Talk:Christopher Paolini

Plagiarism

Someone with time, knowledge, and a complete command of the language please edit the plagiarism section.

Outsold Harry Potter? I'm assuming this means The Philospopher's Stone only? Otherwise, I'm afraid that that sentence sounds unbelievable. Could someone please clarify this, for me and the article? -ME

I believe you are incorrect... I think it outsold all harry potter books. The person who put this information here was not obviously mistaken. Besides, this website's license prohibits usage of anbother license... this information CAN'T be from another website, I think it violates GPL for documentation.

Currently outselling...

I like to be removed from the phrase "eragon is currently outselling all Harry Potter book". It's dangerous to say "currently" because sales data can change in a moment(not). In any case, according to Amazon's sales charts, no Harry Potter books are outselling Eragon (probably because of the recent release of Book 6). TheCoffee 18:18, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I do not know if the name of the town is Paradise Valley, I have been to the town, and I believe it is only land of Paradise. Someone should check on that.SO i can spend my money everywhere.

It's Paradise Valley. Says it on the book jacket. -Bosco

I edited the page. If anyone wished to delete my comments or edit it do so.~Poppleganger

Terrible

Irrespective of plagiarism and sales figures, the books really are terrible. I can understand pulling ideas from different areas, but the secret of a good author is to conceal your sources. Paolini almost didn't bother. It is to my everlasting regret that I wasted time on the first book.

Thank god for opinion pages.

I did notice some ideas pulled from other books, but no big plaigarism. what are you thinking of? - Abhorsen123 02:35, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Repeated Blankings

Please stop blanking this page. Talk pages are places for discussion. It's not in the spirit of Wikipedia to just delete discussions you don't agree with. Feel free to express you opinions and suggestions on this page but don't deny others the right to express those opinions themselves. As for the main page, you shouldn't be making edits against consensus. I bet you feel the plagiarism section shouldn't be there. I'm inclined to agree with you but this is something we need to discuss here and reach a consensus. Also, your reverts are removing other things which have verifiable references and improve the quality of the article.

Let's have a discussion - not a revert war. Please talk to us. Thanks! Cmouse 22:49, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As someone who thinks the plagiarism section shouldn't be there, at least not in anything like its present form, let me echo Cmouse's comments. It's obvious by now that there are a number of differing opinions about this topic, so let's work them out.

I think that without any notable sources ( e.g. famous critics, magazines, newspapers) accusing Paolini of plagiarism, the claim isn't significant enough to warrant mention in Wikipedia. Various google and news searches have shown no such accusations; it all comes from random people's Amazon reviews and blogs and the like. (I also find the grounds for the plagiarism claim a bit weak, but that's not relevant to notability.) Claims that Paolini is derivative of other authors, on the other hand, seem reasonably frequent, and probably warrant a brief discussion in the article.

Regardless of whether the plagiarism claims are notable, they're not really defamation or libel, and blanking the talk page serves no purpose whatsoever. Let's discuss, please. Brendan 22:59, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Opinion Section

Feel free to post your opinions about Christopher Paolini's work in this section. Personaly, I think it's quite a good fantasy, but the wording is a little dull, and i prefer J.R.R. Tolkien's or Garth Nix's work. - Abhorsen123 02:34, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I don't think this section should exist because it goes against the idea of us not dealing in individual opinion. --Antrophica 06:46, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Were did it say anything about individual opinion? youre allowed to, arent you? - Abhorsen123 01:57, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I meant that Wikipedia doesn't document individual opinion. It documents the opinion of the masses. I think this section goes against the point of neutrality, if we're going to be listing the reasons we hate/adore Paolini. --Antrophica 08:50, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. I'm kind of new here. Go ahead and erase the topic. - Abhorsen123 00:16, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]