Talk:Heretics of Dune/Archive 1

Archive 1

Taraza and Odrade switched

The second to the last paragraph of the Plot summary has Taraza and Odrade switched! 24.5.13.9 (talk) 03:06, 24 December 2010 (UTC)Zake Dec 2010

1500 Years?

Do we have any canon sources for the "1,500" year time span between GEoD and HoD? I have read and re-read this book and I cannot see any quotes (( unless i am merely blind, haha )) but I keep seeing the characters refer to "milennia" and "the milennia" passing since the reign of Leto II. I interpreted this to mean there was more than one. Am I just insane?

scotty 04:42, 13 March 2006 (UTC)scottrossi

It was my impression that around 5,000 years had passed between the end of GEoD and HoD; someone changed that to 1,500. Lacking a clear reference, I didn't fight the change. Justin Johnson 08:10, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I changed it to "Thousands of years" as we have no reference for 5,000 or 1,500. Etan 22:48, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Having just read the book, I believe it is 1500. Can't remember which page it is on though :( maybe I'll find it later. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 218.102.221.156 (talk • contribs) 18:25, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Ive just changed it from 1500 or 3500 to 1000's of years becuse it dosn't say it in the book how many years have passed and it says '1000's of years still after his death the tyrant still controls us...' (odrade in tabar-finds the secret hoard)

plus, dose it realy matter? its a great book and thats what counts not some stupid time scale!

posted by ^V-/~ —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.68.54.108 (talk • contribs) 03:16, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

And I changed "1000's" to "thousands" because the former is just god-awful ugly. SandChigger 00:51, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

According to http://www.dunenovels.com/timeline.html Leto takes the throne 10217AG and is killed in 13725AG (3508 years). Sheeana is born in 15214 (1489 years after Leto is killed). For this reason, I am amending the article to say 3500 and 1500 again and will provide the ref 195.153.45.54 10:42, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

The timespan is mentioned in the book itself. From one of the recent Ace paperback editions of HoD, page 7:

... Lucilla, who had come to depend on her experience of the Jessica person buried some five thousand years back in the Sisterhood's genetic manipulations, ....

Assuming Leto II reigned for 3500 years (which I think is a given), the remainder is 1500. And from page 10:

... And fifteen hundred years since the Tyrant's death, the Sisterhood remained powerless to unlock the central knot of that fearsome accomplishment.

Emphasis mine. So, I think the using fifteen hundred years in the article is justified. Mpd (talk) 01:24, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

If it is mentioned in the book than it is considered canon. As long as it's not an alternate timeline/universe or a retcon. Andy_Howard (talk) 21:21, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

The Nose Causes The Tail rationale

I do not mean by this to contribute original research and have added no analysis or conclusions of my own. I've put two primary sources together where the similarity speaks for itself. As far as I know, this is the only place in the Dune books where Herbert doesn't have a "mashup" of religious sources but quotes rather explicitly from one of his direct influences, which makes this more than a passing curiosity and worthy of note. But I could be wrong, it may not be worth mentioning. Scott1329m 19:48, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I forgot this section was still in the article, and right now I really don't see its worthiness, so I've taken it out. — TAnthony^Talk 22:05, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I shouldn't have called this Vandalism - but it definitely doesn't belong here. ATOE (talk) 01:14, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I support the inclusion of this. However, I am open to a rewrite which says something along the lines of 'Herbert has in his Dune novels' epigraphs drawn on Western interpretations of Eastern wisdom, eg. <ref>Watts comparison</ref>'. (Or perhaps using it as a citation for Herbert using Watts's work. I know this is not the only place Herbert does that.) --Gwern (contribs) 02:07 4 November 2008 (GMT)

I realized that I hit "save page" too quickly on that one with the edit summary of "vandalism" I should have read what was there more thoroughly. After realizing that this was a good faith edit though I still thought that this is trivia and decided not to undo my own edit. - I don't have a huge problem with it, as it is certainly interesting, but I think it's trivia - I just don't see how this is different than pointing out every single passage in FH's writing that alludes to some other body of work, and we could write novels on that kind of thing. If we do decide to keep it then I think it needs some re-working like what you're suggesting. On the bright side: if this is okay according to WP standards does that mean I can go into the articles for every piece of junk Kevin J Anderson novel and put reference to where he got/stole each and every idea? Hmmmm I could have fun with that, and i can reference specific pages if necessary... now I'm just being silly... or am I?ATOE (talk) 22:24, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it's silly to point out every passage; it's just that no one has done it. It doesn't strike me as OR to do so - all we're saying is that this passage is obviously drawing on that, and you, the reader, should know that. To say that such a comment is 'research' or a 'novel synthesis' is pretty silly. At that point, one could say that the most basic analysis of the novel (future-set science fiction with Paul as the protagonist) is OR until you quote someone else's analysis in detail as a reference. --Gwern (contribs) 00:12 24 November 2008 (GMT)

Wikipedia is a tertiary source and therefore, in principle, is only a cataloguing of information present in secondary sources. Unless something is obvious, it needs to be sourced. This is definitely non-obvious and would likley not be obvious to most people familiar with the works of both Herbert and Watts. In principle *everything* should be sourced, but a lot of things get courtesy passes, because most everyone agrees that it is fine. This has received several reasonable objections as being original research. As a result it needs a source or it needs to go.

To repeat - everything ought to be sourced, if no one provides a reasonable objection it can be unsourced, otherwise if people provide reasonable objects you've got to have a source.Ekwos (talk) 16:53, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I obviously disagree; but I'm not going to fight over it if no one else supports its inclusion. --Gwern (contribs) 22:01 19 May 2009 (GMT)

As it is, this looks like original research. Gwern's rewrite pointing out Herbert using Watts's work would be better, but is still on the edge of original research - it would be much better if a secondary source for this fact could be found. I'm leaving it in for the moment to see if someone improves it (I can't since I know nothing of Watts), but as it is I don't believe the section belongs in the article. ··gracefool☺ 23:37, 5 May 2009 (UTC)