna 06:47, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Maybe he was home-schooled through elementary, but went to high school? That would fit both of the sources. But if a verifiable source says he graduated from high school, then it should be kept. Tuvas 18:03, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
No, if you actually took the time to read Paolini's autobiography in the front of Eragon, it says he was homeschooled up until age 15 when he graduated from high school and went on to write the book.DurotarLord 19:06, 29 June 2007 (UTC)