Talk:Dune (novel)/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

This archive covers discussion from January 2007 - August 2007. Discussion was placed in this archive as it appeared in the main talk page and thus may not be in chronological order.

Talk archives for Dune (novel) (current talk page)
<< 1 < Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 > 3 >>

Contents

Spice agony?

What is this? I don't recall ever seeing this mentioned in the novels -- at least up to God Emperor. Unless someone can point it out in one of the texts, my guess is that it's a mistranslation of "spice trance". I've also posted this question on the talk page. See Talk:Spice agony. Alcarillo 15:13, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Answered there, but again, the phrase does not occur until Heretics. (Or "Hairy Ticks", as I prefer!) --SandChigger 17:01, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
See my comments at Talk:Spice agony, but I've altered the reference here for accuracy. TAnthony 18:44, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. Is the way the section reads now strictly correct though? Before Jessica's conversion with the Water of Life on Arrakis, didn't the BG use other drugs to induce the Agony? (Also, I went back and reread the passage describing Jessica's transformation in Dune last night and, frankly, it didn't seem all that physically traumatic. ???) --SandChigger 23:24, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
You are correct, so I adjusted it further; but though I believe that afterwards only the spice-essence method was used by the BG, I always assumed it was more a concentrated spice overdose rather than sandworm bile. If you know the truth of that, it probably should be noted here. TAnthony 00:09, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Good point. I've always assumed they used a dose of Water of Life. I'll see if I can find something. (Maybe there's some specific mention in the account of Murbella's daughter that fails in Hunters? Will check later...) I added mention of the Water of LIfe, btw. --SandChigger 04:11, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Wait, are you looking for Dune facts in HUNTERS ?!?! Surely hell has frozen over. LOL. TAnthony 05:25, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Don't blow a gasket there, OK? :) I just mentioned it as a ready reference, one place to look for a hint, that's all. (My view is that there has to be some FH in the new books, however hard to find!) --SandChigger 05:39, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Iraq, Saddam, Islam

What, no mention in the real-world allusions section on how Arrakis is meant to sound like Iraq and Shaddam like Saddam? No mention of the Feydakin or Zensunni beliefs? Dune literally drips with references to Iraq and to Islam.

http://baheyeldin.com/literature/arabic-and-islamic-themes-in-frank-herberts-dune.html —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.5.3.112 (talk) 20:38, 30 January 2007 (UTC).

Hmm, a book from 1965 was written with allusions to the leadership of Iraq by Saddam Hussein, who only became president of Iraq fourteen years later in July 1979? Very interesting... you can see why it's not included. timrem 20:55, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
And don't forget that Ar-rakis literally means "The Dancer" when translated into arabic. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.202.108.24 (talk • contribs) 04:26, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Mentioned on the Arrakis page, not needed here. --SandChigger 11:00, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

It does seem like there should be a discussion of the way Herbert draws on and integrates Islam and other religious traditions in the book. The centrality of religion as a theme in the books is not really reflected in the article. This has nothing to do with contemporary political conflict, but it is interesting that Herbert thought Islam important at a time it wasn't on the radar for most people. (Whereas there was great interest in Asian religions in the 60's and 70's.) I was hoping to find some discussion of what in FH's background accounts for this.131.238.31.40 17:48, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Fan Sites

I would like a qualification/clarification provided for eligibility for inclusion of new links to this section. From the sites I see currently listed, and with the Wikipedia guidelines on external linking in mind, it seems appropriate to add established fan sites to the designated section in this article: communities where no registration is required, the site is free and accessible to all, is representative of a section of the Dune fan community, where there is no advertising, and where the content relates to the subject matter of the wiki article. I fail to see the objection to the inclusion of my edit, and would like a detailed explanation as to why. If fan sites are deemed inappropriate to list, then remove them all, along with the section itself, from the article. Arbitrary editing is inappropriate in the context of Wikipedia. 84.71.43.63 17:23, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I believe you are misreading the intent as well as the wording of some of the guidelines. Simple registration (creating a user account, with or without email address verification) is rapidly becoming a necessity with the increase in comment spammers; none of the fan sites listed requires payment of a fee to do so, nor to simply view the site content. Which guideline states that a site must be representative of the fan community? The guidelines mention "objectionable amounts of advertising" not "no advertising". The strongest argument for non-inclusion is Guideline #13, relevance.
Does anyone else want to weigh in on this one? --SandChigger 02:33, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
I've registered for an account as you suggested. The issue I have is that user:IPSOS is arbitrarily deciding which links are included within the external fan sites and which are not. I sent communications to the user's talkpage without any response, and posted here for discussion (again without any response from IPSOS). I have read the wiki guidelines on adding external links, and do not believe the site I have added contravenes the rules, yet it is still removed despite the fact that other links on the list do contravene some of the guidelines (advertising for example). My point is this: a single user cannot arbitrarily decide what should and should not be included. The guidelines are clear. It's a case of allowing the inclusion of relevant links, or removing the section entirely. I will take this to mediation if the article continues to be arbitrarily edited in conflict with the aims and objectives of Wikipedia. Coldmachine 13:34, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Just playing the devil's advocate here. According to this http://www.dunepbem.tapirdesigns.co.uk/forum/ there are only 34 registered members. That doesn't seem very notable. Is a significant portion of the site membership NOT registered for or using the forum for some reason? Just wondering.... --SandChigger 10:24, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes there are limited numbers of participants, but the site is the foremost pbem community relating to Dune and has inspired numerous off-shoots. A Google search will tell you that, coupled with the fact it's been running for over four years now. Quality, not quantity, so the saying goes. The group is representative of the pbem section of the Dune fan base, and that's why it ought to be included particularly since other listed fan sites contravene Wikipedia's own guidelines on external links (again, I mention advertising as the key point). Coldmachine 20:20, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
I should add; I'm just going through the listed links now and houseatreides.com is not responding, The Sietch has around 10-20 active participants of the 122 registered, and there are copyright issues involved in Dune 2k with reengineering an old PC game. Coldmachine 20:25, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes, but how representative of the total fanbase is this "play by email" faction? (I wasn't even aware of the existence of such a thing until you brought it up. But then, I'm not much of a gamer of any sort.) As for the advertising, it's much less obtrusive on these sites than some others I have seen. Like registration, it's a fact of modern Internet life. Again, the guideline does not say "no advertising". --SandChigger 17:38, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Well if you haven't encountered pbem-ing then that's your own loss and ignorance! The existence of something is not factual based on whether or not you personally have experience with it. I recommend Google as your first line of enquiry. I'm not debating the scale of the pbem community, just as an equivalent counterpoint would be "how representative of the total fanbase is a group of people who reengineer an old computer game?". I don't ask for the exclusion of existing links, merely the addition of another suitable link. I fail to see the logic behind the vehement objection to this when the link fits the Wiki criteria, and the article benefits from a broad range of appropriate links. I can only assume there's some personal issue? Perhaps mediation might be an idea? Coldmachine 08:50, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Interesting. Attacking me certainly does bolster your argument. I'm merely playing the devil's advocate here and frankly couldn't care one way or the other. You seem to be the one with the emotional investment. (Case in point: your seemingly retaliatory removal of the House Atreides site link?) Whatever. I'll leave it for others to deal with this. --SandChigger 19:18, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Attacking you? Hardly. I apologise if you misunderstood my response to your criticism of "this "play by email" faction". We're a group of fans, not a faction, and "this" group of fans has large numbers of active players which - as I say - is beside the point since we're not here to debate the scale of a given section of the Dune fan community as I outlined above. The emotional investment I hold is merely a pursuit of fair treatment under the Wiki guidelines which appear to be applied erratically and with an inappropriate level of discretion by editors of this particular article. As I say: I suggest either all the fan links are removed entirely if there's a nepotistic approval system in place, or permit the inclusion of additional links which relate to the article content.Coldmachine 08:14, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Split Request

The page currently has two full plot summaries. The first is fairly short, and while it glosses over the second half of the book, feels like the right length. The second is a huge detailed summary. If it is Wikipedia's job to provide such a detailed summary (is it?), then it should probably be on a separate page. Splitting off the second summary would allow this article to grow in the areas it needs to -- thematic issues and real-world importance -- while keeping article size down. Adbaxter 21:51, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

It's been 6 weeks since Adbaxter's proposal, and it's garnered no support. I've removed the split-proposed tag from the article. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 16:09, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Spoiler tags

There seems to be no start of spoiler warning. Just the "spoilers end here" notice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.226.241.126 (talk • contribs) 09:50, May 17, 2007

There's been a recent campaign to remove spoiler tags lately (I don't get it, but ...). They took out the initial tag but missed the "endspoiler", I'll get it. TAnthony 17:52, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Broken (Recursive) Link

In the section Dune references in popular culture, the link that apparently goes to a separate articles simply redirects to this one, causing a loop. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.100.20.88 (talk • contribs) 01:43, June 2, 2007

I think you maye have come across the article in the middle of Haemo's re-merge of the material back in. All links there seem fine, let me know if I'm missing something. TAnthony 15:38, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Fan sites redux

Most of the fan sites fail either #10 or #11 on Wikipedia:External links#Links normally to be avoided. That is, they are either blogs or social networking sites such as forums or mailing lists. In any case, the external links section is not supposed to be a linkfarm. Linking to DMOZ is the recommended solution in such a case, and as nearly all the links are there, is the path we should take here, I think. GlassFET 20:54, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Believe it or not I actually agree but on the premise that the entire fan links section be removed. It seems to be causing more grief than it does good. The problem is that deciding which links are 'appropriate' or not for inclusion in such a section leads to lack of objectivity, and ends up based on personal preference. It's my opinion that the section be removed entirely.Coldmachine 22:34, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Great, that appears to be precisely what was done, with an addition of a link to DMOZ. I support the change that you reverted. GlassFET 22:36, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
I reverted it because you made a major edit without waiting for consensus. You opened discussion, true, but made a significant edit without waiting for a reply. Let's see what the others think, yes? That is, after all, what consensus is about. We are both in agreement on the removal of the fan links section in entirety, does anyone else object? Coldmachine 22:37, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I am being WP:BOLD. A long list of fansites violates WP:EL guidelines. If you don't personally object, don't revert. It's my right to edit boldly and you are the edit warrior in this case. I was restoring another user's edit that I agreed with. Please stop your warring. GlassFET 22:41, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Being BOLD does not "excuse a disregard of Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:Neutral Point of View and the other five pillars of Wikipedia", the fourth point of which includes achieving consensus. I think that cooling off is needed: you seem to be taking this very personally by blaming this 'warring' on me. It takes two to tango, as they say. I'll wait for the other editors of this article to chip in with what they think about the idea of removing the section. In the meantime I suggest that personal attacks are held back while we cool off some. Coldmachine 22:45, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Show me the consensus discussion you are referring to. If there was no previous consensus, there is no issue. You cool off. Yes, when you revert in the name of an imaginary former "consensus" with which you do not even agree, you are violating WP:POINT. Edit warring to make a point is just plain silly. GlassFET 22:47, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
I reverted your revert because you did not wait for any response in this discussion page concerning such a major change to the article. Again, personal attacks are unnecessary. I suggested we both cool off. I'll be leaving this discussion for the time being to give others the chance to contribute. Have the last word, it's all yours :) Coldmachine 22:51, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Despamming the article is hardly a "major change". IPSOS (talk) 16:49, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
And the links which have been removed hardly constituted "spam". (Check the definition somewhere if you're not sure what the word means.)
No one seems interested enough in keeping the links to contest the deletion, so I'm not going to, either. More important fish to fry at the moment. :) --SandChigger 14:12, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a repository of links. In such cases where there are a large number of fan type links, rather than link to them directly, one is encouraged to link to DMOZ, which does maintain a directory of links. IPSOS (talk) 14:21, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
Why, quote me chapter and verse! Yeah, there were so many fan site links that they were dwarfing the article content. I completely agree. --SandChigger 08:05, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Inline citations

I think that inline citations would be the single best way to improve this article. It would sort out the fact from the fanaticism, would encourage better editing, and would be a huge help in getting the article to GA status. Wrad 00:26, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

The Two Plot Summaries

One of those things has to go. I don't care which one. Tommy.rousse 03:34, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I think a split request was attempted not long ago (see above) and it didn't gain any consensus so the tag was removed. ColdmachineTalk 07:56, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Clarification

Overall, I'm impressed with the general cleanliness and non-"in-universe"-ness of this article. However, upon reading the introductory paragraphs, I found that it was very hard to read once you hit the third and final paragraph. I found that half of the paragraph was made up of one gigantic run-on:

"He took a plane to Florence, Oregon, where the USDA was sponsoring a lengthy series of experiments in using poverty grasses to stabilize and slow down the damaging sand dunes, which could "swallow whole cities, lakes, rivers, highways";[3] his article on that, "They Stopped the Moving Sands", was never completed (and was only published decades later in an incomplete form in The Road to Dune) but it interested Herbert in the general subject of ecology and related matters; he spent the next five years continuing research and writing and rewriting[4] what would eventually become Dune,[5] though it was Spice Planet before the novel was serialized in the magazine Analog from 1963 to 1965 as two shorter works, Dune World and The Prophet of Dune."

Too many semicolons, parentheses, general information in that one sentence. Maybe someone with better knowledge of the subject than me could clean this one up a bit? Thanks in advance. -ExNoctem 22:17, 21 August 2007 (UTC)