Talk:Brisingr/Archive 1

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

message: Who here thinks that the administrators should block anonymous users and newly registered members from editing Book III due to the persistent adding of speculation?Arlika1507 11:07, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See above. Also uses of protection. Whilst it could be useful, it is very unlikely that this would happen. Sorry! Ck lostsword|queta!|Suggestions? 14:48, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

message: I've deleted all speculation that is not related to anything confirmed by Paolini or verifiable sources. If I deleted anything that is legitimate in that fashion, please restore it. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not some discussion board where opinions are stated loosely. Speculation belongs on the discussion board, and please keep it there.
The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:68.198.239.81.
We have had this discussion repeatedly before, and I believe that the time has come to resolve it finally. We cannot have single users deleting and reverting the section. I feel that a straw poll of user opinions is necessary to provide an overall view of opinions on removing the speculations on this page. In the mean time, I have reinstated the speculation on the page; please do not remove until his discussion has been concluded (2 July 2006?).
Ck lostsword|queta! 09:24, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:   Deletion of speculation 

message: #I have to support the deletion of speculation.  There is way too much of it, and people keep adding more.  The speculation does not improve the article, and it is all original research and SPECULATION.  I believe it should be deleted.  (11987 16:26, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Support deletion

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

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

message: Come on! Just keep the speculation there! It's not doing any harm. Here's an idea. Make a page called Inheritance 3rd Book Speculation! There's nothing wrong with that.
We've already discussed this.  If you have a problem with it, you should blame yourself and everyone else who didn't vote for not voting.  (11987 06:47, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm really sorry, but as wikipedia is not a crystal ball, and thus, speculation is not allowed. If you want to have speculation, you should do so on speculation forums, or at the most, on this page (the talk page). --May the Force be with you!  Shreshth91(esperanza elections!) 15:48, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

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

text: The page was Prior speculation on Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince, and was nominated for AfD thrice, but not deleted. I'll nominate it for deletion.--May the Force be with you!  Shreshth91(esperanza elections!) 16:46, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done.--May the Force be with you!  Shreshth91(esperanza elections!) 17:20, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why can't we just get along? 

message: Ok. We'll copy and paste the speculation onto here, and people can add stuff.
Onto the Talk Page?  (11987 16:19, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That seems perfectly fair to everyone. Thanks 11987! Ck lostsword|queta! 19:11, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deal 

message: -Roran could succed Orrin as King of Surda
DR7 >.< Why wouldn't he just succed Galbatorix?
We graciously allowed speculation to be allowed on the talk page, but if people keep adding speculaton to the main article, im gonna request it be protected.  Which means people cant edit it.  (11987 02:21, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There will not be any protection of the article, please see WP:PPOL#Uses for reasons. If a highly visible and vandalized article like 2006 FIFA World Cup was not protected except once or twice, why should this comparatively insignificant article be protected. --May the Force be with you!  Shreshth91($ |-| ŗ 3 $ |-| ţ |-|) 15:14, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

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

message: Hey I'm curious whether the title of the article can be changed to Empire. This seems to be the confirmed title of the book and the cover of the book says "Empire" (if that picture is legitimate). Just curious. Thanks, Demosthenes 1 14:35, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It used be called "Empire" (see Requested move above), but was changed because that's not official, its just fan speculation. That cover is just some fan's drawing, so I don't know why its on there. I'll remove it.--Fyre2387 (talk • contribs) 18:35, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Alright thanks. I felt like there was something fishy about that cover. Does anyone know when the author will announce the title? Because "Book 3 (Inheritance trilogy)" bugs the heck out of me. Demosthenes 1 01:11, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can We Call the Article "Empire?" 

message: Because of the regular problems with speculation being inserted to this article, I’ve done some work with the citations. I’ve improved and confirmed the ones I could, and marked other information as lacking a citation. Citations for the notes so marked should be provided, or they will be removed from the article.--Fyre2387 (talk • contribs) 21:42, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: For those that don't seem to understand how this works, two things: first, don't just add random things and think you can get away with it with a cite needed tag. Secondly, don't remove the  tag unless you actually add a citation.--Fyre2387 (talk • contribs) 04:41, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sourcing Status 

message: There's an official excerpt of Book III in Eldest, D.E.  Could somebody add that to the page? It would be really cool!
I Agree all of us who haven't got Eldest D.E. are kept in the dark about Book III chapter one59.100.208.174 14:16, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We can't include a copy of the excert on any of these pages. That material is copyrighted and protected by law. We cannot reproduce it without explicit permission from the author and I highly doubt any of us could get that. --pIrish talk, contribs 13:12, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Excerpt 

message: Is this a true fact or is this more BS?
No "BS" I know someone who works at Knopf and there was talk of an argument that Paolini didn't want the title changed from Empire but Knopf said the title doesn't relate to the book, But then again thats what he says.
:Sorry. "I know someone" isn't a reliable source.--Fyre2387 (talk • contribs) 03:21, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Knopf has changed the title of Book 3 from Empire to an another title relating to the content of the book against Christopher Paolini wishes. 

message: Ericaya
I removed it once agin this morning.  
It first appeared yesterday in the Inheritance template instead of "Book III", so I reverted it. It happened again, only this time someone had copied the contents of Book 3 (Inheritance trilogy) and stuck it in its own article. I reverted the edits on the template, but Ericaya is sitting there. Fortunately nothing links there now. UnaLaguna 05:51, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've redirected that page to this one and nominated it for speedy deletion. --pIrish talk, contribs 12:48, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Someone's giving a name for Book 3 without any sources... again 

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

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

message: Hi, I was wondering if anyone has an approximate date on when Book III will be available. Thank you. ~Megan R.
:No date has yet been announced as far as I know. MelicansMatkin 19:32, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Release Date?

message: The point I'm making is that you come to wikipedia to see facts that have been confirmed by the author or other realable sources. If you want to discuss what could happen in the next book, go to a forum of that book to talk about it. For example, if you want to talk about what might happen in the new Harry Potter book (which seems pointless at this stage as it is only 11 days away), you go to the mugglenet forums or something similar. A talk page is ment to be for discussing how to improve an artical, not for this sort of thing.Wild ste 15:32, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Very true - I've removed it per Wikipedia is not a forum. ck lostsword•T•C 16:36, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you, didn't think anyone would actually listen to me.Wild ste 17:50, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Why is there even a speculation section on the talk page?

message: So there's no way we can block the stupid vandalism that constantly shows up on this page?
~ User: Sophiakorichi
:There's not really enough real vandalism to warrantprotection or anything. Most of the bad edits seem to be from people who just don't understand sourcing requierments and so forth, and its easy enough to revert.--Fyre2387 (talk • contribs) 03:16, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  wow... 

message: I reverted an edit which changed the title from Book 3 to Empire... and judging by content I didn't read, it looks like we may have to make these changes.
I have no idea how reliable http://www.awesomefantasybooks.com/ is, but if what they're saying is true then we've got a lot of find-and-replacing to do. Before I commit myself, can someone confirm the reliability of the source? UnaLaguna 09:42, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd wait for some other confirmation...I can't find this anywhere else, and that includes official sites. It may be true, but it doesn't seem (to me, at least) to be enough to go with by itself.--Fyre2387 (talk • contribs) 16:37, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  So... it IS called Empire and the release date IS 28th March 2008? 

message: It says in the article that Eragon has yet to get the weapon under the Menoa Tree. But was the weapon that transformation he went through?--74.230.88.184 19:05, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No. Read the interview the section is sourced to and you'll see the author has said that he is yet to receive it.--Fyre2387 (talk • contribs) 19:16, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Menoa Tree weapon

message: Perhaps we should move the article from
 Book 3 (Inheritance trilogy)
To
 Book III (Inheritance trilogy)
who would argee?--Sunny910910 (talk|Contributions)Neither will alone, nor strength alone 04:05, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is there any specific reason why we should? We may just be creating more work for ourselves by fixing all the redirects and such. Una LagunaTalk 06:05, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally, I don't think there's any need for a move until such time the actual title is confirmed. Book III (Inheritance trilogy) already redirects here. --Mark H Wilkinson (t, c) 06:20, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Book 3 to Book III? 

message: There hardly seems to have been enough vandalism to this article in the past few months to be valid justification for semi-protected status. Can anyone provide justification?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.158.222.61 (talk) 01:13, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I beleive it is already semi-protected.--Sunny910910 (talk|Contributions)Neither will alone, nor strength alone 01:45, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Correct - it is semi-protected - but has no history of vandalism to justify such 'protection'.207.69.137.36 04:36, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Anomynous IPs had a habit of changing the name from "untitled" to "Empire", "Glaedr", "Fricaya", or something else without providing a reliable source. Sometimes they even moved the entire page without prior discussion. Reverting these changes just got irritating. Una LagunaTalk 17:32, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It takes 3 reverts in a single day to be considered 'out of line' per Wikipedia policy. Even a dozen inaccurate posts within a months time does justify semi-protecting the article in violation of the spirit of wikipedia's open editing policy.207.69.137.28 16:11, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Anonymous Dissident was the one who put the protection up. The protection expires tomorrow; if you think it's such a bad thing that those who can't be bothered to register can't edit this article, then you might want to ask him. Una LagunaTalk 16:25, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi - Protected? Why? 

message: Sure there is - havent you seen Star Wars?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.69.137.36 (talk) 04:47, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What I mean is, while it is possible that "Brom may be Eragon's father", it isnt mentioned in any reliable webpage or source. Therefore, it is just speculation and should not be included (see WP:CRYSTAL).--Sunny910910 (talk|Contributions) 20:00, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Star Wars is a perfectly reliable source for material produced by Paolini.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.69.137.7 (talk) 19:10, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it isn't. Per WP:OR (in particular WP:SYN), if you need to extrapolate information/draw conclusions from what is being said, you're doing the wrong thing. You can't say "x says this, suggesting y". You can only say "x says this", unless it actually says y. Using Star Wars as an example, nowhere in Star Wars does anyone or anything say "Brom may be Eragon's father". What you would need to do would be draw upon alleged similarities between Paolini's and Lucas' work, take specific pieces of dialogue, and draw a conclusion from these points. If this isn't a violation of WP:OR then I don't know what is. Una LagunaTalk 19:43, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Besides, while "Star Wars" may have similarities with "The Inheiritance Trilogy" in plot details, it has no relationship with the "Trilogy" other than that.--Sunny910910 (talk|Contributions) 01:09, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

text: We're editing an encyclopedia, not making petty jokes. Una LagunaTalk 09:28, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia is a place people come to see facts, not to see stupid jokes. Until it has been confirmed by the book, it can not be on the page as it is speculation and therefore has no place in the page.Wild ste 18:33, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  No Source for "Brom may be Eragon's father" 

message: How the heck did we get 'Brisingr' to act like the new annouced title? The ref for it links to this phone conversation recorded online that doesn't say anything about 'Brisingr'. ~ Bella Swan 03:42, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, when I click the link it sends me to the first one, which is a .pdf of a press release issued today announcing the title. seresin wasn't he just...? 04:04, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep. The official press release and Shurtugal.com both corroborate on the cover and title. At last, people will no longer have an excuse to change "currently untitled" to "speculated by fans to be Empire/Glaedr/Fricaya"... Una LagunaTalk 07:03, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

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

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

message: Should we offer a guide for this, in case people are confused by the gr? Or is that just me? Does anybody know how it IS pronounced? 69.210.130.47 (talk) 18:46, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Not a bad idea. The press release just says "BRIS-ing-gr". That probably should go up in IPA. I'd do it, but I really have no clue how to work with that stuff, makes my head hurt.--Fyre2387 (talk • contribs) 19:20, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The author himself pronounces it [ˈbɹɪsɪŋˌɡəɹ]. My fiancée knows someone who works with him, and she has soundfiles of him saying this and other words from the books. 91.107.173.194 (talk) 22:23, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: is it posible for you to give wikipedia one of these soudnfiles for references prupsoes only?`Smith Jones (talk) 22:24, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

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

text: I originally listened to the audiobooks and I am about 95% certain that it is hard "g." I can check it, if anyone wants. Agent0042 (talk) 04:26, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, you're right. I've removed the IPA until we can correct it. Una LagunaTalk 06:51, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pronunciation 

message: This page doesnt mention what the third book was originally going to be called (Empire)or the fact that until the change all books in the trilogy had seven letters and started with E. I know that was the original idea. so I guess we should find sources and add that detail. I will do it later, but to busy now. unless someone wants to do it before next week, becasue i wont be able to tell then.(Masterxak (talk) 08:23, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This page doesn't state the book was going to be called Empire because there's no hard evidence to verify that claim. Una LagunaTalk 07:25, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Empire

message: The article states that Brisingr has a subtitle, "The Seven Promises of Eragon Shadeslayer and Saphira Bjartskular ".  Does anyone have a source for that? 76.246.158.41 (talk) 00:08, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep! Says it right on the title page. And yes, I am holding a copy right now! This is SO AWESOME!! --Alinnisawest,Dalek Empress (extermination requests here) 20:32, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not a subtitle, it's part of the title. --The Guy complain edits 00:32, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Isn't it "OR The Seven Promises of Eragon Shadeslayer and Saphira Bjartskular"? I thought it was more of an alternate tale, kinda like how the book The Hobbit is "The Hobbit, or There and Back Again". Anakinjmt (talk) 02:14, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It is "Or", so this is an alternate title. Nazarenenut (talk) 20:57, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

text: You are correct.  The four titles of the book are, 1. "Brisingr", 2. "The Seven Promises of Eragon Shadeslayer and Saphira Bjartskular", 3. "Eragon Shadeslayer and Saphira Bjartskular", and 4. "Saphira Bjartskular".  It names those four titles on the page after the front cover page. (The page with the big dragon eye, I think.) --The Guy complain edits 21:38, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm looking at the book right now, and the page you mentioned says "Brisingr, or the Seven Promises..." Nothing with just Eragon and Saphira's names or Saphira's name. Anakinjmt (talk) 15:30, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's in small text.  I will copy the exact text: "I. Title. II. Title: Seven Promises of Eragon Shadeslayer and Saphira Bjartskular. III. Title: Eragon Shadeslayer and Saphira Bjartskular. IV. Title: Saphira Bjartskular."  It's on the page opposite the dedication page.  In other words, open it up to the dedication page, and look at the page before it where the very top text says "THIS IS A BORZOI BOOK PUBLISHED BY ALFRED A. KNOPF" --The Guy complain edits 19:06, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That's in the Library of Congress in-publication cataloguing information.  Those aren't referring to actual "published" title, but more to information contained within the title.  The two titles for this book should be Brisingr or The Seven Promises of Eragon Shadeslayer and Saphira Bjartskular.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nazarenenut (talk • contribs) 20:27, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Subtitle?

message: I'm not exactly sure what I'm doing here (I'm not allowed to edit the article itself), but when it says: "Paolini said that this book was longer than both Eragon or Eldest" shouldn't the "both" be an "either?" You can't say "both...or"
:I fixed it.  Thanks for the tip.
:And for your information, the page has been semi-protected because there was too much vandalism going on.  Spinach Dip 09:27, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Development

message: I understand that wikipedia has a limit for everything included in it's articles, but this plot summary is very rushed, not describing everthing including the conversations in the book(the important ones of course). I think that the summary should be re-written as it does not give enough information. I would do it myself,, but I am not good with this sort of thing.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.92.234.79 (talk) 08:11, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It may not be as detailed as some people would like (I even agree), but it fits standards, without shifting its focus to little details.  What I plan to do is to further cleanse it of insignificant details, and expand upon the main points of the plot, such as the murder of Oromis. --The Guy complain edits 20:50, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Issue Regarding plot summary 

message: I just wanted to apologize to User:UnaLaguna for adding the 'official' part to the external link. I didn't even look at it and I just assumed it was the official website. Honest mistake, sorry and thanks for rv it. ~ Bella Swan? 20:08, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Not at all, everyone makes mistakes :) Una LagunaTalk 06:43, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: External Links

message: I think we should add a spoiler tag to the top of the plot summary. I'd add it myself, but I can't remember what the proper code is.  doesn't work because all it gets is . I wasn't able to find out what to type through Wikipedia's Help, either. dogman15 (talk) 20:19, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia does not label spoilers, so no.  This has already been discussed. --The Guy complain edits 20:56, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

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

message: Should the reference to Doctor Who be noted in the article?
On page 204 and 207, this is written by Arya (I've connected the two different pages)
Adrift upon the sea of time, the lonely god wanders from shore to distant shore, upholding the laws of the stars above. The trickster, the riddler, the keeper of the balance, he of the many faces who finds life in death and who fears no evil; he who walks through doors.
In the Acknowledgments section at the back of the book, Paolini states that this is a reference to Doctor Who 67.241.11.157 (talk) 21:48, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd say so, especially when the author confirms it himself (I thought he was talking about Doctor Who, although having never seen the show myself I wasn't sure). Anakinjmt (talk) 02:18, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I would not agree, only because it raises the questions, "where would this fit in prose?" and "how is this notable?" It also brings up the question of how do we know to which statements he is referring? It would violate WP:OR because he never says he is referring to those specific statements, he just says whoever gets the reference, gets it. --The Guy complain edits 03:03, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't believe this would be considered OR because Paolini states the area in the book it is in, he specifically says "The Doctor", and he also states that the Doctor can travel to alternate realities, which he does multiple times in Doctor Who. I'd call that a verifiable source about the reference 67.241.11.157 (talk) 03:53, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Look at it this way.  I did not get the reference, even after I read the acknowledgments.  He did not even mention where the reference was, and therefore it could technically be anywhere in the book.  I mean, you found it, but its not verifiable that that is the statement to which he was referring, so it's original research. --The Guy complain edits 15:32, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Just because you did not get the reference doesn't mean he didn't make it, or that he did not say "yes this is a reference." He specified that he was referring to the description of the dwarf god. I don't see how that is OR when the author told us what he referenced AND what it is a reference to. Anakinjmt (talk) 17:40, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: He did no such thing.  He said thanks to everyone who got the Doctor Who reference when Eragon and Arya were sitting around the campfire.  That is not a description of the dwarf god, and it would be OR, because for all we know, he's talking about when Arya was talking about her love.  That's what I'm getting at, it's not verifiable that that is the statement he is getting at, by any visible means.  I'm not denying that he didn't make the reference, at all, because he said he did.  I'm denying that you can verify where the reference is in the book. WP:V: The threshold for inclusion on Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." Just because its true, does not mean you can verify it without your own judgment. --The Guy complain edits 18:15, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:IGNORE: Just because you're dumb doesn't mean you're right. /vote add. 75.182.89.73 (talk) 22:17, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:IGNORE does not apply in a situation where you cannot verify the content you are posting.  Also, I would like to see your evidence that adding this would improve the article, anyways.  On another note, please refrain from personal attacks.  Dumb or not, I am not a fan of Doctor Who, and I did not catch the reference.  Even after I read Paolini's comment in the Acknowledgments, it left me going "huh?"  It's just not verifiable. --The Guy complain edits 01:27, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

text: Mentioning a vague reference like that just seems incredibly trivial to me... MelicansMatkin (talk) 18:06, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't get any of this.  Is the argument being put forth by 'The Guy' that even though he knows its true it can't be included because it isn't vertifiable?  Its like arguing that you can't include the plot because its in the book and some people wouldn't understand it and therefore its not vertifiable.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.217.154.106 (talk) 07:24, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

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

message: This section is currently unsourced and looks very much like original research. A bit of Googling does show there are some reviews of it; however none of these seem to be from reliable sources. Should we remove the current section? Una LagunaTalk 14:40, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I had removed that twice in a day a while ago, and I hadn't realized it was re-posted.  I'll remove it. --The Guy complain edits 16:53, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Critical reception 

message: (Gets out Megaphone)
Attention People:  Reviews from biased websites (either positive or negative) will be deleted!  If you want to add a review, make sure it is from a reputable source, say, the New York Times or Publishers Weekly.  Of course, other widely distributed papers will do.
Also, if a review mentions both positive and negative aspects of the book, you MUST include both when you sumarize said review!
Thank you.
Spinach Dip 21:20, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: "Bias" isn't the issue at all. If that site is a regular media outlet with a reputation for professional book reviews, it can be used here. If it's a blog, the rules on self-published sources apply, and it most likely cannot be used even if the blogger is completely "unbiased". Someone could write a reception section based on the WPost and SLTribune reviews, though. Gimmetrow 13:17, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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