Talk:Dune (franchise)/Archive 1

Help with a specific quote
I distinctly remember an article or a quote or something, stating Frank Herbert had never intended to continue the story after God Emperor of Dune. Does anyone know what I'm talking about, or can verify this? Matrixfusion 03:01, 6 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes. My memory tells me it was that his original conception of "Dune" was Dune through God-Emperor. I can try to find this; I think it's in a foreword somewhere. Narfanator 3:11 EST 9 Sep 2006


 * I'm so glad I'm not the only one who remembers this. Thank you. Matrixfusion 03:27, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Reverend Mothers

 * "the complete memories of all her female ancestors"

from what I understood they gained memories from not only their ancestors but the memories of all other reverend mothers (and consequently their ancestors) as well. When Jessica became a R.M. she had acess to all the other reverend mothers of the past of Stilgars tribe, and it cannot be because the other reverend mother showed her as Stilgar previously stated "they had gone without a reverend mother before." Also Alia is present in R.M. Gohaim (sp?) when they are not related, and Leto had access to many more memories than just his ancestors in God Emperor. Perhaps its just an Atreides trait? Any clarification on this would be good, as the wiki articles on the subject are also in disagreement. (can find ones saying that they gain the memories of just previous reverend mothers in their ancestry, all of their ancestry, and all reverend mothers) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.130.19.72 (talk • contribs) 04:21, 4 August 2005
 * Perhaps in this case the word ancestors meant all the past Reverend Mothers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.31.200.138 (talk • contribs) 19:41, 2 April 2006
 * Nope. Erm.. Chapterhouse? I think it is; the Jewish Reverend Mother "shares" other-memories with a fleeing RM (from the teaching planet.. name escapes ATM). As Jessica was guided to RM-ness by the Fremen RM, she probably did a sharing there. Have to check... As for Alia? Dunno. They do that in the movies, but... Not going there. Have to check... I do seem to remember Leto and Ghanima doing /something/ like that, but it's a hazy memory. Have to check. In any event, it's pretty specific that it's all the female ancestors. It's just that ancestral memories (except perhaps RMs) are kinda "quiet" in anyone but those born wth them. Narfanator 3:15 EST 9 Sep 2006
 * Oh! And see the weirdness with uber-Duncan from Chapterhouse and his "ancestral memories". There were unexplained factors at work. Narfanator 3:37 EST 9 Sep 2006
 * From what I can discern, the spice agony itself unlocks ancestral memories from the subject's own genetic line, but of course Other Memory may also be shared the way Odrade does with Taraza in Heretics and Lucilla carries the Lampadas horde in Chaperhouse (and of course Ramallo sharing with Jessica in Dune). However, can we assume that if you're getting your mother's genetic memory during the agony, you're also getting any memories she's acquired by sharing? TAnthony 23:22, 24 March 2007 (UTC)


 * It's not that the ancestral personalities are quiet in normal people, it's just that the pre-born don't have any solid and developed personalities to fend off the memories' personalities. At best, the pre-born, like Leto II, can construct their own personality out of a few strong personalities dominating the rest. --Gwern (contribs) 00:06 25 March 2007 (GMT)


 * R.M. Mohaim is Alia's grandmother, Jessica's mother. - LA @ 11:41, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * This connection is, of course, only stated explicitly in the prequels, though the authors maintain it is from Herbert's notes. BUT, the scene with Alia and Mohiam at the end of Dune is, to me, Herbert's hint that he intended them to genetically linked. It's very interesting the way it's written, kind of vague. Here's the bit I wrote about it in the Alia article:
 * Alia uses her limited prescience in a unique way, projecting thoughts and images into the mind of the horrified Imperial Truthsayer, Gaius Helen Mohiam. Bene Gesserit Mohiam tells the Emperor that it is "Not telepathy. She's in my mind. She's like the ones before me, the ones who gave me their memories. She stands in my mind! She cannot be there, but she is!" Alia further explains that she cannot do this with everyone: "Unless I'm born as you, I cannot think as you." Alia soon communicates with Paul the same way:
 * Of all the uses of time-vision, this was the strangest. "I have breasted the future to place my words where only you can hear them," Alia had said. "Even you cannot do that, my brother. I find it an interesting play. And ... oh, yes &mdash; I've killed our grandfather, the demented old Baron. He had very little pain."

Chronology
Hmm. I'm not sure I'd necessarily interpret the timeline that way. This assumes "mankind's movement through deep space" begins around 2000 -- did F.H. assume that? To me, this only gives a minimum date: the Guild was not formed before 13200 CE.

Wasn't the first use of atomics mentioned in Dune at some point? We know what year that was, and we know that F.H. knew that when he wrote it. That would certainly help pin down the year.

Where did "400 years" come from? If a SY is 20 hours less than a primitive year (PY), that means Dune begins in 23391 CE, or as many as 23391 x 20 hours earlier = 23391 x 20 / (24x365) PY earlier, which I get to be about 53 PY. No? --Anonymous


 * The following is in the Dune Encyclopedia:


 * 14255 BG: First atomics demonstrated in an intraprovincial war. Seat of empire moved to Washington, 14100-13600 BG: THE LITTLE DIASPORA: The solar system is colonized and the population of Terra eventually outnumberd by 20 to 1.


 * So I would assume that 14255 BG (Before Guild) is equivalent to 1945 CE/AD. --Anonymous


 * I see this as a proper calculation aswell. I came up with something like 2000 A.D. = 14200 BG after reading the timeline in the DE years ago. Please also consider the fact that most (if not all) veteran fans and even FH himself see the DE as 'mostly canon'. Like in; more canon than BH's books (just for the case BH decides to add another inconsistent timescale-calculation in future works). --bitterMan.lha


 * Utilising that theory (ignoring for the moment the 20 hour difference in the length of a year), simply subtracting 16,200 from "our" year gets the date in the Dune calendar, with negative numbers meaning BG. Similarly, adding 16,200 to a Dune year gets the date in our calendar.


 * Therefore, 2007 CE becomes 14,193 BG, and 10,191 AG (in which the first part of Dune) is set, becomes 26,391 CE ---Lord Tau 16:07, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Next, the following comment makes a lot of sense. Frank Herbert did not tie his chronology to any determinable date. The only clue is this, from the religion appendix of Dune (emphasis added):


 * Mankind's movement through deep space placed a unique stamp on religion during the one hundred and ten centuries that preceded the Butlerian Jihad.


 * I tend to agree with the anonymous commenter that "movement through deep space" refers to interstellar travel, but I'm also willing to entertain the possibility that it could refer to long hauls to and from the outer reaches of the solar system. Either way, we ain't there yet, so the chronology has not begun. (Off-topic, I think "another 1000 years" is overly pessimistic. If it takes that long...we won't be going IMO!)


 * Whenever it begins, the simple quantity (=not accounting for the difference in year length) to add would be 11201 (=11000 years to start of Jihad + 201 years to start of Guild-based reckoning) + Duniverse date.


 * Let's say our first interstellar manned misson takes place in 2300. That gives 2300 + 11201 + 10191 = 23692 CE.


 * Something else to keep in mind: we don't know when the "standard year" was adopted. :) --SandChigger 20:57, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

This entire dating system is completely wrong. "Deep space" can only mean interstellar space and humans certainly haven't been outside the solar system in the 20th century. We haven't even been further than the Moon! If this quote is the only fact we have to translate Dune's dating system into ours then this entire section should be deleted because for all we know, humans may not get to deep space for another 1000 years. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 218.214.143.84 (talk • contribs) 22:11, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Move to delete the above unsigned comment. Scifi is predictive; old scifi has been proved wrong. See my lack of a flying car. Mmm.. Flying cars. Those'd be spiffy. Narfanator 3:20 EST 9 Sep 2006
 * First, with respect to this...that ain't the way we do things in these parts. :) --SandChigger 20:57, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Second... science fiction has never been predictive. It's fiction, not futurology. And I'm somewhat boggled at the concept of "proving" fiction "wrong".Tanzeelat 10:48, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Ok, first: The Dune Encyclopedia is crap. It uses all kinds of weird assumptions that have no basis in any of the books.
 * Second: "Deep Space" is the same as "outer space" - it just means whatever is beyond the atmosphere. So man's first "movement" out there would be 1961. Plus the info from the Dune Appendix (110 centuries) = 12961. Plus the Butlerian Jihad in 201 B.G. (according to Legends) means the Guild was formed in 13162. Plus the specific year 10191 A.G. given in Dune = 23353. Voila. Of course this is all assuming that
 * a "standard year" = a Terran year (and why would it?)
 * There is no year 0 in the Guild reckoning
 * "110 centuries" means exactly 11,000 years (which it doesn't; it was obviously just a rough estimate)
 * And third: Tanzelaat is of course right: all these equations are completely meaningless. Frank Herbert just wanted to make us understand that this was supposed to take place in the distant future. Mission accomplished. --dllu 19:59, 1 April 2007 (UTC)


 * The Dune Encyclopedia is non-canonical fan fiction; it's about an "alternate Duniverse" and therefore can't be used to "prove" anything about what Frank Herbert had in mind. "Crap" is POV.
 * Do you have some sort of authoritative source proving that "outer space" is what Frank Herbert meant when he wrote "deep space"? Speakers can have different ideas about what words and phrases mean; my intuitions obviously differ from yours.
 * "110 centuries" means 11,000 years. Period. The choice of that particular figure, however, could have been an estimate, the result of rounding, etc.
 * Your last point is, of course, completely correct. --SandChigger 21:58, 1 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Um, assuming that "deep space" means the Moon landing is speculative and probably wrong. Let's face it, Frank was vague on purpose. TAnthony 03:20, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

According to Meriam Webster (the /true/ American dictionary) Outer Space is that space outside of the Earths' atmosphere, as well as more broadly to mean interstellar/interplanetary space. MW Also defines Deep Space as that space outside of the Earth/Moon system, or "well outside of Earth's atmosphere" Though there are no accounts of humans leaving Earth's orbit in the last 30,000 years, we, as a species have recently sent mechanical ambasadors "well outside of Earth's atmospher" including deep space - as the probes to Mars, the Sun and such; and outer space in both definitions - including the Voyager probes which are still sending telemetry back to Earth.
 * http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/deep%20space
 * http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/outer%20space

It's also assumable that the Atomic bombing (and testing) the US did in the middle of the 20th century would be what Frank was refering to, it was, afterall, culturally prominent and still a very hot topic amongst writers of all breeds, especially science fiction writers. Hope this helps! AeSix 173.171.151.3 (talk) 07:46, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Influences
There are very poignant symbols of Middle-eastern influence in the stories. Can anyone confirm this? --Ereinion 00:10, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * The Middle Eastern, Islamic, Arabic influences have long since been proven; nobody doubts them. So yeah, consider it confirmed by just about every element of Arrakis and the Fremen.  -- Maru Dubshinki 06:07 PM Saturday, 12 March 2005


 * Yes, we all seem to know this to be true, but to spell it out in the article there needs to be a source, a credible published discussion of this topic. Has anyone actually read the Touponce book, I'd guess there's something in there. TAnthony 14:42, 8 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I actually have the Touponce book, if anyone wants me to go back through it and see what he says. --Gwern (contribs) 21:02 8 October 2007 (GMT)


 * Not only that, in many ways, the story has similarities with the life of T.E. Lawrence (aka Lawrence of Arabia), at least the first books. It echoes his story of outsider turned outcast, assuming local customs, then becoming rebel, and eventually overthrowing the oppressors while almost attaining a saint status. I have not seen any research on this, so I will not add it due to the "no original research", but if anyone knows about this, feel free to expand on it.88.131.91.2 14:30, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Lasguns vs. Shields
I've always had one question about warfare in the Dune universe:

If I've understood correctly, if a Las-weapon of any kind is fired at a shield, they both explode. If this is the case, how come both are used so widely in war? The palace of Arrakeen is protected by a shield. What would happen if it took a hit from a Las weapon? --Anonymous


 * One of the novels considers precisely that last possibility, and merely points out that a really big explosion occurs. (Specifically it is in reference to lasgun smuggling in Dune, and lasguns on timers). But my understanding is that the explosion is essentially identical to a fission nuke, and is so covered under the Great Convention.  That's why, and the mutual suicide part of it as well.  So everybody simply uses shields, and adheres to the Great Convention. --maru 16:59, 19 May 2005 (UTC)


 * But what about about infantry battles? Everyone has a personal shield and everyone has a lasgun. What do they do? Agree politely on the exact moment they will drop their lasguns, activate shields, and begin close combat?


 * No- I said, they don't use lasguns, they use shields. Didn't you pay attention to Dune, with all the training and the talking about how to pentrate shields- didn't you notice in the description of the Sardaukar fighting later on in the novel, it was hand to hand, with knives and such?  Didn't you notice the duel with Jamais, or Feyd-rautha, were all with bladed weapons? --maru 18:11, 21 May 2005 (UTC)


 * The Great Convention lays out the proper ways to conduct inter-house warfare, so that the plebs take the hits and not the Noble Families. It is extremely easy to use both atomics proper and lasgun-sheild interactions to wipe out a Noble Family - But politics being what it is, no-one wants to be killed over a minor dispute and so they retaliate strongly against houses who use them. If House Harknonnen obliterates House Exempli Grati with nukes, the next House the Harknonnens have a dispute with could be nuked as well - fearing this, the Great Houses will ally and destroy House Harknonnen utterly. If House Harkonnen does use sheild-lasgun interactions in battle, which it did, on Arrakis, the have to be sneaky and be able to claim plausible deniability. --exmachina

The reason lasguns are used on Arrakis is that the environment there (before the ecological transformation) makes shield use difficult. All the sand shorts them out. So in their invasion, the Sardaukar aren't afraid to use lasers because they don't think they will enounter shields. Paul uses this assumption agains them.


 * Not sure about Paul using that assumption. I think it was either Gurney or Duncan who planted sheilds along the wall as a trap. In any event, memory says: Lasgun/Sheilds result in an explosion that kills both gunner and sheildee, but the severity of the explosion, while always atomic in nature, vary. Sheilds are both shorted out by static electricity (esp. in Arrakian quanitities) and drive worms nuts. Sign your comments! Narfanator 3:11 EST 9 Sep 2006

I do not think that both the shield and the lasgun explode, rather the reaction that results from the lasgun being fired at a shield is a near atomic explosion and occurs and the point of contact. Therefore it would most often kill both parties involved. I would think it possible that if a lasgun had an extremely long range, it could escape the explosion. But thats just my take on it. AidanPryde 05:35, 27 July 2007 (UTC)


 * The actual reason why lasguns are used on Dune has little to do with the 'sand short the shields out' suggestion made earlier. The fact is, and this is mentioned throughout several of the books, shields make the Sandworms go berserk and will attract worms faster than dancing a (very rythmic) jig on drum sand. Add to this that knifewounds are quite a bit more survivable than lasers to the face and that having to get up close and personal with the enemy heavily encourages House soldiers to take prisoners, which is good for both sides because more peons survive to do their masters' bidding post-tiff and it's not hard to see why most combat is done with mêlee weapons and personal shields. Except ofcourse on Arrakis, where activating a personal shield anywhere but inside a very heavily fortified ciy is literally suicide. Robrecht 06:52, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

?
I was wondoring which series is better: Isaac Asimov's Foundation Series or Frank Herbert's Dune Series? I just started reading the first book in the Foundation series, and I must say that it is very enjoyable. I saw the sci-fi Dune mini-series and liked it; I had planned on reading the books, but never got around to it. From what I read about the Dune series on wiki, it seems like it is "The Lord of the Rings" of science fiction. But I have also heard good things about the Foundation series. That's why I'd like to know which series is considered better among true science fiction fans and why. --Moosh88 21:42, 4 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Asking a question like that is begging to get flamed. Needless to say, everybody here will vote for Dune, but what did you expect? --Maru 21:51, 4 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Flamed for what? I'm a novice when it comes to science fiction, so I thought I'd ask people who know more about the subject.  Anyone who flames is asking to be banned from Wikipedia.  BTW: Just saying Dune is better is not answering my question. --Moosh88 22:14, 4 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Because such a question raises extraordinarily subjective reasons, with a devoted and fanatical fandom on either side. This particular rivalry is not the most famous of flamewars (primarily because Asimov is dead now, and his writing is increasingly clunky, and his series as primitive; in short his popularity has waned. --Maru 22:21, 4 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Asimov's writing is very good in my opinion, and since I haven't read anything by Herbert I can't comment on it. Herbert is dead too, but that doesn't change anything, so it doesn't matter if an author is dead or not.  Some books become classics and others fade away.  Both series have become science fiction classics.  BTW: What is or are the most famous science fiction flamewars? --Moosh88 22:48, 4 September 2005 (UTC)


 * From a pure stylistic literary viewpoint, Herbert's writing is pretty much universally acknowledged as superior to Asimov's. Whether that translates to superiority is unclear and very much subjective, as I said. And Herbert isn't really dead... thanks to Brian Herbert and Kevin J. Anderson, who have dredged up his corpse and performed unholy necromancy to get it to shamble and dance for money.  As far as flamewars go, I don't really know, althought Star Trek vs Star Wars surely ranks up there. --Maru 23:29, 4 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Few can beat Asimov for short stories. His are some of the best.  Similarly, Frank Herbert is a universe builder and world builder, and few can rival him there.  Asmov's works lack the depth of Herberts.  Herbert's works lack the clarity, sharpness, and simplesness of Asimov's.  Which one is better?  Don't look at me!! --ssd 06:17, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

OK, this goes into the concepts of Speculative Empire, and Literature (with a capital L) of Sci Fi. Herbert gets more attention because he wrote more in the traditional sense of a novel (Dune, or when the first three novels as taken as a trilogy, the so-called "Dune Trilogy"). In short, because Herbert works are considered in a more traditional sense of "fiction" (i.e. novels) then Asimov (who wrote primarily series and short stories), Herbert is considered superior for Literature.

As for meaning, none of Asimov's works approach the scale, and the overall overreaching themes of humanity that Herbert presented. Herbert wrote about survival of the human race, morality, erligion, tecehnology, politics, conservation, ecology, the human soul, but manages to make it a story about people.

Style, Herbert's Dune is unmatched by the sheer poetry in his writing. This is one thing that sci fi suffers more then other genres of literature, that sci fi is double stamped by the age it was written in. I mean that, a sci fi book written in the 1950s but is set 250 years in the future, yet the children still say "Golly gee!" and other phrases that were popular in the 1950s. This creates a sense of disbelief, that in the future has so much influence of the author's time. Asimov, Bradbury, and Clark all do this with varying degrees. Herbert in constructing Dune was aware of this, and specifically shaped the language of the novel and its characters with words of his own invention, or research (i.e. use of words from pagan holy texts, and new definitions of Arabic words). Herbert's style is simple, but it grows richer with each reading.

As for Dune Canon, *sticky subject*, I considered only Frank Herbert's works, notably the first three novel, as Canon. Brian Herbert and Kevin J. Anderson's prequels are in are not because they are not Frank Herbert. His style, his language, his storytelling cannot be matched.

Lastly, Flame Wars. Lord of the Rings Vs. Dune is probably biggest Flame War in Speculative Fiction, it echoes the whole Fantasy VS. Sci Fi war. Heinlein was strange because he wrote was is generally considered the most liberal sci fi, and the most conservative sci fi ever (Stranger in a Strange Land Vs. Starship Troopers). Also, Stranger In A Strange Land VS. Dune is notably as both are considered religion sci fi. I'll add others when I think of them.

In short, Moosh88, YOU NEED TO READ DUNE. I have read it around 20 times, and I still love it. Dune is the sci fi Literary masterpeice. That is the long and short of it. No other single work of sci fi comes close, be it Heinlein, Bradbury, Clark, Card, or any other acknowlded master of sci fi.

Zidel333 00:38, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I have found that, while other books have as complicated a plot, and/or present as interesting philosophy, but none of them do in the sheer quantity (and quality!) of the Dune Saga (although the last two begin to slip..). The only exception I can think to this is "Thus Spoke Zarathustra", but that doesn't count. On a side note, I'd recommend "The Gay Science" to all philosophical Dune fans. I'd also recommend reading up through God-Emperor, or atleast trying. Most people don't seem to have liked it; but it's my favorite. Another also: People who say Frank Herbert never wrote anything good but Dune don't know what they're talking about. So go read some of this other stuff. Narfanator 3:29 EST 9 Sep 2006


 * I used to agree about the original six dune novels going downhill towards the end, but after reading Brian Herbert's ... things .... and then re-reading the original six, I really liked all six a lot more than I remembered. 121.45.172.33 06:27, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

While talk pages are not forums, I'm going to indulge and give an opinion here this one time: I think the Duniverse/Herbert is better, because it deals, pre-emptively, with many of the 'problems' of modern sci-fi. In modern sci-fi we have many unanswered question of 'common sense' that Herbert not only anticipated, but he also found way to incorporate the solutions into the (back)story.

Examples of this:

In these universes, I'll use Star Wars as a template for these examples, but insert Star Trek, Halo, Babylon 5, Starcraft, Starship Troopers (the book) or anything you choose if you like, there are many 'common sense' problems that pop-up and make it slightly less believable (if not less enjoyable).


 * Er, Starship Troopers (1959) predates Dune (1965).Tanzeelat 08:13, 4 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Many Sci-fi books, movies and games have infantry fighting each other over planets. It's never explained why. These same factions have ships that can blow the be-jeezus out of each other. Why don't they just orbit their mighty ships around the target planet (if they can land troops they already have space secure) and nuke it from orbit? It's the surest way to be safe! They don't even need to nuke the planet, just threatening to do it should pacify the people on it for fear of the consequences. Example: The Droid armies taking over Naboo in SW:Episode 1 or the infantry attack on Hoth in Empire. (Yes, in Empire there was the planetary shield, but why not just blockade the planet? Why, instead, land troops and risk the massive escape they eventually had?)


 * Nuking from orbit isn't much good if you want the planet for yourself. Tanzeelat 08:13, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Dune answer: The Spacing Guild controls spacetravel, you can't bomb a planet from orbit unless you're willing to pay through the nose for it. Why do that if you can instead send the peons to fight for you?


 * Another common theme is the use of melee weapons in a universe where ranged weapons are more advanced then ours. Wether it's Lightsabers or Bath'lets, there never seem to be enough shotguns or phasers around to shoot the guy rushing at you with a piece of metal which may or may not be emitting nifty computer graphics.

Dune answer: Personal Shields stop incoming bullets, give a nasty new meaning to the acronym MAD and can only be pierced by moving a small blade through quite slowly. All in all, making the move to melee combat is essential with this developement, lest you risk being outgunned.. or outsworded.


 * Who runs this universe anyway? Most sci-fi universes have huge 'empires' lead by some dork in a robe or barring that a government made up of mostly humans, or both. How do these people stay in power? Sure, there's usually some dissenters or if you're really lucky a rebellion, but somehow, no amount of inequality or injustice can get people to tell the leadership to bugger of en-masse.

Dune answer: A Feudal system! Sure, your leader may be cruel or petty or bat-shit insane, but they're your leaders, dissent is not an option, because obeying your leaders is tradition. A Feudal system may not be desirable to us, because we want a little thing called personal liberty, but history has shown that the only way to keep an empire alive is to keep it Feudal and feuding, that way when some baron or duke or count or viceroy mucks up, it's his fault, not that of the emperor.


 * When did history show this? Empires have been around a lot longer than feudalism. Tanzeelat 08:13, 4 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Are you absolutely certain about this? First notable feudal system was Sumer which was 3500 bc - 4000 bc. Each city consisted of kings and governors. First empire was ~3000bc. Feudal systems work when communication and travel is hard. Thus an empire works by appointing local proxies of imperial power in a feudal system. Dune basically has such a system. When communication and travel improves other systems may become more practical.142.179.200.76 (talk) 21:00, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Etc... Robrecht 07:29, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Incomplete listing of Dune works
This is the list I compiled for another discussion elsewhre. These works should be added to complete all works in the "Dune universe". Please note I have sorted them by author, and in chronological order. Zidel333 08:18, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Songs of Muad'Dib


 * Most of the works originally listed here have been added; I've left only what has not. I don't know what content of the published Songs of Muad'Dib is; is it an expanded version of the work of the same name by Princess Irulan referenced in epigraphs in Dune itself? I don't think the Herbert bio belongs here, but it's listed on the Frank Herbert page.  And it's definitely too early to put the Paul of Dune stuff in, as not a word has been put to paper. TAnthony 23:52, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
 * OK, Paul of Dune is actually mentioned in a "Proposed future works" section that I think is effective. TAnthony 23:59, 6 October 2006 (UTC)


 * To be perfectly honest, I think any 'Dune' book not written by Frank Herbert himself is not really part of the original Dune series. The writing style, format and underlying messages are all too different.
 * The original Dune books were slightly esoteric in nature and dealt with politics, sociology and religion and their impacts on each other and humanity as a whole in a futuristic setting, with very little emphasis on the 'how and why' of the technology used.
 * The new KJA and BH 'Dune' books are more high-tech and deal with the personal stories of people who just happen to be in politics.
 * Where Frank left most of the background tech and history to the imagination of the reader and focussed on the characters and situation, the new 'Dune' books spend half their pages explaining the technicalities behind everything that happens and leaves almost nothing to the reader's imagination.
 * On a more snide personal level I would thus remark that the cooperation between KJA and BH in mind amount to this: KJA writes another one of his Star Wars novels and BH just changes all the references from Jedi to Atreides, Sith to Harkonnen, Force to Spice, etc...
 * That's of course just me being cynical, but I DO have to say that the new 'Dune' books do read like Star Wars novels and while Star Wars novels are very good reads (well... on occasion) they are NOT written in the same spirit as Dune.
 * If you'd ask me, the new 'Dune' books are too different in contents, style and intention, that they aren't part of the same universe, let alone the same series. Robrecht 17:09, 19 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I whole heartedly agree, but we can't make that call. Narfanator 3:32 EST 9 Sep 2006


 * Awww, come on guys -- Frank Herbert can't write any more books, and he left behind so many notes and descriptions and such that fans of his universe should have the opportunity to learn about. Yes, BH and KJA don't write as dense a book as Frank himself (well, OK, not even close!), but that doesn't mean that their stories are non-canon or whatever. Are the multitude of Star Wars books canon because George Lucas is still alive?  Um, he doesn't write them himself, you know. :) Heh heh TAnthony 23:52, 6 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Yeah, but George Lucas is still alive and can at least exercise some form of quality control, while it's pretty much impossible to know what was originally in Frank Herbert's vision and what's coming out of BH and KJA's rectum. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.91.224.146 (talk) 09:15, 5 January 2007 (UTC).


 * Okay, its been long since overdue. Paul of Dune should be added to the Chronology chart and this page. --Jacfalcon (talk) 21:55, 30 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Paul of Dune is already in the chronology chart ... &mdash; TAnthonyTalk 03:25, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Expanding Timelines
Alas it's been a long time since I read these excellent books (the original 6), but I do remember the timeline/scope as being one of the books' most striking features. One thing I do remember, from Dune Messiah, is a small scene where Paul's generals say his conquests are the greatest in history, and someone mentions the conquests of Alexander and Hitler (now in what could almost be considered prehistory). The questions come up to how many those individuals have killed, and when the figures come out they lack the impressive size of intergalatic conquest (although they quietly wonder if these individuals had actually killed millions by themselves, which also sounds impossible but for "stone burners" (nukes)). Anyway, I thought it would be interesting to add a section in the Dune timeline that addresses these lingering references to the pre-Dune universe (20k in the past), a reference that could also include the reappearence of Jews in Chapterhouse: Dune. I would add this section, but all my books are far away from me now Bobak 17:42, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Dates
User:Stroika wanted this "Years are not counted before or after the Birth of Christ" leaving behind this message "Erm on Earth years are counted from the Birth of Christ. CE/BCE are parasitic on that system. If you don't like that, begin CE from some other year.)" I think this is a bit hostile and will for my part continue to use the BC/BCE system, full well knowing that it is based on the AD/BC system.

That is not the real problem, though. What is stranger to me is the reason for having a mention of Christ in this article - I'd like to know if it was put there for religious reasons... Lundse 18:20, 13 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Since when has an edit summary being "hostile" been grounds for reversion?


 * I changed the article out of simple respect for the facts of history. The article says


 * The Dune novels use a different calendar dating system than of present day Earth. Years are not based on the common era (BCE and CE), but before and after the formation of the Spacing Guild, measured as "Before Guild" and "After Guild" (BG and AG, respectively).


 * This statement is false. The dating system we use is not "based on" (whatever that means) "the common era". The "common era" is a modern dating system used by some people, entirely parasitic on the system of dating from the (supposed) birth of Christ. Whatever wikipedia policy is on using CE/BCE as opposed to BC/AD in editing articles it cannot change the historical facts about the orgin of the dating system (that our years are numbered for a supposed historical event) and therefore it cannot force us to make statemens which are contrary to history. Suppose for the sake of argument that all memory and knowledge of Christianity disappeared and that we all woke up one morning dating things as since or before the common era, the question would immediately be asked "what does this mean?" and we could not find an answer. That is what I mean by saying BCE/CE is entirely parasitic on BC/AD.


 * If Lundse thinks mention of Christ is out of place in an article on Dune he clearly hasn't read the novels, he hasn't even read their titles.


 * I repeat: the article as it stands contains a false statement. Our dating system *is* based on the supposed date of the birth of Christ. This prescinds entirely from the question of whether one should use BC/AD or BCE/CE putting dates in articles. Please do not confuse the two issues. That is why I am going to revert. Stroika 18:52, 13 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I did not mention the hostility because I believed it was a reason to revert, but because I believed it was indicative of a I-will-not-discuss-this stance. It was a reason to revert before discussing.
 * From your explanation I gather that you are saying that using "years are based on BC/BCE" is inherently wrong; I presume that "years are counted using BC/BCE" would be OK. I do not believe this makes the article "false", however, merely a bit muddled. Since we are bringing an explanation of what the before/after event of the Dune BG/AG system, you are right that it makes sense to mention the AD/BC system's before/after event.
 * I thought you were only seeking to bring a mention of Jesus where it did not belong, I am not against mentioning him inherently, only when there is no need. Your post here did make me understand the reason for doing it and I rescind my "gratuitous" when regards to the mentioning of Christ.
 * That said, I do believe a bit more WP:civility is in order. I have read Dune Messiah several times and I don't see how the mention of a messiah in a book or its title makes Jesus relevant in the discussion of dates. If we are discussing the religious imagery etc. of the books in this is another matter, and Tiresias, Muhammed, Jesus, miscellanous Jewish apocalyptics and prophets (eg. John the baptist) and god-kings are all very relevant. Lundse 06:45, 14 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I thank Lundse for his gracious reply. I am sorry for appearing to be hostile in the edit summmary. There is a limit to how much explanation one can include in such a space and I was only editing this article in passing because I had noticed how many articles about Frank Herbert's Dune linked to "sand dune". I am glad that the fuller explanation I was able to give above has satisfied him. I did not think anything I said breached rules of civility. The last pagaraph but one (which I have now struck through) was a rhetorical shot in the parliamentary style (use of the 3rd person). I thought that would guard against incivility. I am sorry it did not.
 * This might be thought too fine a distinction but there is in fact no mention of Jesus in the article. The reference is to Christ and only in the context of a universally used dating system. I use the customary English days of the week but I do not worship the Sun, the Moon, Tiw, Woden, Thor, Freya or Saturn.
 * I think that Lundse agrees that I inserted a reference to Christ on historical, and not religious, grounds and therefore I do not need to defend myself further on that point.
 * Lundse is correct to asssume that I thought the article as I found it was inherently wrong. Nevertheless I must insist that it would not merely be muddled but actually false were the article to say that with us "years are counted using the Common Era". They are not. Even those who fastidiously say that Rome was founded in 753 BCE, or that Muhammad died in 632 CE, are in fact dating from the supposed date of the birth of Christ. There is nothing "common" about the period of time beginning in the 28th year since Octavian was given the title of Augustus. CE/BCE is a polite fraud at best. I would go further and say it is doublethink and a lie. To make CE/BCE honest one would have to pick another event in a different year from which to begin. But all this is by the way...
 * I would beg anyone reading to remember that this is a discussion about a statement of historical fact made as a comparison for a piece of science fiction. It is not a discussion of the merits of using the CE/BCE when giving dates in a wikipedia article. Were "Francus Herbertus Dunaeus" a Latin author of the time of the late Republic, I would not have bothered altering the publication date from 13 BCE to 13 BC. --Stroika 14:39, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Excuse my late entry, but is not the problem the actual use of the phrase "Birth of Christ", especially when what really is being said is the use of the Anno Domini dating system put forward by the Gregorian Calendar? Thus it isn't the actual birth of christ that should be used here, but the historical facts behind how we came to use our current system of dating. I personally dont see a need to directly mention the birth of one religion's "alledged" deity/avatar, though mentioning the dating system itself which was created specifically to determine the first Easter based on a historical event would be sufficient. So mention the dating system, don't attach religious beliefs to it. Enigmatical 04:08, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Not attaching religious beliefs to Dune would kill it. The whole Dune saga is based solely around a group of religious beliefs. Paul is supposed to be the human made messiah. So mentioning Christ is not a bad thing in these articles. - LA @ 11:39, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

'Thopters
Can someone explain why in the Dune movie and in the SciFi Channel miniseries the 'Thopters are depicted so WRONG? Ie, NO FLAPPING WINGS, and even worse in the movie, NO WINGS. Someone please do a CGI reimaging on the movie and fix the bloody 'Thopters. ;) At least the videogame graphics people (Dune II for PC/DOS, SEGA Genesis, some HP graphing calculators and possibly others, and Dune 2000 for PC/Windows) had the brains to know what the key feature of an ornithopter is.
 * Probably becuase the idea of flapping wings on futuristic machines is so alien that the film makers didn't want to lose their target audience at that point. They had more to think about than Dune purists, they also probably wanted to reach those who had never read the books. Flapping wings on a futuristic flying machine is a bit ridiculous, don't you think? - LA @ 11:33, 25 July 2006 (UTC)


 * You're complaining about the 'thopters'?! See Leto II in Scifi's production. I want to beat the guy who wrote that script with Children unto death. Narfanator 3:35 EST 9 Sep 2006


 * Remember, the movie was done by David Lynch. He is a odd and very offbeat director and the movie was pushed into and through production very quickly because it was made to compete with the Star Wars franchise. I think Lynch complained alot about the studio execs and their leaning on him to complete the movie. That is why there are 2 version of the movie, Lynch had no control of the version that made it to theaters. So all those things considered it's no surprise that something of relatively little importance like 'thopters didn't make into the movie right. As for the Sci-FI miniseries, have you seen some of the crap movies they put out? Its a wonder the miniseries was watchable at all. But I'd rather watch that than read Hunters of Dune again. AidanPryde 05:46, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

The other major movie idiocy
Next to the wingless ornthopters, the other hugely stupid gaffe in the movie was the 'weirding modules'. There's nothing in the books about any sort of technology/tool used to enhance or enable a person to use the weirding powers. These and other stupid fabrications of stuff not in the book was why the movie was such a flop. Merchandising didn't fare well either. Remember this? "He who controls the spice controls the universe, but he who has a complete set of 'Dune' trading cards will have them forever."
 * When the film was made, I don't think that the target audience would have swollowed non-mechanical fighting that did so much damage. They were probably targeting the people who like to see new fangled gadgets. - LA @ 11:35, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Plus I believe Frank Herbert himself came up with the idea of the weirding modules when discussing the script with Lynch.--Werthead 18:36, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

It had a lot to do with production costs and the ability to economically (re)produce the *proper* weirding effects needed. Though they could have done live-action-stop-motion, that would have been even cheesier and much less satisfying. The same reason, finances, is why the thopters had no wings - moving wings were too expensive, and non-moving wings that would have more resemebled what I'm sure many people imagine when reading the books, would have been very lacking in effect.

The tanks and navigators are also depicted improperly in the old movie. The glow-globes, also wrong. This is mostly hear-say, and I have not the links for the few references I previously read. The SyFy version of the movie, though lacking in content in some areas and combining two books, did hold a bit more true to the books. AeSix 173.171.151.3 (talk) 08:00, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Complete and total fabrication

 * "Leto's prescient visions had shown a high probability of humanity being extinguished by a "Great Enemy", possibly the return of thinking machines"

The above line is completely and totally inaccurate. My understanding of the reason for the golden path was that all futures of mankind ended in disaster, and the very fact that the known universe could be controlled by a single figure who had the power of prescience and control of melange was what required it to be implemented. It had absolutely nothing to do with a "Great Enemy", that was brought back from the scattering. I just wanted to seek some consensus before I change this. Enigmatical 03:52, 25 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I think you're right as well. There was no specific reason for the Golden Path. All futures showed the extinction of the human race except the Golden Path. Some showed machines, some showed other things, but there were infinite ways it could have happened. Konman72 04:08, 25 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, now that Hunters of Dune has been released, this line seems more accurate. Hadoren 05:43, 23 September 2006 (UTC)


 * It's really really hard for me to consider any of the new "prequel" "sequel" "cash ins" to be Cannon. Brian Herbert writes pulp fiction/poor fan fiction set in the universe his father made. 142.179.200.76 (talk) 21:04, 13 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Except that there's no quote in the texts in which Leto brings together the concepts of the Golden Path and a "Great Enemy", right? SandChigger 11:26, 23 September 2006 (UTC)


 * So far as I know. The Great Enemy is only developed after GEoD with the first feedback from the Scattering; by that point, the Golden Path and the extinction of humanity had long been averted by no-globes, Siona genes, and the no-ship drives. So it doesn't even make sense to identify them. --Gwern (contribs) 21:43 13 December 2007 (GMT)


 * I share Enigmatical's understanding on the golden path here. It's been a few years since I've read through the Dune series last, but I seem to remember in Children of Dune when Paul and Leto are discussing the golden path, Paul asks for another way, but Leto makes a point that any other way will lead to extinction in one way or another? I think we should remove this sentence. --Delta Tango 23:20, 23 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree. I also seem to remember the horror and the need of the Golden Path (namely, the scattering) was part of what trapped Paul in his visions in Messiah. --Narfanator 00:05 24 Sep 2006

Paul's Jihad
I feel as though this article, or some article, should make mention of the jihad of the fremen which Paul unleashes at the end of Dune. If for no other reason, than because I have no idea why the Fremen jihad, and I doubt I'm alone, but surely someone does understand. Nedlum 18:39, 28 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure what you're asking, but I think the point of why the Fremen jihaad happened is that Paul couldn't stop it even if he wanted to. The Fremen were in such a religious fevor, combined with superior military strength under Paul, that they would stop at nothing to give their Messiah-like leader the whole empire. I seem to remember Frank Herbert saying something about that Dune is about, amoung other things, what could happen if a leader used both religious fanatiscm and law to govern his subjects and do warfare. --Delta Tango | Talk 20:34, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Was the series planned?
Did Frank Herbert write Dune knowing that the sequals would follow? Was the whole timeline planned out in advance, or did he just go one by one and keep writing until the end? Basically, I want to know if the first Dune was written with sequels in mind, or did he just make up more crap after he saw that people wanted more? Phauge 18:29, 19 November 2006 (UTC)


 * FH has written that parts of Dune Messiah and parts of Children of Dune were written before Dune was completed. So the first three books were certainly planned from the start. I don't know if that's true for the later novels. Tanzeelat 08:32, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Request for expertise
Could someone take a look at the newly created Agamemnon Atreides? I suspect parts of it ("House Milligan") are nonsense inserted by the author. Choess 15:26, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Sounds like it was taken from the Dune Encyclopedia. Why was it deleted? Alcarillo 23:33, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Edit of The Corrino-led Imperium
I removed some of the more extreneous links in the The Corrino-led Imperium section. I didn't think we needed a link to the number 1000 or feudal apart from empire. They are just extra links to make the reader wonder why the extra links. Padillah 12:35, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Is Bene Gesserit refered to as B.G. ?
I regret that I am not as well versed in the Dune universe as others hee but I have a question: is the group Bene Geserit refered to as the B.G. by others in the Dune universe? It just seems rather AOL to me. Padillah 12:49, 13 March 2007 (UTC)


 * LOL, this does occur a few times in the original Dune only (mostly in epigraphs), and it is listed in the "glossary":

"B.G.: idiomatic for Bene Gesserit except when used with a date. With a date it signifies Before Guild and identifies the Imperial dating system based on the genesis of the Spacing Guild's monopoly." But I personally avoid it and usually edit it out of articles both because of the confusion noted above and also because it's just ugly! TAnthony 13:47, 13 March 2007 (UTC)


 * It may be a bit ugly, but I often use "BG" (without the periods) on the boards and elsewhere just as a matter of convenience. (Less likelihood of misspelling it, knowharramean. (ahem))


 * Just offering a different PoV! :) --SandChigger 17:29, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Nav box
I've created a new template as a navigation tool for Dune articles, complementing the existing Template: extended Dune series template for the novels. I've placed it only on this page first to see how other editors react to it; perhaps then it will have a place on other pages as well.

To keep the nav box as condensed as possible, I've included the most important "people, places and things" and only items that have actual articles, not stubs. The "headings" (People, Elements/Concepts, etc) link to lengthier lists in each topic to make the box more comprehensive without being overstuffed with individual links. TAnthony 22:42, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Dune wiki external link
What are other contributor's opinions on the addition of Dune.wikia.com back into the external links section? User:Fredrick day removed it, along with many others on March 26th.

I can understand the desire to not include any old fan site out there in this list. But this site isn't quite the same as others. a) It's a Wikia-hosted Wiki; b) it's dedicated to creating a reliable encyclopedia of the Dune universe.

Furthermore, many other Wikipedia articles feature relevant Wikia wiki links (Star Wars, Halo, The Blood-Stained God, Furry TG art, Odinism, Star Trek, The Colbert Report). Admittedly some of these wikis are much larger, but that's arguably because they cover higher profile fictional bases. --Careax 20:36, 16 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I've no problem with it. Their content isn't too bad, they are non-commercial (albeit Wikia itself is commercial), etc. --Gwern (contribs) 00:07 17 May 2007 (GMT)

Corpse
re recent edits: it's revivifying. Duncan and the rest are coming back from the dead. They are shot to death and their dead cells taken and revivified and eventually grown back into an entire person. It's only cloning if you think the person never died in the first place. It's a ghoulish practice, hence the name "ghola". Something back from the dead. In almost every place gholas are touched on, Herbert describes it in terms of death and coming back to life. A quick grep turns up:
 * ""They didn't tell you?" he asked.  "Waste no pity.  I was dead and this gave me life.""
 * "They make much of the Dune Tarot which clouded Muad'dib's powers of prophecy. Some show how Muad'dib was made to accept the services of a ghola, the flesh brought back from the dead and trained to destroy him."
 * "Alia shuddered. There could be only one answer: this was a Tleilaxu ghola, a being reconstructed from the dead flesh of the original. That original had perished saving Paul. This could only be a product of the axolotl tanks."
 * "He was shadow and blazing light, a product of the process which had revived his dead flesh . . . and of something intensely pure . . . innocent."

--Gwern (contribs) 04:36 17 June 2007 (GMT)
 * That's cloning, and cloning is not limited to only living things. You might remember that the Tleilaxu use the ghola process as a method of immortality.  They clone themselves, and then when they are near death they awaken their ghola.  Dionyseus 04:45, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, I think we all agree on the nature of a ghola, and obviously, the whole point of Herbert coining his own term (ghola) is that they are often not quite clones since the cells are harvested after death. BUT, the term "reanimated corpse" is definitely incorrect, as this would imply that the original body has been brought back to life in its entirety. TAnthony 05:16, 17 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Um...really? How do you explain this, then, from Dune Messiah:


 * Edric rolled in the tank, bringing his attention to bear on the ghola. "This is a man called Hayt," he said, spelling the name. "According to our investigators, he has a most curious history. He was killed here on Arrakis...a grievous head-wound which required many months of regrowth. The body was sold to the Bene Tleilax as that of a master swordsman, an adept of the Ginaz School. It came to our attention that this must be Duncan Idaho, the trusted retainer of your household. We bought him as a gift befitting an Emperor." Edric peered up at Paul. "Is it not Idaho, Sire?"


 * To me this means that Hayt, the first ghola we encounter, was in fact a repaired and reanimated corpse. But I'm not convinced such a minor detail needs to be included here. LATER gholas were clones created from dead cells. --SandChigger 23:16, 17 June 2007 (UTC)


 * That's a good quote. My search missed it, but I suspect that was one of the things that made me think of regrowth as a key point.
 * It's true that it isn't necessarily an important point for this article, but it'd certainly be important for the Duncan Idaho article, the ghola article, the Tleilaxu article... etc. --Gwern (contribs) 00:32 18 June 2007 (GMT)


 * There has been some discussion of this very topic over on the Dune Novels BBS; that's why it came to mind. :)


 * I agree on your second point: it's of minor importance here but maybe worth including in the Duncan and Tleilaxu articles. (It indicates a progression over time in their level of technology in the latter.) --SandChigger 03:42, 18 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Why are you always able to find great quotes that prove me wrong?!?! Aaargh!! LOL. I actually recall the quote but remembered it incorrectly (thinking they harvested cells from the body or whatever). I guess the later Hayt/Bijaz programming stuff and the fact that his memories had to be reawakened had me thinking clone. Anyway, it is definitely notable in the other articles you all have stated above. TAnthony 04:09, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

The notes again
An interesting new argument came up against saying that the Prequels et al are based "loosely" on FH's notes: (We can't imply how closely to the notes the story is because no one has seen them; the fact that they are "notes" makes it clear that the novels are not Herbert's actual writing). This is interesting, because how can we then say that they are based on the notes at all? Do we not, in fact, have to say that this is claimed by someone - as there can be no proper way of ascertaining if this is truly the case? I further point out that even if a thousand sources say that they are, it is still basically unknowable until the notes are released (it would be akin to to saying God has a white beard because a thousand Christian sources say so). Lundse 15:41, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, this has been an issue before; some articles have included (and maybe still do) something like "the authors claim" or "reportedly based on" or whatever. However, in my opinion this (and most of the phrasing I've seen in this regard) implies a general disbelief in the notes or the novels' adherence to them, which is unacceptable. For the record, I am personally disappointed with Hunters of Dune because I do feel like the authors took liberties and ignored some of Frank's delicate "setup" in previous novels, and some of their choices are not what he intended. But I do believe in the existence of the notes, and the truth is that we don't know the depth/extent/nature of them enough to suggest that the authors diverged from them or not. With the limited info available we cannot imply that they stuck to the notes word-for-word and we cannot imply that they took key plot points and invented the rest. I feel that the simple phrase "based on the notes" conveys the exact situation: that the works are based on the notes. This doesn't mean the stories are told the way Frank intended or that they are not; but putting it any other way, to me, does make a suggestion one way or the other. TAnthony 16:02, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I guess in my looong comment I didn't directly address the point of the notes' existence; yes, there is no real proof they exist but there is no real proof that they don't. This may not be a court of law, but it seems like an innocent-until-proven-guilty situation to me. The authors have stated that they exist, and if there is no tangible evidence otherwise, any formal suggestion that the notes don't exist feels unfair and inappropriate. TAnthony 16:13, 20 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Here is where we differ, then. I too believe in innocent until proven guilty - that the one staking a claim is the one who has the burden of proof. K&B are staking a claim, they have the burden of proof. If the do not want encyclopedias going around saying "allegedly" then they have a surefire cure right on hand (if they are telling the truth). I think it is their claim which is unfair and inappropriate...
 * Saying they are based on the notes within wikipedia is ignoring proper sourcing - we cannot use the two as a source as they have a financial (to mention one) goal in claiming this. And all other sources default to this one. Lundse 16:46, 20 June 2007 (UTC)


 * You make a great point and I don't know if either of us is right, but as much as the burden of proof may be on them, the absence of proof in their favor is not the basis for "accusation" (too strong a word but I can't think of another right now). If the prequels/sequels were better-received this probably wouldn't be an issue. By your argument, the unmarried George Clooney can say that he is straight, but until he releases footage of himself having sex with a woman we should write "allegedly straight" in his article. TAnthony 17:45, 20 June 2007 (UTC)


 * OMG! George is gay?! ;)


 * I think the wording is fine as it is now WITH the external link. The recent addition of "loosely" does not maintain a neutral viewpoint, and there is no reputable, published source to justify its inclusion.


 * I also think that anyone who reads the new books will soon realize that there is very little of Frank Herbert in them. (B&K have finally admitted in interviews that Omnius and Erasmus are their own inventions, for example.) The neutral point of view we must maintain in the articles could, unfortunately, give someone unfamiliar with the series the wrong idea, but I don't think that's our problem to worry about here. No one should accept anything on a Wikipedia page at face value...it's not a real encyclopedia. The nature of the beast as it now growls means that it can never be more than a first source, a stepping stone to further "research". Caveat lector: if someone is stupid enough to stop here in their search for knowledge, they get what they deserve. --SandChigger 21:43, 20 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I think I agree with that. It's not up to wikipedia to pass judgement on that sort of matter.


 * For my own part I wish Brian Herbert had taken the approach that Christopher Tolkien took, as CT has been, as far as I can tell, extremely reverent towards his father's work, and reluctant to do anything but analyse and selectively edit and publish it. I think I would have preferred to see published incomplete notes to, well, generic sci fi. That's the crux of it for me, I think: whether they're close or distant to Frank Herbert's notes, they just aren't written in his style. 121.45.172.33 06:39, 26 July 2007 (UTC)


 * SandChigger, I agree. I also think that the stigma attached to any author continuing the main-line story of a series after the original author has died, introduces enough skepticism about the quality of the new work. We don't need to further it anymore. AidanPryde 05:54, 27 July 2007 (UTC)


 * By the way, this is now obsolete. Brian Herbert and Kevin J. Anderson have revealed that there were in fact no notes, despite fervently saying for YEARS that there were some.  Brian Herbert and Kevin J. Anderson made the "Dune 7" out of their own prequel stories, not out of anything Frank Herbert did, and I believe this should be rectified in this Wikipedia article, which still says that the new books are based on Frank Herbert's (fictional) notes.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.85.232.220 (talk) 02:52, 21 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Where have they said this? &mdash; TAnthonyTalk 23:10, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Original Research in Brief synopsis of Dune history
Is there any evidence that this breakdown of the Dune history is supported by Reliable Sources? I googled a few of the time periods and turned up little to nothing. Even the official Dune website fails to divide up the timeline in that fashion. Burzmali 20:00, 12 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I think it's an arbitrary breakdown clearly based on the sequence of novels itself, which are noted in each section. But to clarify that, I added the specific novels to the "list" for reference, and linked the items to the appropriate sections. I don't think it's OR this way. TAnthony 20:26, 12 September 2007 (UTC)


 * That's definitely an improvement, but it could really use a reference. The original 6 books should have some critical commentary on them by now.  Burzmali 20:36, 12 September 2007 (UTC)


 * They do. O'Reilly published an e-book on Dune, and I have a critical study of the Dune books by Touponce, and the SparkNotes stuff is apparently surprisingly good. It's just that I don't think I've seen any of them give an internal chronology. --Gwern (contribs) 21:38 13 December 2007 (GMT)

Oh, for the love of Frank Herbert.... (To Duniverse or not to Duniverse?!)
What is the problem with using the term? Sheesh. Put it in a note or something. Anal retentive or what? --SandChigger (talk) 15:07, 10 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I have no problem with the term at all, but like anything else, we should have a source that someone is actually using it ... even as a footnote, how is saying "Dune universe, also referred to as Duniverse" any different than "Princess Irulan, also known as Princess I"? Anal, yes, but if the term is so prevalent a source should be easy to find. &mdash; TAnthonyTalk 16:54, 10 October 2008 (UTC)


 * To stave off lengthy discussion, I found a source and put it in. And it's the only non-fan/non-forum/non-Dune wiki reference on the first four pages of a Google search ... &mdash; TAnthonyTalk 17:04, 10 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks! --SandChigger (talk) 00:38, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Nominating several dozen articles for merge and/or deletion.
These fictional topics on locations, items and characters do not establish notability independent of its series through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of original research and unnecessary plot details. There is no current assertion for future improvement, so I'm initiating a mass merge discussion. - 66.19.203.134 (talk) 00:02, 8 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Not sure if this is really going to happen, but it would be much more helpful to tag individual articles with the appropriate templates for improvement rather than a mass of AfDs. Dune is the best-selling sci-fi novel of all time, and one of the most celebrated &mdash; and most of the articles here derive from the original novel. Further, the charge of original research is baseless. &mdash; TAnthonyTalk 07:18, 9 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Indeed. A mass merge of 'several dozen' articles with no names or specific reasons is spectacularly unhelpful, and verges on terribly tendentious trolling. --Gwern (contribs) 20:58 9 November 2008 (GMT)


 * Enforcing Wikipedia policy is not trolling and the notability of the main work does not carry over to to minor elements of that work, every article must prove its own notability through reliable, third party sources.


 * I did not bother attaching tags to every single article that violates policy because it would take way too much time and all of them fall under the same violations. All of the single articles pertaining to "Houses", planets and locations, elements, technology, terms, species and races, objects and single characters are subject to merge or deletion per Wikipedia general notability guidelines. - 66.19.206.217 (talk) 23:46, 9 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Anybody can wrap themselves in the flag^Wnotability policy. But they aren't magic words to make everyone scurry about doing your bidding.
 * So, you object to every Dune article which isn't about a specific book. Gotcha. I'll get right on doing absolutely nothing about that. --Gwern (contribs) 01:29 10 November 2008 (GMT)


 * Do me a favor and go all anonymous IP deletionist on the Star Wars articles first, and if you survive that encounter come on back here. There are so many WP articles out there for topics which truly push the limits of notability, and yet someone like you comes along to decimate a series of well-put together (though incomplete) articles covering the elements of one of the most notable and intricate novels of the genre. How about concentrating your passion for policy on Category:Dallas (TV series) characters, a truly sad set of stubs? Or the stubs which exist for every person in the universe who has ever picked up a baseball bat?? It's no wonder you're hiding behind an IP, I'd be embarrassed too if I had such a narrowminded and destructive view of this project. &mdash; TAnthonyTalk 01:36, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Please be civil and avoid personal attacks or your account may be subject to blocking. If you feel so strongly about keeping these non-notable fancruft articles in our project's mainspace, go discuss it at WT:N and suggest that notability should be inhereted. Until Wikipedia Policy is changed these articles will eventually be deleted, no matter how much dismay you show towards me. - 66.19.206.217 (talk) 02:40, 10 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, I can't have a serious discussion with a phantom who has three edits, no matter how gracefully you spout policy. Yes, all articles need their notability asserted by reliable sources, and I can't say that every Dune article should exist in its current form. But are you really, truly, challenging the notability of these topics, or just looking for some beefed up reference sections? I get where you're coming from, I spend a lot of my time here adding references in various areas, and I'm behind on the Dune stuff. But as much as an Entertainment Weekly article would "prove" Aquaman's notability, let's face it &mdash; he was already notable. Common sense should tell you when there is potential in an article and when you've got 3000 words on the magic wand of Buffy the Vampire Slayer's third cousin twice removed. And if everything which technically fails WP:N at the moment was deleted, we'd have a pretty big massacre on our hands. I urge you to nominate Frodo Baggins and Luke Skywalker for AfD (both are really sad in the reference department) and let those guys make my arguments for me. &mdash; TAnthonyTalk 06:48, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Where is the "mass merge discussion" located? Is this it? No matter how numerous the articles to be merged or deleted, if the rules say they have to be marked as such, then you'd best well be at it, no matter how long it takes you. "The forms must be obeyed..." --SandChigger (talk) 09:34, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Requested move
No move Parsecboy (talk) 22:07, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Having an article devoted to a fictional universe lends itself to being written in in-universe style. The current article does just that while the real history and elements of the Dune franchise take a back seat to fictional events. While a description of the fictional story of the series is important, it should not be primary. Therefore this article should be moved to Dune (franchise) with cleanup making the primary focus of the article the series in reality not in a fictional universe. (Good examples of the proposed restructuring can be found in Star Wars and Star Trek.)--Marcus Brute (talk) 01:27, 16 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Support. This makes sense; the current title encourages the inclusion of unsourced plot material. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:56, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose A very good article could be written about Frank Herbert and his licensing deals, although it had better be scrupulously sourced. But why need it be this one? I encourage the suppporters to write it, and leave this page as overview of the background. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:57, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose The "real history" of Herbert and the franchise (as well as his others) are covered in his article and would be redundant here. The Dune universe is expansive and deserving of individual attention given the fact that Dune itself is (as the sources assert) one of the most successful and notable sci-fi novels of all time. In addition, it has multiple sequels, and the universe has been expanded in recent years. Tagging the article as "in-universe" to me makes the suggestion that it is trying to pass fictional events off as fact in an amateur early attempt at an article; the article title, style and tone make it blatantly clear that we are talking about the varying aspects of an intricate fictional construct. And I would be more persuaded by the Star Wars and Star Trek argument if those weren't more explicit examples of franchises in a conglomerate sense, sort of all-consuming empires of media and merchandising encompasing something far beyond the selection of literary works and an adaptation or two that represent the Dune universe. This article does not have an expansive amount of plot content; the first half consists of concise summaries of the over-arching timeline and most prominent elements, and the second half is a list of works. While I imagine there are spots that may allow some copyediting, the article is remarkably tight for such an expansive subject. &mdash; TAnthonyTalk 09:31, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Fix the style and either source or trim the unsourced material. Dune is something different (and better) than Star Wars or Star Trek; I'm tired of seeing it treated the same, for whatever reason. --SandChigger (talk) 08:15, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose. Contra SandChigger, Dune is something very similar to Star Wars or Star Trek: a very successful sci-fi franchise set in a fictional universe of Earth-like planets. And just as Wikipedia covers those other franchises' universes (Star Wars galaxy, pretty much everything in Category:Star Trek) and real-life history (Star Wars, Star Trek), Wikipedia also covers the Dune universe and the real-life history of Dune (novel). I really don't see any reason at all to burn down the Dune universe article. But yes, a new article on the Dune series would be nice. (Right now that's a redirect to Dune universe, which is a bit jarring.) --Quuxplusone (talk) 00:16, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The others explain why better than I would. --Gwern (contribs) 02:40 20 January 2009 (GMT)
 * Oppose. If you want an article about the "Dune (franchise)" and if there are enough published reliable, verifiable sources, then write one. This article, as you stated, is not really about the franchise.  In other words, separate out the unnecessary franchise stuff from this article, write a new article and put "Dune (franchise)" as a see also reference here. --Bejnar (talk) 13:55, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Extraterrestrial inteligence
Dune is one of the few science fiction works not featuring ETs and suggesting that we are alone in the universe. It should be mentioned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.11.62.104 (talk) 15:27, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Blog sources no longer available
Most of the older blogs in www.dunenovels.com are no longer available. The refenrences need updating (if someone has time and energy...).--Nedergard (talk) 08:40, 1 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I've updated all but one, I think. Sloppy sysadmining of them... --Gwern (contribs) 19:26 1 February 2010 (GMT)


 * Actually, most of the material from the previous version of the site can be found using old.dunenovels.com. --SandChigger (talk) 00:24, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Split
I believe the article should be split into one article about the Dune universe with a separate article, Dune (franchise), for the Dune novel series and related media.--Marcus Brute (talk) 08:18, 8 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose Split, but perhaps a Reorg and Rename - You suggested something like this before above and the idea was rejected, inclusive of my opposition. While I don't think a split is a good idea, I find myself leaning back toward your original request. This article is a pretty tight overview of everything related to Dune, and its many subtopics are covered in detail in other  articles. You had pointed out that "the real history and elements of the Dune franchise take a  back seat to fictional events." I think what you mean is that, despite a good lead, the article delivers plot first and media later. I think the article is organized that way because the information related to novels and adaptations and such is still in list form. I'm proposing that while we should probably preserve a plain "list of works" somewhere (perhaps as a standalone list), we convert those lists to prose per the MoS and reorg the article more along the lines of (fellow Dune police, do not shun me for saying this) Star Wars. That article's format really presents the information how it should be presented per policy, and really, if we want this article to ever rise in quality assessment it does need reorganization. Not a mirror copy of Star Wars, of course, since in the case of Dune the novels spawned the rest and not the other way around, and Herbert's material is far more intricate and needs a bit more in the plot area. On the topic of the article name ... I haven't been thinking of Dune as a franchise because of the minimal amount of derivative material as compared to Star Wars and Star Trek, which of course epitomize the franchise. But despite the lack of Dune Halloween costumes, with the amount of books and adaptations we now have, perhaps Dune (franchise) is more appropriate. Yes Marcus, I believe my suggestion is basically what you were suggesting last year, I give you full credit ;) &mdash; TAnthonyTalk 17:03, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * BTW, I don't like the split idea only because a separate franchise article would require some rehash of the plot anyway, which might be shorter than the one here but still redundant (of this and several other articles). If we're talking about not actually stripping any info from what's here, I don't know why it would have to be a standalone "universe" article that invites fiction deletionists.&mdash; TAnthonyTalk 18:35, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, so my proposed new version of the article is at User:TAnthony/Dune (franchise). I basically reworked the lead, put the "Artistic works" list first and expanded it to prose with a lot of references, and left the "Brief synopsis" section as-is but pushed it down in the article. The infobox may be a bit much, LOL. If it seems OK to everyone, I will move the article to Dune  (franchise) and then implement my changes section-by-section so they're easy to follow.&mdash; TAnthonyTalk 05:41, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Cheers. Will give it a good look through tomorrow. :) --SandChigger (talk) 14:28, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, a day later than planned. Looks good to me; if this is the way everyone thinks it's best to proceed, no objections, I suppose. --SandChigger (talk) 08:01, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Well Gwern's been on as recently as today so I'll take his lack of further comment as a thumbs-up, and if Gwern, Sandchigger, and I agree on it then I can't imagine there's anyone else who'll give a damn ;) I will boldly start making the updates shortly.&mdash; TAnthonyTalk 23:37, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Ditto. --Gwern (contribs) 18:54 8 March 2010 (GMT)
 * Ditto 2. --SandChigger (talk) 05:36, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Length of the "Dune 7" outline
I see that the outline has now grown to a whopping 30 pages, since an interview with Brian last summer (during the Winds tour?).

Does anyone have the Hunters audiobook. Evidently in that interview Brian says the outline was only two or three pages long. If that's really what he said, which is correct? If they're changing the story, shouldn't any mention of the length be removed? --SandChigger (talk) 14:16, 17 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Yeah, when I came across the 30-page think I immediately cited it, since as you say the last note about it here was 2-3 pages. I never did hear the audiobook interview/commentary myself though, I'd be curious. Is it on the CD, the downloadable version ...? &mdash; TAnthonyTalk 23:37, 19 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Let me do a bit of checking around, to find out. A 30-page outline is definitely NOT what I've seen written before this, though. (Even more variable, though, are the details about the safety deposit box keys: in one version Brian finds them in a desk, or the estate lawyer finds them, or they have to drill the boxes, etc etc etc. LOL) --SandChigger (talk) 17:49, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

My take
"good" Jesuit. I quote the good, because many would disagree that they are actually good. Jesuits are a common denominator among the One World Government- New World Order crowd via the internet. Since the sisterhood is a major player in the Dune Universe, it stands to reason that the Jesuits might be a major player in real, modern global politics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gizziiusa (talk • contribs) 17:50, 19 September 2010 (UTC)


 * What is the point of your comment? --Gwern (contribs) 17:52 19 September 2010 (GMT)
 * He's saying "Jesuit" instead of "Gesserit" because she don't know anything about the series, and "Bene" is "Good" in Italian, so meh. Can the whole comment section here be removed? ~AeSix 173.171.150.184 (talk) 11:25, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

More Books?
I found Sisterhood of Dune by Brian Herbert and was wondering where it fits into the franchise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JWKTrucker (talk • contribs) 16:22, 18 November 2013 (UTC)


 * That is the most recent Brian Herbert-Kevin J Anderson novel (2012) and takes place about 10,000 years before Dune itself (check out the "Heroes of Dune" section of the article).&mdash; TAnthonyTalk 16:30, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Novels
I've suggested a task force at the Novels Wikiproject to cover the Dune universe. Please stop by if you think it a good idea or have any thoughts. --S.G.(GH) ping! 14:46, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Dune (franchise)
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Dune (franchise)'s orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "7 Beauties": From Glossary of Dune terminology:  From Muad'Dib:  

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 15:08, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * &mdash; TAnthonyTalk 20:32, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Dune (franchise). Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.dunenovels.com/articles/brainstorming-sisterhood-dune

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

— TAnthonyTalk 00:15, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 08:01, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 one external links on Dune (franchise). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://nebulaawards.com/awards/archive/pastwin.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080513064723/http://www.scifidimensions.com/Aug07/sandwormsofdune.htm to http://www.scifidimensions.com/Aug07/sandwormsofdune.htm
 * Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/5yVVCTw3d?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.thehugoawards.org%2Fhugo-history%2F1977-hugo-awards%2F to http://www.thehugoawards.org/hugo-history/1977-hugo-awards/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120908030416/http://arrakis.ru/ha_int_mf.shtml to http://arrakis.ru/ha_int_mf.shtml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 18:55, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Dune (franchise). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.thehugoawards.org/hugo-history/1977-hugo-awards/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110719211204/http://www3.isrl.illinois.edu/~unsworth/courses/entc312/s05/best80.cgi to http://www3.isrl.illinois.edu/~unsworth/courses/entc312/s05/best80.cgi
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130615190055/http://www.sfcrowsnest.com/articles/books/2009/Dune-The-Butlerian-Jihad-by-Brian-Herber--Kevin-J-Anderson--13987.php to http://www.sfcrowsnest.com/articles/books/2009/Dune-The-Butlerian-Jihad-by-Brian-Herber--Kevin-J-Anderson--13987.php
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150912200558/http://kjablog.com/brainstorming-navigators-of-dune/ to http://kjablog.com/brainstorming-navigators-of-dune/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110429101454/http://www.duneinfo.com/unseen/jodorowsky.asp to http://www.duneinfo.com/unseen/jodorowsky.asp
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100114042042/http://hollywoodinsider.ew.com/2010/01/04/dune-remake/ to http://hollywoodinsider.ew.com/2010/01/04/dune-remake/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110628235716/http://www.gamespot.com/gamespot/features/all/real_time/p2_02.html to http://www.gamespot.com/gamespot/features/all/real_time/p2_02.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 19:19, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Dune (franchise). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100107055110/http://www.fantasticfiction.co.uk/series/dune/making-of-dune.htm to http://www.fantasticfiction.co.uk/series/dune/making-of-dune.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 20:14, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Dune (franchise). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070125065415/http://www.duneinfo.com/cd/frankklepacki.asp to http://www.duneinfo.com/cd/frankklepacki.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 02:33, 23 January 2018 (UTC)