Talk:Discrepancies between Dune novels

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Archive
Archives


Contents

[edit] Wikipedia is Not the Place for Original Research

These discussion page decisions of what does and does not constitute a discrepancy are nothing less than original research. This page either needs to be reflective of those claims which are made within a wider community as to what constitute discrepancies within the Dune books or it needs to be deleted. I am reverting the article to a version which is not reflective of the original research taking place on these discussion pages. This version almost certainly requires revisions to remove its own OR elements, but that is preferable to the removal of material from the article on the basis of OR rather than to eliminate OR. Justin Bacon 04:39, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

How is this OR? It is discussion to reach consensus. We have not even debated the points, merely pointed out which ones were OR and they were deleted. Also, OR is fine on the talk page, but is not ok when added to the article, the funny thing is that no OR could have possibly been added since all that was done was deletion, so that version by definition had less OR, so your revert was improper at best. You should really discuss things here rather than plaster the term OR onto it and revert what had been agreed on by all parties at the time. I don't even see how you are using OR to describe what has been happening. We have not done original research, we have shown how the ones that were there were original research, by providing reasons and explanations. I'm reverting it back for the reason I state earlier, if this article has OR in it then the version you reverted had less of it and so it should be the version used until the OR can be completely filtered out. Oh, and as far as I know there is no citation for what the "wider community" sees as a discrepancy since there has never been a reliable source that has done a study. No matter what is said on Dune forums across the Internet, it doesn't matter since those are just random people with no verifiability to their words, actions, or reputation. If you want to expand the definition of "discrepancy" beyond verifiable, definite contradictions then you need to provide a reference to a reliable source, otherwise we are left with what has been shown to be definite discrepancies. Here is the definition of "discrepancy", "an instance of difference or inconsistency", now if you want something in this article then you have to prove, beyond a shadow of a (reasonable) doubt, that it is a verifiable instance of difference between the novels. I, and the others, do not have to prove that they are consistent, you have to prove that they aren't. Konman72 05:07, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
How is it not OR? Your claim that you have not "debated the points, merely pointed out which ones were OR". But a quick perusal of the debate, which can still be clearly seen on this Talk page, reveals that you weren't concerned about whether or not a given discrepancy was OR, it was whether or not they were actually discrepancies, complete with rationalizations for why they were (or were not) discrepancies. That's OR. And your OR on these talk pages is being used to determine what content should or should not be present in the article. If you want to remove a discrepancy listed on this page, do so on the basis that it is not a discrepancy discussed outside of Wikipedia in the larger fan community. Do not do so because you, personally, "don't see" the problem or don't agree with an interpretation. Justin Bacon 16:47, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Here's your problem though. Do you have citation for any of these? Forums don't count by the way, nor do the books themselves since every reader could interpret differently. Yes, we did determine which ones were actual discrepancies, but that is exactly what was done when they were first added. A person read the books and decided for themselves whether or not something was a discrepancy and then added it. If we use your qualifications then this whole article needs deletion since, so far, there has not been a single citation to a reliable source for any of these. If you want these to remain then you have to prove that they are actual discrepancies. Instead of deleting the article though I will compromise and revert it to the definite discrepancies. Do not revert back unless you can provide citations to reliable sources for all of them. Remember, the burden of proof is on you not me. I am fully in my right to delete every entry in this article since none have proper citation, find some and you can add them back, otherwise just accept the ones that remain as a compromise. Funny, I notice on your talk page that you refer to these as "verifiable". I think you might want to reacquaint yourself with the policy on verifiability. All of these need citations to reliable sources that provide evidence that makes them verifiable. So far none have anything close to that. The only reason they remain is because we have gotten it down to the ones that are blatant and any reader would reasonably agree to, however, if anyone actually challenged them then they would be deleted outright since they are still not verifiable. As I have said many times, you need a reliable source, none of this "fan community" nonsense. Konman72 08:05, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
Here's your problem: You can't have it both ways. If you want to nominate the article for deletion because it only refers to a conflict within Dune fandom over canonicity and consistency, go for it. But the purpose of Wikipedia articles is not to resolve such conflicts, it is merely to report them. I don't agree with every entry on this list, but that doesn't matter. Nor do I give a devil's farthing whether you agree with them or not. Your attempts to inject your own personal opinion over which critiques are "blatant and any reader would reasonably agree to" are, in fact, original research. Do not attempt to inject your original research into this article again. Justin Bacon 17:39, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
You aren;t getting it are you, what you are adding is original research, I am toning it down. Does any one of these have a citation to a reliable source? No. The only reason that I am ok with the ones that are left in is because those could be sourced to the actual novels since they are actual "one says A the other says B" type discrepancies, the rest are "one implies or could be interpreted as A and the other implies B but could still allow for A" which is not a discrepancy at all. If you want to add them back in then find citation to a reliable source otherwise the entry is original research and its deletion is necessary and correct. Please try to step back and understand that you are the one adding original research, I am deleting it. The burden of proof lies with you, prove to us all that there is a discrepancy, or that others think there is one, and the entry can be added back. Again, the burden of proof is yours and yours alone, I can delete every last one of these without violating any rule because none have citation, you must provide it if you want them to remain.

[edit] Getting a bit silly, isn't it?

This is getting stupid, folks. REMOVE everything that doesn't have a citation from a BOOK or other publication, OFFICIAL or REPUTABLE (critical?) WEBSITE. It doesn't matter if you can prove it by citing the novels themselves, it's still original research. KILL IT NOW and stop this foolishness. SandChigger 04:46, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Continuing...

The following are in the Dune Novels FAQ and IMO should be mentionable here.

  • Piter de Vries being a ghola
  • How Jessica and Leto I came to be together
  • Jessica and Yueh's history
  • Halleck and Kynes
  • Norma & non-exploding shield-lasgun interaction
  • Paul Birthplace

(Rationale: They've taken the time to answer these on the official website...which means enough people have asked (=have perceived a discrepancy?) to make it seem worthwhile for them to respond in this way.)

I've removed the CET venue item until a citable source is found. (Was there one?) SandChigger 05:07, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bene Gesserit and Ancestral Memory

It talks about a discrepancy where Reverend Mothers gain memories from their ancestors and also that they gain all of the memories from all reverend mothers that have "shared" along the line. I have to admit that I cannot see the discrepancy here. Just because it is not specifically stated does not mean that it is still not possible. The fact that Frank never specifically mentioned a reverend mother actually either listening to or calling forth a male ancestor doesn't mean it isn't possible, nor does the fact that Jessica may have only sought out previous reverend mothers mean she did not have ancestral memories either. Thus I don't believe there is really a discrepancy here and the Rationalization should simply read that failing to mention does not mean it doesn't exist. Enigmatical 06:11, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you, although I doubt many of the other editors will (if they bother to comment, they are all on Dune break or something :-P ). I have argued in the past that most of these are not true discrepancies since they are not overtly denied in the text and are therefore original research and violate Wikipedia's policy on maintaining a neutral point of view. If you want to delete it then I will back you up, but I will wait for other comments before doing it myself. Konman72 09:13, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm still around, just not very interested at this point. If you're going to invoke OR, then any of the rationalizations which aren't specifically addressed elsewhere (as, in the Dune Novels FAQ) have to go, too.
Just my two cents. SandChigger 12:43, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Well, what is your suggestion? Is the discrepancy mentioned here worthy of deletion or is there an argument for its inclusion? I am bias and I know it, I would delete just about all of these, or at least move them somewhere where they didn't get their own page, so I try to listen to others on this issue. Konman72 17:07, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
I think where it can be clearly seen that someone has mistaken ommission for non-existence we can take it out. So anything that says "its never mentioned in the original novels therefore it is a discrepancy" would be like this. Enigmatical 22:47, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
My suggestion? Burn the whole thing. All links to this article are from User or Talk pages; no main articles refer to it any longer. Just put a note somewhere directing readers to the Dune Novels FAQ. That is the only option I see which is consistent with both OR and NPOV. No discrepancies or inconsistencies, nothing controversial about the new books, no dissension in the fan ranks. Frank is in Heaven, all's right with Dune World.
As for mistaking omission of mention for non-existence, nowhere do we find reference to the variety of sandworm that flies about on gossamer fairy wings, crapping spice like fairy dust as they go (Tyrant's image on the Dune Novels BBS, IIRC), therefore they could exist, right? If not for the fact that they would be inconsistent with everything else we are told about sandworms.
My vote (again): Burn it. SandChigger 01:57, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Referencing this article would be a simple matter of effort, I will do some of it this week. However, SandChigger has a point, perhaps the article should just be deleted? Or maybe not? I'll like to hear some opinions from other editors. Dionyseus 02:22, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
I've always felt this entire article relied on OR, but I felt that leaving it was a compromise I was willing to make since I did notice a large contingent of fans who were dissappointed. I'm almost positive it would not survive an AfD, but am not willing to nominate it since I see its purpose in the grand scheme of things. So basically, if it gets nominated I will vote delete, but I don't necessarily think it should be deleted...understand? Konman72 02:36, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Oh and Sand, about the "not mentioned" thing. The discrepancies here are not that blatant. If they were then they would be fine. I am even ok with all of the current ones staying. I see the reasons and even agree with most of them, but this is Wikipedia and it must be verifiable, which these are not. So I, like my high school gym teacher, could go both ways ;-) . If you truly feel this entry is worthy of being on Wikipedia the way it is then I ask that you say so (can't tell if your last edit was sarcastic) and I will support the decision. Konman72 02:43, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
The problem does not stem from the statement of "possible" discrepancies, but in the actual "postulating" of the reasons why that may be. That is the original research for the article and not verifyable as it simply requires a different opinion to contest its validity. I would recommend changing the article to state the facts and leave out any reasoning behind "why" that may be. So for instance, state that some books talk about ancestral memory while others talk about "shared", state the contradictions in material, and all those things which are completely beyond any argument because anyone could read the books and must draw the same conclusion because its there in black and white. Once we have reached that point then stop, no theories on why, no speculation or offering potential "reasons". Then the article serves a purpose as it gives people an interesting perspective for them to make their own minds up as to why this is. Enigmatical 06:14, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
As mentioned previously, the primary reason for including the Rationalizations originally was to pacify Zeus-of-the-random-digits, who was up in arms at the suggestion that there's any extant controversy over canonicity and consistency. I don't think it's the end of the world for those to be included, but as the person who included most of them (drawing them from fan discussions and the like, but nothing resembling proper research) I have no strong attachment to them. 06:41, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Well that sounds to me like original research and obviously is something we should avoid because it breaks wiki policy.Enigmatical 23:19, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

There is no debate, it is OR. It was added to counter the OR present in the discrepancies, which was probably dumb, but it helped maintain the peace. As soon as it is decided what discrepancies stay and which go away the rationalizations will be gone as well. Konman72 23:27, 17 August 2006 (UTC)



Well the inherent problem in that is, what do we deem a discrepancy? The Bene Gesserit discrepancy states that "Ancestral Memory" was not an ability that the BG had in the first 3-4 books, yet it is never stated that they do or do not. Also, the Harkonnen no-chamber states that no technology was invented at the end of GEoD, but when I posted this on a fan site they ripped into me calling me an idiot who obviously never read the books (I wasn't really siding either way, just arguing to prove another point lol). So the ultimate question is, where do we draw the line between discrepancy and just not mentioned. If we go with the former then we are still stuck in OR and NPOV territory, if the latter then all entries here would need deletion except perhaps Farok's arm and Shaddam's birthplace, though I see arguments that could be waged against these as well (not good arguments in any stretch of the word, but arguments none the less). Konman72 08:02, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok, lets go through them:

  • Ancestral Memories - Alia - No discrepancy as neither directly contradicts the other and nowhere is it said that you get either shared or ancestral memories only
  • Ancestral Memories - Bene Gesserit - No discrepancy again, simply stating that it wasn't seen in any previous novels does not mean it wasn't there
  • Duncan Idaho - Ghola Memories - Clear discrepancy, no need to try and "explain" it or give an excuse. Simple oversight really
  • Farok's Arm - Another clear discrepancy, simple
  • Harkonnen No Chamber - I would have to read the actual text again here. Was it the narrator indicating they had been invented for the first time or was it a character saying this? If it was the narrator then its a discrepancy, if a character then it clearly states their point of view which does not preclude hidden technology so no discrepancy
  • Prescience - Seeing Guildsman - I dont see what the discrepancy at all is here. The book didn't say that they were invisible because they were prescient but simply that he could not see them gathered together (ie "but never seeing how those names were carried"). Thus the guildsman "shielded" others by making it impossible for paul to see they were conspiring together.
  • Scytale - I would find the passage where Waff talks about this, could be a discrepancy so I would it in a "Possible" basket, no need to try and explain why
  • Shaddam's Birthdate - Clear discrepancy
  • Bene Gesserit Powers - We are talking about a 10,000 year gap here. Nothing specifically written between these two contradicts the previous and there are a million reasons why this could eventuate. Again not a discrepancy and no need to try to explain it.
  • Commission Meeting Place - Clear discrepancy
  • Paul's Birthplace - Clear discrepancy, again no need to try and explain it
  • Jessica's History - Clear discrepancy
  • Duncan's Sword - I would put this in a possible basket, seems too much of a stretch to try to explain like that
  • Gurney-Liet Relationship - I would personally say this is a discrepancy but its debatable. Brian probably just wanted to include a familiar character to feed off Dune's success
  • Discrepancies between prequals - clear discrepancy

If you really wanted to, I guess you could move some of those into a "diverging concepts" category, where even though it isn't strictly a discrepancy it does however require quite a stretch to get from one point to the other (ie Bene Gesserit origin). Enigmatical 22:36, 8 August 2006 (UTC)


  • Ancestral Memories - Alia - No discrepancy as neither directly contradicts the other and nowhere is it said that you get either shared or ancestral memories only
    • Agree
  • Ancestral Memories - Bene Gesserit - No discrepancy again, simply stating that it wasn't seen in any previous novels does not mean it wasn't there
    • Agree
  • Duncan Idaho - Ghola Memories - Clear discrepancy, no need to try and "explain" it or give an excuse. Simple oversight really
    • Possibly no debate from me, but not necessarily an agree
  • Farok's Arm - Another clear discrepancy, simple
    • Agree of course, this is one that no one could argue with
  • Harkonnen No Chamber - I would have to read the actual text again here. Was it the narrator indicating they had been invented for the first time or was it a character saying this? If it was the narrator then its a discrepancy, if a character then it clearly states their point of view which does not preclude hidden technology so no discrepancy
    • Agree I have had arguments over this one so I don't see it surviving a true NPOV and OR check
  • Prescience - Seeing Guildsman - I dont see what the discrepancy at all is here. The book didn't say that they were invisible because they were prescient but simply that he could not see them gathered together (ie "but never seeing how those names were carried"). Thus the guildsman "shielded" others by making it impossible for paul to see they were conspiring together.
    • Too confusing to make a decision
  • Scytale - I would find the passage where Waff talks about this, could be a discrepancy so I would it in a "Possible" basket, no need to try and explain why
    • Disagree, only in the decision that there should be a possibility section though.
  • Shaddam's Birthdate - Clear discrepancy
    • Yep
  • Bene Gesserit Powers - We are talking about a 10,000 year gap here. Nothing specifically written between these two contradicts the previous and there are a million reasons why this could eventuate. Again not a discrepancy and no need to try to explain it.
    • Agree
  • Commission Meeting Place - Clear discrepancy
    • Maybe agree, no debate.
  • Paul's Birthplace - Clear discrepancy, again no need to try and explain it
    • As long as the stuff from the FAQ is included then I'm ok with it still being listed
  • Jessica's History - Clear discrepancy
    • Same here as above
  • Duncan's Sword - I would put this in a possible basket, seems too much of a stretch to try to explain like that
    • It seems like a clear discrepancy but I still think it should be deleted just because the wording is so up to interpretation, as odd as that interpretation may be.
  • Gurney-Liet Relationship - I would personally say this is a discrepancy but its debatable. Brian probably just wanted to include a familiar character to feed off Dune's success
    • This is one that I actually don't see as a discrepancy. I think it should be deleted. If it is included then it definitely must include the info from the FAQ, but I still say deleting is best.
  • Discrepancies between prequals - clear discrepancy
    • I tried looking this one up and would have to agree. I think it was just a mistake in naming the wrong planet in HA.

By the way, should this page be moved to Discrepancies between Dune novels or something similar? Konman72 10:55, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] If kept, what to keep

If this material survives in some form, I think anything here that is mentioned in the Dune Novels FAQ should be kept. The fact that they have taken time to address it proves that someone could see a discrepancy.

(This mainly to prevent potential future rehashes.)

SandChigger 04:00, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Only as long as we don't keep their "excuse"... erm... "explaination" as unless it comes from Frank or Brian it is still original research and still just someones opinion and not canon. Enigmatical 04:23, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
As far as I know the Dune Novels FAQ was written by Brian and Kevin, so it is canon and I agree with SandChigger that it should be kept. I think the only things that need to be deleted are the false discrepancies. The Harkonnon No-Chamber is one of these false discrepancies, the first no-chamber was created by a Richesian inventor before Paul Atreides' birth, I'll go ahead and remove it. Dionyseus 06:56, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
True, the only reasons I added OR rationalizations was to counter the OR in the discrepancy explanation. If we widdle it down to only legitimate, verifiable discrepancies then we should remove the rationalizations, but still include the answers given on the FAQ. And I also agree that the ones on the FAQ are worthy of being kept since obviously people have questions about them and this would be another place they can get the "answers". Konman72 09:08, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Couldn't we achieve that by simply re-writing the discrepancy ni such a way that it removes OR from the text? Enigmatical 22:33, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Something about the phrase "false discrepancies" really bothers me. Apparent discrepancies are later shown to be real or explicable (with the explanations being either convincing or not). Too picky, perhaps, but that's the way the chigger bounces...pounces? Never mind.
Afterthought: I would argue for a slightly stricter definition of canon: that which occurs in the books themselves. Unattributed (the last time I looked) FAQ text does not qualify. SandChigger 23:23, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
I think a rewrite might be able to eliminate the OR from most, but not all, I would have to see the final product to judge. As far as the FAQ being canon, I wouldn't call it canon (in the objective sense; I would personally view it as canon though) but I would say that it should be included in any article. Whether or not it is canon it is the explanation that is in the author's minds so any books written will follow as though that were the case. Konman72 23:37, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
The FAQ seems to me more about the author's own OR rather than what they were actually thinking when writing the books. The Gurney discrepance for instance. I dont think that Brian purposely knew this when writing the book and that the FAQ is thus giving us canonic information, I think its simply his own personal "excusing" of the discrepancy that was made. Under that light I dont think it should be included because its clearly not intened to be part of the story but more a "well maybe he didn't recognize him, or maybe he forgot who he was" rather than "Gurney purposely did not acknoweldge the past while Liet no longer remembered, etc, etc". Can you see the difference? Enigmatical 01:37, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I see the difference but still disagree. The authors gave these as explanations, so I feel they should be included. Whether they thought of them before or after the discrepancy was written should not play into the decision to include them. Even if it isn't "canon" it is still verifiable information from a reliable source. Their original research is exactly what we are supposed to include. The only people who aren't allowed to do original research are us Wikipedians. Konman72 01:40, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Then I would simply state "The Dune FAQ provides a possible explaination for this" and give a link. I think if we actually start copying in their reasoning we leave all the other discrepancies open to people adding their OR because they see it has been added for the others Enigmatical 01:46, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Well they would have no justification since "original research" does not apply to other sources, that is just research and is the basis for all information on Wikipedia. But anyway, that seems fine except I don't like calling it a "possible explanation", perhaps just say, "the Dune FAQ states" and then quote the FAQ and source it properly. If any OR gets added we can delete it immediately. Konman72 01:54, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
I could live with that :) Enigmatical 03:03, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
I could as well. SandChigger 05:30, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. Dionyseus 01:33, 12 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Action

Ok, so discussion seems to have reached a semi-consensus, so now we just need to act. So far these are the definite discrepancies that everyone is ok with inclusion (the ones with answers on Dunenovels.com will have that answer included in a neutral way). Oh and is we widdle the article down to only these then the rationalizations should be deleted as well since all OR will be removed.

  • Duncan Idaho - Ghola Memories
  • Farok's Arm
  • Shaddam's Birthdate (keep the mentioning about the prequels retconning this to fix it.)
  • Commission Meeting Place
  • Paul's Birthplace
  • Jessica's History
  • Discrepancies between prequels

Now there are a couple of contested ones. They were suggested as "possible" discrepancies, but to me the mere fact of them being "possible" means they should not be included in an encyclopedia. So they still need some discussion. They are...

  • Scytale
  • Duncan's Sword
  • Gurney-Liet Relationship

I feel that these should not be included, what about you guys? Also should the page get moved to Discrepancies between Dune novels or something else? I have never liked this title. Konman72 03:49, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I have to say I am in 2 minds. Perhaps they need further research. The reason I beleive they are "possible" is that while there is no direct explaination (I still don't buy the FAQ explaination of Gurney/Liet) it is highly opinionated where different people could see it different ways. Farok's Arm is clear cut, nobody can dispute it. But when it is said that Scytale met Paul Maud'dib but was a face dancer and is now a master... either Frank was saying something amazing here (which may have to do with the two face dancers at the end of the last book and what would be explained in the next) or was a simple slip up somehow. So its open to how someone wants to see it and I think it would be "original research" for us to actually try to state it as a discrepancy unless we can find a specific source that proves it. Enigmatical 23:16, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Ok, well, I'm horribly impatient, so I'm just going to go with what I said above and if anyone disagrees they can add it back in and we will continue discussing it here. Also, I'm going to make the move to Discrepancies between Dune novels since that is far more encyclopedic in my opinion. Konman72 23:28, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Being bold is one thing, but that was bloody precipitous, what? The sword is still sticking me. (Ouch) SandChigger 10:08, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
Oh I'm as bold as they come! :-P Seriously though, is all of it ok? 10:18, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../d/i/s/Talk%7EDiscrepancies_between_Dune_novels_21c8.html"