Talk:The Sword of Truth

Removed Major Spoiler
I just started reading the first book, and I came the this page to see how many books were in the series. The second sentence gave Richard's last name as "Rahl," a MAJOR plot spoiler. I'm not sure what Wikipedia's policy on spoilers is, but I changed it to Cypher so that others will not suffer the same fate as me. If this is not appropriated, feel free to change it back.

Political Aspects
The Political Aspects part of the page either needs to be reworked to eliminate weasel words, have some citations added to confirm the information, or be removed. I deleted the sentence regarding Bill and Hillary Clinton as there was no source and it seems controversial to me. I left in the sentence about Naked Empire because I couldn't decide if that needed to go or not due to the fact that I can kind of see how that would be true. The entire section seems to be heavily biased to me. Patrickjsanford (talk) 12:23, 20 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I would agree. In particular, some of the accusations given are possibly biased. The accusation of sexism from the Guardian for example (Sexist stereotypes, sexual violence, etc). An accusation as serious like that probably needs more than one reference, especially since the Guardian is (at least arguably) quick to make this accusation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JackStonePGD (talk • contribs) 20:03, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

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 undying 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 can't be bothered to click on a link to learn more about what is what then they shouldn't 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 disservice to them and everyone else - Patrickjsanford 06:33, 12 September 2006 (UTC)


 * In book 4 Richard bans Darken Rahl in the underworld to the keeper without any light of the creator which seems to be something like hell. Even if the Keeper seems sometimes only be the end of life (book 2) that has to be there, in the world of death the good spirits seem to be with the creator's light and without it, it seems to be torture/hell. So there is something like hell and heaven and the keeper seems to be the chief in hell which means satanic. --21:54, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Removed sentence

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

first person - removed User:MyRedDice

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)


 * If you read interviews with him he is quite explicit his intentions were to write philosophy in a fantasy setting. He also sites one of his main inspirations as the writings of Ayn Rand and if you read the books the common points of Objectivism are rather clear beginning with Wizards First Rule.  The Objectivist concept that art teaches man how to use his consciousness is specifically stated as the motivation for his writing.   One of the main criticisms of the series is how repetitive the dialogue can be and the 'teaching points' seem rather preachy for a fantasy novel...and Terry Goodkind himself states that is because he does not consider them fantasy novels so much as fantasy set stories of philosophy.  Its all there in his own words with some advice on how to get published (young writers beware!) .  There is no way to write Objectivist Philosophy without being labeled as ideologically conservative. 96.19.250.130 (talk) 15:24, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

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)

not sure if this is where i would put something about the series not being ended with "Confessor" but the new novel by terry goodkind "The Law of Nines" it is thousands of years in the future but in the same story as the sword of truth series —Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.113.135.10 (talk) 20:08, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

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)

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

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)
 * Deletion_policy
 * Deletion_policy/Minor_characters
 * WP:FICT
 * Articles_for_deletion


 * 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)

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)

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)

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)

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. —Preceding unsigned comment 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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.

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)

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)

A simple proposal by a mediator
Just have a staw poll. Wiki e Zach|  talk  21:19, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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)


 * I wouldn't call it intricate, because there is almost no subtlety; it's basically exposition. Beaumains (talk) 22:33, 27 November 2007 (UTC)


 * While you could probably classify some of the activity at the Palace of the Prophets in the earlier novels and a rather more significant chunk of the fifth book as something approximating "political intrigue", I really don't think it's important enough to mention in this article. The "philosophical message" is worth mentioning though - from book six onwards, parts of the novels are devoted to a polemic on the superiority of objectivism. Shinigami27 (talk) 02:38, 20 January 2013 (UTC)


 * If you were to remove any mention of the Objectivist philosophy that is at the core of the writings of Terry Goodkind you are left with the TV series...which failed because anyone who has read the books could immediately see they not only ignored the lore from the books but set a plot and character tone that is 180 degrees apart from the books. Terry Goodkind has mentioned in interviews and FAQs that the writings of Ayn Rand are very much an influence and he believes that 'Art teaches man how to use his consciousness' and that was a prime motivation for writing for him..not to write fantasy novels but to write philosophy in a fantasy setting . There is no way to write Objectivist Philosophy without being labeled as political.  And Objectivist philosophy rejects collectivism in any form, including socialism. 96.19.250.130 (talk) 15:35, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

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.

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)


 * In SoT there is a big difference between sorceress and witch (woman). Wizard is only male and sorceress female. A very special thing is a sorcerer, this is something like a (male) "anti wizard". The word warlock is never used. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.57.240.41 (talk) 21:23, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, IIRC, Zedd does use the word Warlock in the incident on his front porch in Wizard's First Rule. He explains that a Warlock is the male equivalent of a Witch (though we never hear of one in existance). Esentner (talk) 21:14, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

gushing fansite
This article can't avoid gushing on how great the series is every couple sentences: The Sword of Truth, written by Terry Goodkind, is an epic fantasy series encompassing the stories of a diverse cast of characters. Okay... fine... let's read on: Each volume is self-contained, in that the primary conflicts of each novel are resolved within that novel; however, binding it together are the delicately interwoven threads of the many underlying characters and ongoing events throughout the works of this highly complex series. Wow, delicately interwoven threads, you say! Let's move on to the next section: The Sword of Truth is an epic fantasy series featuring a vast cast of unique characters. Funny, I'd have called the characters "painfully derivative"... Goodkind portrays in his novels, through complex character development, that individuals can remain true in the face of adversity without sacrificing their values and moral beliefs. Who says he uses complex character development? You? Please cite something or take your opinions elsewhere. 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. Wow, everything is so intricately woven.

Perhaps there should be a section on the (very much mixed) critical reviews of this "masterpiece". Sorry for my tone :(

68.20.39.117 12:23, 1 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, you should be sorry. Wikipedians don't appreciate bad vibes. Happy editing,--Padawan Animator (talk) 18:30, 10 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Many of those are reviews and quotes that are, in fact, published if not quoted in the article as they should be. The primary issue with this article as whole is how it whitewashes the fact these books are not ment as fantasy books with some philosophical commentary, but as books on Objectivist Philosophy in a fantasy setting...in the method of Ayn Rand of using art to teach or convey messages.  Reguardless of how one feels about the philosophy, it is at the core of the series and it seems whitewashed from this article.  I lack the experience or credentials to go about making drastic changes to the page, but it must be said this page does not at all reflect the book series except as a work of fiction with plot points.  That would not work with Atlas Shrugged and it doesn't work here. 96.19.250.130 (talk) 15:42, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

James -err, more description, please
This guy doesn't have an article, or even a sub-subsection to himself, yet he seemed to have a pretty rare form of magic. Was he notable (I believe he died in the same book he appeared), was he described, is there any info on him? Because the Sword of Truth is a SERIOUS series (or it's supposed to be), I don't exactly like imaging him as a one-handed James from Team Rocket with a sketchpad... It's disturbing in all sorts of ways... XD 169.229.121.94 20:14, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

And NO, he's NOT on the minor characters list. 169.229.121.94 20:16, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

As for where he is, I'm guessing Wizard's First Rule. I DON'T OWN ANY BOOKS IN THE SERIES, WHAT I KNOW IS FROM ONLINE. 169.229.121.94 20:19, 14 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The issue ran into here is that these books are not standalone fantasy novels, they are philosophy books in a fantasy setting and as such each character represents something. James represents the media of the Royal Court and his ability to 'frame' the narrative of someone into a progressively narrower context until they are ultimately reduced to nothingness.  The only way Richard could escape this targeting was to use trickery to put the 'framing' onto James himself until it destroyed him with his own devices.  In short, its a metaphor as is most every character in the series and nearly every major plot point.  You can get the details of that in the fan FAQ and interviews by Terry Goodkind on his webpage or via google. 96.19.250.130 (talk) 15:58, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

History
I don't know who wrote that history page, but it reminds me of some papaers I have read on history books. The first couple of books in this series are covered in exceeding detail, and then its as if the author(s) realized they were taking too much space and condensed the rest of the books to several sentences. Some of the information in the History section is plain wrong, other parts have distorations or incomplete references and facts. Any objections to my reworking that section of the page? OptumusPatronus 03:03, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Nope, go ahead. I recommend you check out some guidelines such as WP:FICT and WP:WAF before you start though. NeoFreak 12:19, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

original research
I added an "original research" tag to the article, because multiple sections of it, and paragraph 3 on "Historical and Cultural Themes in the novels" in particular, seem to have been written as personal interpretations of the material. If this is not the case, it would be worthwhile to add some good sources and citations.

New Page? Countries and Lands of the Sword of Truth
Should someone start a new page that inculdes the individual countries, such as Kelton in the Midlands? I noticed that this page doesn't go into too much detail on the country and its people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.153.176.2 (talk) 16:27, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Frostlion (talk) 20:20, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Spoiler Alert needed
Hello!

Can we get a Spoiler Alert on the top of the page. I just found out that the protagonist will be emulating Skywalker soon ("NOOOOOOO[...]OOOOOO!") and I haven't gotten there in the book yet, nor did I know to be wary of it due to the missing Spoiler Alert.

Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.134.59.200 (talk) 11:25, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but on Wikipedia it's assumed that articles about works of fiction will contain spoilers. We thus don't use spoilers warnings; you can read about it here. I suggest you don't read any more articles about The Sword of Truth until you've read the books! -Andrea (talk) 15:23, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I understand the policy on no spoilers, but I'm still sad that 2 sentences into the general article, it's revealed that the hero is related to the villain :( Could've omitted the surname. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.238.24.44 (talk) 03:33, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Neo-con messages
This is a pretty poor article - where is the real world critism of the neo-con ideas presented in those books? that peace protesters should be killed, that torture is an acceptable practice when done by the good guys? --Killerofcruft (talk) 15:33, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * what 'neo-con ideas' are you speaking of? The books don't present those 'ideas' you speak of.  ---emb021 22:57, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

That's a joke right? Here is a verbatim quote - ''Nicci had no compunction about what she was doing. She knew that there was no moral equivalence between her inflicting torture and the Imperial Order '''doing what might on the surface seem like the same thing. But her purpose in using it was solely to save innocent lives.''' The Imperial Order used torture as a means of subjugation and conquest, as a tool to strike fear into their enemies. And, at times, as something they relished because it made them feel powerful to hold sway over not just agony but life itself.''

of course we need Reliable sources for it to go in the article. --Allemandtando (talk) 23:00, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * no joke. And you didn't answer my question.  What are these so-called 'neo-con ideas' defined outside of Goodkind's works?  Don't quote his stuff and claim they are 'neo-con ideas' without backing up what makes them 'neo-con ideas'.  Goodkind is an Objectivist.  Objectivists are NOT 'neo-cons'.  They are libertarians.  Remember, wikipedia is not for original research.  You need to back things up from other sources, which you don't seem to be doing.  --emb021

Way way too in-universe
This article is way way too in-universe. If someone else doesn't sort it, I'll be back shortly to take care of the problem. --Allemandtando (talk) 10:06, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Substantial edits to page
I have made substantial edits to the page based on the widespread inclusion of POV elements. While even the then edited state does not conform to my standards (for reasons of style and, more significantly, a funny pro-series stance that I regard as unfit for wikipedia) I do not have the time or energy to labor on these behalves. A list of my edits is included below. If there is disagreement with my undertaken measures, do please present your arguments first. I do not present arguments, as I consider the edited parts self-explanatory in regards to their unsuitability. The UC and OR disclaimers strike me as understatement as well.

Introduction:

"diverse cast of characters" completely removed. "delicately interwoven" removed. "highly complex" removed and sentece adjusted.

Novels of the Sword of Truth:

First sentence removed in entirety, as it is redundant and does not present new information.

Themes of the novels:

"The Sword of Truth series is also known for its intricately woven political intrigue" removed and sentence adjusted, since it is baseless, POV and - in actuality - very much false.

"philosophical themes" changed to singular and sentence adjusted, since former structure suggested some little Socrates at work. Philosophical exposition is limited to elements of Objectivism and 'Collectivism', which has already been mentioned.

Audience:

Nothing changed, although the last sentence unverified(-able) and suggests POV. Still, within the acceptable.

History and Geography:

Nothing changed, and little problematic.

Sword and Seeker of Truth:

"ghastly" adjective changed to something more suitable for an encyclopedia.

Pronounciation of names:

n/a

Characters:

Odd exposition on the Creator and the Keeper, but kept for the time being.

Political aspects:

Kept, but will require sourcing or deletion is recommendable. Section should probably be expanded, given the massive and ouvért ... well, preaching in the series that amounts to a considerable part of its total length. Monologues of Richard are easily comparable to those of John Galt, but wikipedia is not the place for these assertions. Although this section is likely central to an understanding of the series, lack of Original Research somewhere else should get it deleted in entirety. --fnord

Sword and Seeker of Truth
One negative aspect of the Sword of Truth's magic is that it drains the life force from the one wielding it, slowly and over time changing all the seekers into a Gollum-like creature. When Richard discovers Samuel, the last Seeker and confronts Zedd, Zedd can only offer a glimmer of hope to Richard that the prophecies speak of "The one true Seeker who will master the sword and be protected from that terrible fate".

The part about Samuel and Zedds saying that he is sorry is true, but Samuel is not a true seeker announced by a wizard, he is a coward who has stolen the sword. And he lost the "fight" with the sword on the first time he killed someone with it. After Richard used it the first time, Kahlan said, that Zedd said, the first killing is special and the sword will try to overpower the man wielding it. "All" remember how powerful and frightening a "true" seeker announced by a wizard is, so is it really true, that all seekers end like Samule if they don't die? Another thing is that Samuel does not kill with it, because he fears the pain, the sword gives, but Richard kills with the sword before Denna captures him and is proteced by his right anger. 84.57.240.41 (talk) 21:38, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Stone of Tears.jpg
The image Image:Stone of Tears.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check


 * That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
 * That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. --23:43, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

terry no longer involved
I posted the statement because it's vital to the section. However, if someone can find where Terry himself posted it, instead of having to cite a message board, that'd be great. Also, please feel free to clean up my formatting or change it to be suitable for a quote, this is one of my first times editing Wikipedia.Hypershadow647 (talk) 23:08, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

FYI: Articles_for_deletion/Creatures_in_The_Sword_of_Truth
Ikip (talk) 06:55, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

This page badly needs an overhaul and is currently slavishly favourable of the author and series.
The overlooking of legitimate criticism, such as the author's soap-boxing, the ignorance of real political and philosophical terms in the editors defending the author, etc. I don't care very much one way or the other about the author or the series (both are nothing special and the work is very derivative) but its profile has been raised by the TV adaption and this page is not fit for an encyclopaedia as it stands. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.195.192.30 (talk) 00:22, 30 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Completely agree, currently this is a summary of all the books not an article about the series. Readers can go and read the individual entries for each book already. This whole article should either be scrapped or moved over into the The Sword of Truth universe as a summary or, if fans wish, a Sword of Truth portal.Silentbob7843920 (talk) 18:01, 17 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Perhaps a better page title would be 'Writings of Terry Goodkind'? If each book already has a page then it should be handled similarly to that of his inspiration Ayn Rand yes? 96.19.250.130 (talk) 15:50, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

New Richard and Kahlan novel! Confessor sequel?!
A video is up on Terry's site and youtube channel promoting a new Richard and Kahlan novel for early 2011. Notice he doesn't call it Sword of Truth!

This is exciting! He probably is continuing the story in the Sword of Truth universe since the show has brought so many more people to the books! Seekeroftruth469 (talk) 16:09, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

The Law of Nines - Ancestry?
The Law of Nines section states that the lead protagonist Alex Rahl is a descendant of Jensen Rahl. Is this in fact confirmed? According to the series Richard & Kahlan's children will include male Confessors which are a horror that must be avoided at all costs. This book mentions the Rahl golden age ending but doesn't specify if it ends with Richard's (or his heirs) death or disappearance. It strikes me as conceivable that Richard and Kahlan in an effort to enjoy a normal life in the woods, would need to leave their world, certainly their own little corner of it. Given Alex was able to activate the gateway I'd say he must have magic in his blood though of course the book suggests otherwise. There were a few other artifacts and indications though that to my mind imply the possibility of magic. Anyhow isn't it reaching to state that Alex is Jensen's descendant rather than Richards? I'd suggest changing the claim to reflect the ambiguity.203.25.1.208 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:32, 19 October 2010 (UTC).
 * This isn't really the place to discuss theories. Try Terry Goodkind's website to discuss theories on.--70.114.38.28 (talk) 22:46, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.57.10.236 (talk) 22:27, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Some bad links
There are some hyperlinks that don’t work correctly. For example, under the section “Invasion of the Imperial Order,” there are links to Verna and Ann. They should take one to the appropriate sections in the “List of the Sword of Truth Characters.” Will someone with more savvy than I please repair these links. Thank you. Mike Bandy (talk) 09:22, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 08:26, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Lof9s inclusion
This article is clearly not limiting itself to books part of the official "sword of truth" series. That culminated in Confessor and Omen Machine began a new series.

Legend of Magda is similarly not part of the series. So if we mention this then why not have a section for Law of Nines? Both are separated from the main sequence by centuries.

It is silly to dismiss it as speculation when anyone who reads Confessor recognizes the undisputable connection. Ranze (talk) 13:52, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

How many books are there?
The introduction paragraph states there are 20 books in the series, then just below it they are listed 'in chronological order' ... I'm only counting 19 titles though. If the titles were listed by date of publication, would there be 20? Does listing them by fictional timeline of events warp the fundamental laws of this reality whereby 20 and 19 are the same number and equal to one another? How many rules were there? 42 right? Pretty sure there are 42 wizard rules. It's only logical. Not sure I want to get involved. I've not read the wheel of something or whatever either, but I'm not looking the amount of uncertainty involved with establishing a baseline for what it's getting into if I pick up one of these books.. I was wholly unprepared for the way the song of ice and fire painstakingly described every mouthwatering bite of every meal every character had and I had to stop reading it after I put on 30lbs (binge feasting while I read), IDK if I can put up with the childishness I've seen it these debates. Why is it unacceptable to flit from one escapist fantasy to another leaving without judgments, it's escapism, enjoy the ride... But I digress. I'm really confused about the 19≠20 thing though since Kindle doesn't list "book 6" with it's numerical designation as it does for 1-5 && 7-11 then it jumps to 14.. I really must insist that you lost the titles by their publication dates as well, story time timelines are only as complete as a guarantee that no official Canon stories will every be published by the original authors again.. like Anne Rice vowing to never write another one of those kinds of stories again (paraphrased), then twilight happened. *Sighs* But trying to put them in chronological order in the midst of her still writing novels would be ludicrous, especially given the broad scopes of time each novel encompassed. At the very least, each mini synopsis should have publication dates and probably list each one's order in any original numbering schemas. I'm gleaning the idea that the first book was the first wizard rule or whatever, so that kind of information, while redundant to your understanding, should be foremost present to any layman who happens upon this article. Users are either in it to follow every link they see, it they are looking for information. In the case of the latter, they are unlikely to load page after page of articles to get to what they might be looking for (this is especially true when browsing on mobile devices and data networks), it's simply not time efficient. And if it takes so long to get to the point that you forgot what the point was... Well, isn't that pointless? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.35.137.24 (talk) 15:44, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Expansion of the "Publications" section?
Should the "Publications" section be expanded to include the "The Law of Nines?" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.237.28.188 (talk) 05:13, 17 March 2019 (UTC)