Talk:The Dune Encyclopedia/Archive 1

Previous discussions
When the article was renamed the old discussion was not moved. It is still available on Talk:Dune Encyclopedia. Pavel Vozenilek 01:04, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm adding that discussion below, and redirecting the old Talk page here. TAnthony 01:29, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Futher reprints of the book - sources
Dr. Willis E. McNelly had tried for new reprint of DE but negotiation with FH family trust (aka BH) failed. He wrote about it on alt.fan.dune newsgroup in 200-2001.


 * - who own copyright and whose permition is needed
 * futher how hard is to get agreement with FH trust
 * announcing of negotioations, which apparently failed since no reprnt appeared

I hope this clears the question. Pavel Vozenilek 06:22, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Selected content
Over time I have added some mention of "notable" content here, particularly items that have been contradicted by later canon works. In most of these cases, a expanded explanation of the Encyclopedia version is included in the individual articles (Butlerian Jihad, Holtzman effect). As much as it seems logical to confine all Encyclopedia content to this article, I think the information is only really notable when presented in comparison/contrast with canon material, and thus is better placed in the individual articles.

I've made an effort in general keep in their own section or clearly cite any Encyclopedia references I come across (or add). In the case of articles with more significant use of Encyclopedia content (again, like Butlerian Jihad and Holtzman effect), I add links in this article for interested readers to follow.

For the record, I'm on the team that finds the Encyclopedia non-canon, but I also find it interesting, and the fact that Frank "approved" it or whatever puts it above pure fan fiction and makes it notable. TAnthony 03:32, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

from VfD

 * At first glance this looks like an article on a wiki-worth book. On closer inspection it turns out that the Encyclopedia has not been updated since 1989 (when several new books have come out), is considered 'entertaining' by Frank Herbert, and was mostly speculation even then. Inshort it's an artice about an unpopular book. DJ Clayworth 16:33, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. The updated argument is really weak -- must things be constantly updated to keep their places in Wikipedia and then deleted if they slip from currency?  --Daniel C. Boyer 13:21, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * As long as its a real book, and we state these things, I think that should be fine. It's more informative to at least say that, than have someone look for it and find nothing. The Trolls of Navarone 16:35, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it's a decent enough article, no reason to delete. Pteron 20:00, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Real book, really published in enough numbers to count above vanity press.  No further criteria are required for a book to have an article.  We don't keep any kind of 'Wikipedia canon'. &mdash;Morven 21:28, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Well said. Andrewa 07:39, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * Popular enough for someone to have bothered writing a decent article about it, apparently. And the importance of the Dune series is uncontested, even if this is a relatively minor factor in it. Might as well keep. Isomorphic 04:30, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Cribcage 06:45, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. What they said. --Tagishsimon 07:48, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Frank Herbert may have only found it entertaining, but it remains a popular book in SF circles. Judging from some of the reviews I've read about Brian Herbert's new books in the series, this book may prove more enduring than the canonical ones. MK 07:51, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Given that a number of people (full disclosure: including me!) have worked on that article since it was listed on the Cleanup page, it would be rather rude to delete it just because the subject of the article is "unpopular". --Stormie 01:38, Apr 20, 2004 (UTC)

Fanfic?
Wouldn't it be fair to say that the vast majority of the substance of the Dune Encyclopedia should be classed as fan fiction? 209.149.235.254 20:46, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * Possibly, if the criteria for fanfic holds for works created with approval (if not full endorsement) of the original author, as is the case here. As a personal aside, The Dune Encyclopedia is far more enjoyable and true to Herbert's vision than the abominations that were made after his death. Basically his son and Kevin Anderson pilfered the Dune legacy for profit, producing junk that reads like the worst fanfic out there. Just my $0.02. Alcarillo 17:20, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Kneeslasher 20:00, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
 * If the Dune Encyclopaedia is "fan fiction" then there aren't words to describe the immature scrawlings which the wastrel son has propagated with such prodigious vigour.


 * That doesn't really contribute to the discussion much, does it? (Your comment should probably be reverted in keeping with WP talk page guidelines, but I have no interest in a flame or edit war at the moment.) Both are fanfic IMO. (Canonicity has to be a more interesting concept than simple ownership of copyright.) The Encyclopedia is arguably more imaginative and the better work for being better written. Anyway, this isn't the place for abusing the authors. If you want to do that, start a blog and slag them off to your heart's content. Like I do. :) --SandChigger 12:17, 10 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Canonicity certainly can be more complex - look at Star Wars canon, with its G, C, and N-canon levels (and more, probably), or Star Trek (which does something I'm not entirely sure about). But in the Dune case, with the exception of the DE, canonicity right now seems to fall under either whatever the legal possessor of copyright says, or for us fans, anything FH wrote. --Gwern (contribs) 02:42 7 June 2007 (GMT)

I concede 'The Dune Encyclopedia' is not canon. However I like its version of the Bulterian Jihad and other histories *much* better then the prequel books! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.120.218.110 (talk) 22:56, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Canonicity, Brian Herbert, etc.
Wasn't Brian Herbert (Frank's son) also involved in compiling the encyclopedia?


 * "THE DUNE ENCYCLOPEDIA reflects an alternate "DUNE universe" which did not necessarily represent the "canon" created by Frank Herbert. Frank Herbert's son, Brian Herbert, writing with Kevin J. Anderson, IS continuing to establish the canon of the DUNE universe. This is being done with the full approval of the owner of the DUNE copyright, the Herbert Limited Partnership."
 * I find this part quite shocking and unencyclopidic, owning a copyright does not mean that something is canonical, please read dune faq for different opinion, also I find using caps lock to emphasize part of the text unencyclopedic ( Brian Herbert, writing with Kevin J. Anderson, IS continuing to establish the canon )
 * Unfortunately, the quasi-official policy of Wikipedia is that the copyright holders decide what is and isn't canon. Only when "Fanon" (as non-copyright holder orignating stuff is called) is really popular, swamping official stuff, does that stuff get included, and even then only with context as fanon. I know, I don't like BH and KJA any more than anybody else. I keep wanting to include this Penny Arcade strip in the articles but I know I shouldn't... --Maru 04:10, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
 * When i wrote that i didn't know that that was quoted Anderson, i saw that penny arcade comic before :) i think a link to Dune FAQ and alt.fan.dune would be enough and maybe a qoute from Willis E. McNelly, I dont find Dune Encyclopedia pure canon but i find it's buthlerian jihad story more believable then BH and KJA Terminator ripoff i personally would like to qoute this
 * I had proposed to FH that he and I collaborate on a prequel to the Dune saga called "Prequel to Dune: the Butlerian Jehad" or some similar title. FH and I had discussed writing it together and he agreed with my general plot outline, completed first chapter, and so on but his untimely death prevented us from continuing.
 * But he never reposted whether or not his claims could be checked at the Herbert archives in CalState. Those links do sound appropriate tho. --Maru 21:47, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I Agree that it can't be verified but those still are the words of Willis E. McNelly, I still think that second opinion would be nice.. I think this document is a bit hard on DE --Defufna 04:25, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I think it is fairly balanced. It is true that FH didn't really respect it, and his son has been rather harsh on it, so a certain harshness in that section is to be expected. Could use some better formatting, because as is it goes straight from description and status into canonicity issues. --Maru 18:35, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Brian herbert is a moron. he has done so much damage to the ingenious work of his father just having the intention of earning money. Any real Dune fan simply cannot consider his books as canon. On the other hand the Dune encyclopedia was authorized by Frank Herbert himself when he was still alive.At least partially it was even written by FH himself. And it is definitely not incompatible with Heretics and Chapterhouse. This is because the timeline of Dune Universe described in the Encyclopedia ends with the death of LetoII. Therefore it does not refer to the ocurrences in the last two books but there is no inconsistence. --- yours truly german Dune fan
 * I don't get this argument; just because Frank approved/was amused by the Encyclopedia doesn't make it any more canon that BH & KJA expanding on his notes. Are the 10 million Star Wars books "more canon" than the BH/KJA books because George Lucas is still alive? I've said this on more than one talk page, but people need to remember, Frank Herbert can't write anything else! I think we're lucky to have a resolution to his saga and other related novels that are even remotely based on his actual ideas. Frank may not have sued McNelly or specifically contradicted his work, but the good Doctor and his peeps weren't really working off a box of Frank's notes. TAnthony 03:34, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Exactly how has the Encyclopedia been contradicted by the novels published after it? I think such information should be included so people can decide for themselves what to consider canon.
 * Considering, Frank, Brian and the good Doctor himself, who wrote the encyclopedia, have stated categorically that it is not canon there really is no point. If you really want to do this then put it on the Dune discrepancies article rather than here, and you might want to include the many times Frank contradicted it....in case somebody wants to discount Frank's work as canon. Konman72 20:32, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I really disagree here; the scope of the Dune discrepancies article is really canon works, that is, inconsistencies among Frank Herbert's own books, and then the Brian/Kevin books. The Encyclopedia falls out of that scope. It makes perfect sense to me to have significant content from the Encyclopedia that conflicts with canon explored in the Encyclopedia article itself. As it's out of print, many people have never seen it; it would be interesting, if nothing else. Although I'm on the team that finds it non-canon, the fact that Frank "approved" it or whatever puts it above pure fan fiction and makes it notable. And hey, like any other book on Wikipedia, it's allowed a detailed synopsis and analysis. TAnthony 03:34, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Hey, sorry to resurrect this old discussion, but maybe we should get rid of the "disputed" and "debate" from the canon sections of this article. I don't see any sources showing that it is debated/disuted (where are the people stating that it is canon?), only sources showing that the encyclopedia is not canon, according to the HLP, Frank Herbert himself, and the good Doctor. (ATOE (talk) 00:34, 28 June 2008 (UTC))


 * You're right. The only caveat is that FH was prepared to use it as a rough outline for a possible prequel on the Jihad, that the book can be seen as a fictional book published within the Dune universe (although its content is still suspect) and, of course, the fact that FH approved of it. It does not make it canon, but it makes it considerable more than fanfiction - this should be noted, even if it does not make it eligable for the comparison page... Lundse (talk) 00:41, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Frank Herbert consulted the DE when writing his own Dune sequels, he approved the Jihad story in the DE for the basis of a new prequel novel, and the DE was not declared non-canonical until after his death. To me that means that it pretty much was canonical in FH's mind but not in BH and KJA's. -- Macduff (talk) 01:19, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Whoa...you're going to have to back up those claims with some verifiable sources. If all you've got is McNelly's posting to alt.fan.dune, it's going to end up a case of "he said ... they said ...". --SandChigger (talk) 03:19, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Mind you, I personally would tend to believe McNelly over the two hacks any day, but that's not what determines what can and cannot go into articles here. ;) --SandChigger (talk) 03:24, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * So it sounds like we are in agreement that the canon status is disputed. -- Macduff (talk) 17:12, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd go with "It's complicated" :-) Lundse (talk) 17:55, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I think we're using the wrong wording here; I would say that "canon" is technically a legal term at this point, and in a world where creative properties are owned, it can only be applied to, in this case, work written by Frank or by those given the license/approval by the estate. The DE has never really been canon, even before it was declared so by Brian &mdash; in Frank's own foreword he pretty much distances himself from it creatively. I don't understand the obsession here about the need to point out a "canon dispute." I've left that wording in the article only because the situation was complicated by Frank's approval and the publisher being the same as that of his novels, but I suppose it really is an unsourced statement. No one is trying to diminish the significance of the DE, especially since Frank approved the book's publishing and was amused by it. Isn't it enough to say that Frank didn't write it but liked it and found it interesting, but his heirs later declared it officially non-canon and contradicted it in their own works? Fully true and I think unbiased. &mdash; TAnthonyTalk 19:06, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree. I personally think that the DE contadicts the originals less than Pinky and the Brian's new books, and therefore is more "canon" than their work, but the only people debating whether or not this book is canon is us, and we have no sources to say otherwise. Thank's for cleaning it up TAnthony(ATOE (talk) 23:52, 28 June 2008 (UTC))
 * To Macduff: No, actually we're not in agreement. The Dune Encyclopedia is not canon and never was. It's an impressive and inspired work of fan fiction. TAnthony is pretty much on the mark about canon now having become a legal matter; whatever the copyright holder says is canon is what people who accept the new legalistic definition will consider canon. Another lovely result of our screwed up copyright laws. Oh well. --SandChigger (talk) 01:28, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I am not convinced that canon is establish solely by copyright, as it is simply not a legal term; I would say it is a decision only the author can make. Michael Jackson cannot write a new verse to a Beatles song and claim this is the "canon version" just because he owns the copyright... The DE is a special case, because we have a sort of tacit almost-aproval by FH while saying that he "holds his own counsel". This is how the matter stand as far as I am concerned - if B&K's decision about canonicity is to be respected, we need a policy or source or something, which tells us that copyright equals a right to establish the canon.
 * Be that as it may, I am not advocating that we put notes all over the Dune articles saying "alleged canon" everywhere - I would say they are establishing de facto canon, because they have copyright and because they are the only official attempt to do so. However, just like Jackson cannot change the wording of a song and expect Beatles fans to agree that McCartney was wrong, B&K cannot expect us to change our minds about the events they changed in the Dune universe (and I would say these makes all their writing suspect, but that just me, holding my own counsel). Lundse (talk) 10:59, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I have looked around a bit and have been unable to find any mention of copyright granting canon control. In fact, I have found the opposite.  Webster's definition of canon says, "3 a: an authoritative list of books accepted as Holy Scripture b: the authentic works of a writer c: a sanctioned or accepted group or body of related works " while wikipedia's canon page says that "... whereas (intellectual property) laws are designed to dictate where the revenue generated by a story goes, they do not confer the right to determine canonicity. If a fictional universe has an obvious primary creator then their statements may be held to carry the most authority, but no actual industry label exists for definitively designating published works as canonical, or even for granting any particular individual or organisation the power to dictate what is or is not canonical".  In the case of something like Star Trek, Paramount seems to be aware of the limited extent of their authority in this matter and has gone out of their way to not state what is or isn't canonical; leaving it to the fans to decide for themselves the status of things like the animated series or New Voyages.  So B&K may state that what they are doing is "official canon" (and that the DE isn't canon) but that statement alone doesn't make it so. -- Macduff (talk) 13:50, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that's what I got too. Note that Websters is not directly refering to the meaning we are looking for, which is sort of a 3a meaning but regarding something else than the bible. FH's word on the DE stands: complicated :-) Lundse (talk) 16:36, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Good point Macduff; it does seem as though the boys are overstating their legal right to set canon. Of course, as long as the Dune universe is under copyright, few will be able to write anything that can claim to be canon anyway. As a Dune fan, the only things I consider true "canon" in the full sense of the word are the things Frank wrote himself. And with his approval or not, the DE is fan fiction by a bunch of grad students; similarly, the BH/KJA novels may be based on his notes or whatever, but they are not his work, by far. I would say that neither is more credible or worthy than the other, really. &mdash; TAnthonyTalk 18:10, 30 June 2008 (UTC)


 * No argument here. (By the way, I hope it's clear that I don't consider the new books canon, or anything more than poor fanfic.) I would add that even if Frank Herbert himself wrote something, it's not canon unless he had it included in the published versions of his work. That rules out all the material published in The Road to Dune and the "Jessica given to Leto by the BG" arc in House Harkonnen, which Kevin claims was written by FH...but for the Lynch movie, not inclusion in a book.--SandChigger (talk) 06:04, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Shouldn't this article reference the fact that while B. Herbert and Anderson have _claimed_ to be working from Frank Herbert's notes, no one has ever independently verified this. The only "proof" ever offered for this has been a photo of a 3 1/2" floppy disk with a label to the effect of "Dune Notes." Frank Herbert had sent all of his papers to Cal State Fullerton's special collection, and none of this is there.  Their claim is, "you have to believe us because we have the copyright."  Harq al Harba — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.154.107.124 (talk) 21:35, February 2, 2019 (UTC)
 * First of all, the Dune Encyclopedia article has nothing to do with Brian Herbert and Kevin J. Anderson, or their works. On the subject of the notes: they are mentioned in several articles related to them, but as we have discussed before, there are no reliable sources that have expresseed doubt about the existence of the notes, or even reported a widespread trend of disbelief among fans.— TAnthonyTalk 00:27, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

If Frank Herbert says it's "canon" then it is. I'm weighing in here because I believe the Dune Encyclopedia is a valuable reference/citation, and I also believe what he wrote in the introduction has been misapplied and misrepresented to state he approved but didn't approve. WHAT?! The real interpretation is that the Dune Encyclopedia was written as though in the universe and in the timeline of Dune by characters in it, as their own Encyclopedia. The sources that he Frank Herbert questions are then the characters' themselves. He ends by referring to the future of the "Dune Chronicles," or the Dune Franchise as it is referred to now, where he says future "issues" are his to explore, which should properly be interpreted as the Encyclopedia isn't finished, not as it has been interpreted here that Frank Herbert is contradicting himself. WHAT?! The authors of later Dune Chronicle books can have their opinions, and they can even contradict the original author, but note the reference for their claims can not be supported as the reference is a defunct webpage: https://dunenovels.com/FAQ.html Here is the exact quote that is being misused:

I removed this paragraph from the article because the first reference I checked doesn't support what it claims to support. Nothing I read in it says Brian Herbert used his father's notes to contradict the Dune Encyclopedia. Yet another leap to discredit this book. What ever contradictions there might be could very will be Brian Herbert's own ideas; not necessarily from the notes as is being assumed.

24.78.228.96 (talk) 19:20, 21 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Hi, I've taken a thoughtful look at the article, challenged some of your reasoning and restored some of what you deleted, but also went through and removed several unsourced statements asserting that the book is non-canon. You make a good point that Herbert's introduction and the nature of the book are open to interpretation and we should not be saying "it's always been non-canon" without sourcing (which we don't have). However, mention of the Herbert estate declaring it non-canon in the 2000s is completely appropriate here and doesn't undermine the decades in which the book was unquestioned. I ask that you look at the article and my edit summaries carefully before you make further edits, and not just restore previous content wholesale. BTW my objection to the box quote is based on a few things. First, it's just too long and using the entire thing is a copyvio. I'm also not seeing the need for much of the text beyond what was already quoted in the article, which shows Herbert's approval. Finally, box quotes are decorative, and key facts should be found within the body of an article. Also, see WP:PULLQUOTE. Thanks.— TAnthonyTalk 18:16, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

RfC on Frank Herbert NOT contradicting himself, and canon section bias
Should the article section on the canonicity of the Dune Encyclopedia get a complete rewrite? 24.78.228.96 (talk) 10:38, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
 * 1) Frank Herbert did not contradict himself in approving the Dune Encyclopedia, his intro is being twisted and misused.
 * 2) The authors of future "Dune Chronicle" books can take the story any direction they want, but can't change Frank Herbert's approval. The reference link is defunct for a reason!
 * 3) "The complete and authorized guide and companion to FRANK HERBERT's masterpiece of the imagination: The Dune Encyclopedia." NB, This title had Frank Herbert's approval also.

Discussion
 * (Strongly Agree) the canon section makes a mockery of Frank Herbert's approval of this book by twisting it in on itself. He didn't once criticize the book as being suggested. Since the book was written as an in universe Encyclopedia, used by the characters themselves, he was able to facetiously question the characters' integrity as writers. He did not contradict his own approval of the book by stating the future of the Dune Chronicles was his to write. Editors twisting his words are missing that the future comes afterwards. You must have a proper reference for his son's contradictions, not some defunct link for page they could have been sued into removing. 24.78.228.96 (talk) 10:38, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Strongly disagree. The canonicity of this book is covered in an unbiased and evenhanded way, with sources and quotations. The article doesn't say that Herbert contradicted himeself in his approval, or that he criticized the work. But Herbert approving the release of a derivative work he found entertaining is not the same as establishing it as a canon entry in the franchise. What author would do that for a work written by fans in which he had no input? Regardless, just like the Star Wars films made without George Lucas are a legitimate part of the franchise because they were produced by the copyright owners, Brian Herbert can do whatever he wants regarding the canonicity of Dune works. As far as the archived source goes, just because a url is no longer active does not render its contents untrue or incorrect. Also, I don't know who you think would sue the copyright owner of Herbert's works over a statement clarifying the estate's position on a licensed derivative work.— TAnthonyTalk 17:50, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
 *  Understand but disagree I sympathize with the creator of the rfc. But canonicity in this context is essentially in the hands of Herbert's estate. As a reader, you are free to have your own opinions/interpretations, but given that the canonic status of the book ultimately has no relevance outside of the realm of publishing/licensing(and arguably little relevance there as well), I think the current section is fine as it is. Drsmoo (talk) 18:09, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete most of the section, but not for the reasons given. First, I should point out that this RFC is non-neutral (an RFC is required to be neutrally-worded); but more importantly it doesn't really identify the biggest problems with the section - namely, it's a huge mess of WP:SYNTH using almost entirely primary sources to present an editor's personal interpretation and analysis.  Most of the sources cited there don't even mention canonicity; they're primary sources being used to make an argument about canonicity in the article text.  Every source that doesn't unambiguously and directly talk about whether the book is canon or its canonical status needs to be removed immediately.  Just going over the sources, we have entire paragraphs cited solely to the original Dune books and the encyclopedia itself, using them to support what is plainly an editor's personal, highly-opinionated feelings about the book's canonicty in the article voice. In fact, after going over the sources, the only one in the entire section that appears usable in the way it's being used here is the FAQ at the very end, and even that is a WP:PRIMARY source that must be used with extreme caution (ie. we have to present it with no interpretation or analysis whatsoever, if we are going to use it.)  I would delete the entire section and replace it with a single sentence summarizing that source in a cautious, neutral tone, with no further commentary or interpretation - using other primary sources to try and argue with or about it (either supporting it or disputing it) is completely unacceptable. --Aquillion (talk) 07:31, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I've made some bold edits to the article to eliminate the OR and editor POV.— TAnthonyTalk 21:41, 23 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment I think the RFC is too broad Deathlibrarian (talk) 07:31, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Question It's very unclear what this RFC is requesting. You seem to be assuming that editors are au fait with the terms of your dispute.
 * ·What is the "canonicity" section? Is it the quote at the bottom of the Publication section?
 * ·What are you contending this section is saying?
 * ·What are you contending is wrong with what the section is saying?
 * ·How would you propose to rewrite it?
 * The clearer you can make things, the easier it is for uninvolved editors to understand, thanks.


 * Disagree for now. RFC is currently too unclear. - Andrewaskew (talk) 01:39, 3 September 2021 (UTC)