Talk:Mentat/Archive 1

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.

Contents

Disputed links

Here's the links that are at the heart of this edit war:

Attention 68.18.7.125

You're pushing us into edit war territory here with your continued efforts to post that link to the Mentat Wiki. If you don't engage us on this talk page to discuss it, I'll report this page as an edit war and ask for a lock until you go away. JJ 20:58, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

After the third addition/reversion, I've requested that this page be protected. JJ 21:28, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Addition of Mentat Wiki links

I've removed these again. The mentat wiki itself is inappropriate since it has nothing more in common with Herbert's mentats than the term itself; the second link is nothing but a blog post linking to the first.

The first link is arguable, and if you disagree, please comment below. I'm not dead-set against it, I just think it really doesn't belong. However, the second link is just an indirect repeat of the first, and definitely has no place in this article. JJ 06:56, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree completely, this is selfhelp and just using a term from the books does not make it relevant. Keep it out (I will). But I would love to hear from whoever is adding them... Lundse 08:54, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I've posted a message on the talk page of the owner of the wiki, asking him to engage us here and make a case for including the link if he's the one continually adding it. JJ 19:59, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

The owner of the mentat wiki has responded to me on his wiki that he's not the one placing the link (which in my mind is further reason to delete the link). JJ 20:47, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

"Naive Mind"

According to this Ask MetaFilter thread, the phrase "the naive mind" (which appears in quotation marks in this article) does not appear anywhere in the Dune series. Is there any reference for this phrase?

The phrase "naive mind" doesn't appear, that I'm aware of. I used the phrase to indicate my overall impression of the mental attitude that mentats cultivate when acting as a mentat: to ignore emotions and preconceptions, to look at the data as a raw thing and find the patterns within it. "The Mind at its beginning" means the mind before it's learned anything, before it's raised filters that color perception and reasoning.
Perhaps it shouldn't be in quotes, if that gives the impression it's actual text from the book. JJ 16:33, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
It's in there. Many, many times. Specifically, it's repeated in Chapterhouse:Dune ad nauseum. An Amazon inside-the-book search gives [1] and [2]. Although many of the quotes use the word in its usual sense, the rest are about equal parts Bene Gesserit philosophy and Mentat philosophy. Black Carrot 02:32, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Deleted:

In David Lynch's film adaptation of Dune, Piter de Vries takes the drug Sappho to increase his mental acuity, suggesting that drugs are necessary for mentats. There is no indication in the novels that drugs are used, and the idea seems at odds with the later novels' deeper articulation of the nature of the discipline.

Dune explicitly states that Mentats use sappho for this purpose (although not that it is a necessity for them), and that the red-stained lips caused by the substance are a trademark distinction of the class. See the entry for sappho in the glossary.

There is no copyrighted material present therefore reversion based on this premise is mistaken. (208.61.134.121)

Reversion is not being done on the basis of copyright violation, it's being done because it's ridiculously inappropriate content. JJ 29 June 2005 02:50 (UTC)

reference is directed torwards Jpgordon "(rv copyvio additions)" as stated in reversion notes

  • The first couple of lines of text I tested for copyvios (I don't remember what they were from now) gave exact matches to text in other articles, so it would appear that perhaps I too hastily reverted. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 29 June 2005 18:03 (UTC)

The controversial yahoo forum

I removed the above link from the page because a cursory examination shows them to be a bunch of loons, and I understand Wikipedia not to be a place for proselytizing. Please check the link, and if you don't agree, replace it. User:Justin Johnson Dec. 6, 2003

what makes them a bunch of loons?why dont you take more than a cursory look at the site?Raising ones intellect/recognising others that have done so /and methods of attaining the same "loony"??????? the mentat /vulcan motif is not to be taken literally only the end results.
i believe the material to be pertinent to the content of the article.It is at the bottom of the page.If users dont like the link that is described accurately,they will not click it .no harm is done.I am a firm believer in the collaboration effort that wikipedia represents and i actively promote it (on the site listed) as an intellectual resource.I do not understand how this groups charter could be considered " loony" or fringe.It represents the development of intellect as ideals that are in line with the motifs of the vulcan mentat.I am not aware of any interpretation that could hold such ideals as loony.It is basically applied mensa. hiddenmonkey2000@yahoo.com or
reply hiddenmonkey2000@yahoo.com
I did take a more than cursory glance at the site: I read through all 51 messages archived there. I'll grant that characterizing the two of you as a bunch of loons is glib and prejudicial; the fact remains that a mailing list limping along with only two subscribers swapping links on transhumanism and such doesn't constitute the sort of active community that might be a valuable link, but even then you're using a fiction page to advertise for something only tangentially related to the page topic. There's no such thing as a "vulcan mentat", and while you're certainly free to take inspiration from whatever fictional characters or types you want, attaching yourself to an encyclopedic description of the entity for the purpose of skimming new members does a real disservice to Frank Herbert. A bumper sticker for your group just isn't pertinent.
You've spammed this page, the Edit War page, and my user page (rather than my talk page) with the same response, which suggests that you're not yet fully aware of the etiquette and functioning of wikipedia. A little more time lurking might avoid mishaps like this in the future. As someone else suggested, your link would be more appropriate on a page about increasing human intelligence or human development. Justin Johnson Dec. 12, 2003 6:41 p.m. CST

Once again the Vulcan-Mentats are trying to use this page to advertise their transhumanism Yahoo group. While their list does appear more active, with slightly more members, I still think it's inappropriate since the link is nothing more than a billboard for a group with the word 'mentat' in their name. Please take a look and either disagree or concur with my edit, since this is a potential edit war. JJ 28 June 2005 13:26 (UTC)

Seems obvious to me that Vulcans and Mentats, if existing and meeting, wouldn't get along. Mentat analysis of a Vulcan would be: this guy thinks in one dimensional straight lines. He's in denial of half his own mind and blind to everybody else's. He emulates the few things a computer does well with the few tools a human mind uses badly. It would be harder to think circles around an untrained child. -- Julian Morrison 12:23, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

You are taking the concept to literally and have not actually been to the page in question .


The Vulcan Mentat Society is an organization with the charter to emulate aspects of the science fiction archetypes inherent in the Star Trek fictional race known as Vulcans and the Frank Herbert's Dune characters known as mentats.

Vulcan Mentat Society

for the acceleration of intelligence and knowledge.


We are going to enact the advanced philosophies of Vulcan and Mentat culture.Let us make a modern day equivalent to these intellectually based societies.Let us create a culture capable of intellectual "kung fu".The practices would exercise the mind making it capable of mental feats.Topics to include intelligence ,knowledge acquisiton,making a vulcan mentat society possible,recognition of vulcan/mentat buddhas*

I believe these and others like them are deserving of our awe,respect,and emulation.

-Vulcans are a race of humanoids in the Star Trek universe commited to mental development and feats of logic.

-Mentats are "Human Computers" with abilities to compute and analyse vast amounts of information.They lead a life of intellectual development.Taken from Frank Herberts Dune novel series.

  • (Examples would be:Bucky Fulminster,Robert Anton Wilson,Alfred Korzybski,Einstein,Tesla). This list is not exhastive.


By "Bucky Fulminster", do you mean Buckminster Fuller? According to Google, the only two sites in the entire internet that contain Bucky Fulminster are yours and this talk page. Black Carrot 13:11, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
Buckminster Fuller is his full name .Bucky is a nickname . I am surprised you could only find two webpages on the entire internet.I put his name in google and received 1,830,000 results.He has an entire institute dedicated to the furtherance of his works. Please see en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buckminster_Fuller and www.bfi.org
Anon, please do try to keep up. "Buckminister Fuller", the correct name, receives many many hits, as is only appropriate. However, the bizarre misspelling from the forum, "Bucky Fulminster", does indeed receive only two Google hits as Black Carrot asserts. --maru (talk) contribs 05:08, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

- "maru" , "Bucky" is used on many buckminster fuller sites including http://www.bfi.org/domes/ " THE CONCEPTS BEHIND THE DOME

One of the ways Buckminster Fuller ("Bucky") would describe the differences in strength between a rectangle and a triangle would be to apply pressure to both structures. " and on www.newciv.org/whole/bucky.html . You'r assertion "the bizarre misspelling from the forum" is therefore false.I expected that if someone wanted to look for him they would use other combinations as well ex. "Bucky fuller" returns 2,160,000 hits. --Anon

Please don't quote my name. It looks rather insulting. And you seem intent on misunderstanding me- where did I say "Bucky" wasn't used? I specifically quoted the name I was talking about, which was "Bucky Fulminster". --maru (talk) contribs 07:07, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

--I stand corrected I thought you were referrring to "bucky" ,when you were reffering to Fulminster which is indeed incorrect. -anon

To 169.139.177.35 and 208.61.134.121

I'm flagging this page as vandalized because 1) you're the person who keeps spamming a link to your discussion group on Yahoo, and 2) an article about the mentats from Frank Herbert's Dune universe should be written from the perspective of surveying the fictional literary sources, not from the perspective of someone who thinks they're a mentat.

If you want to rewrite it, bringing in all the material you've collected from the prequel novels, fine--rewrite it, while remembering that you're not a mentat. The purpose of the article is to be an encyclopaedic reference to a part of a work of fiction, not as your recruiting tool. JJ 28 June 2005 17:07 (UTC)

Hmm...it didn't seem like vandalism to me. That's why I wikified the additions instead of reverting them. Perhaps someone could simply edit and reword 169.139.177.35's additions to make them more inline with being fictional. -- OldRight 28 June 2005 17:22 (UTC)
I'm calling it vandalism because it's by those loons in the Vulcan Mentat society, and they're doing it as a recruiting thing. Some of what's in their little manifesto is drawn from the prequel books, but most of it seems to be made up out of whole cloth. I know that the prequels have a lot more detail about mentats, and if someone added that I wouldn't mind, but every six months these guys try to sneak that link in there.
If a bunch of wikipedians tell me to back off, I'll be more than happy to surrender to consensus, but until that happens, there's no way I'm letting them turn a quiet corner into a poster for their club. JJ 29 June 2005 02:09 (UTC)


Article Quality

I was just wondering why this article isn't nearly as well polished as the article on the Bene Gesserit. Anybody else think it could do with a reformat?

The Brian Hebert stuff

I think that information on Mentats provided by Brian Herberts novels should be spearated. His ideas are not necessarily considered Dune canon.

As much as I hate Brian Herbert and all things Dune that he's created, he is the official estate of Frank Herbert, and so must (grudgingly) be viewed as adding to the canon. How are Christopher Tolkien's additions to J.R.R. Tolkien's works handled wrt canon? Justin Johnson 22:49, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
I disagree. Just because he has ownership of some copyrights does not make what he writes cannon. Besides, the universes are are clearly distinct and incompatible with respects to eg. the Butlerian Jihad (see me change to the talk page for that subject). I think information given before spoiler sections should be fit both universes (predominantly Franks) and it should be specified in relevant spoiler sections which universe is being discussed or how one (Brians) differentiates from the other (Franks). Lundse 23:15, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
I'd say his ownership of the copyrights (and Frank's notes) makes a prima facie case for canonical-ness. That he's doing violence to the Duniverse breaks my heart, but he's the official heir, even in Frank's mind (they collaborated on a book together, I believe). It's worthwhile differentiating Brian's contributions from Frank's work (if only to properly assign blame), but it's not up to us to de-canonize anything. Justin Johnson 23:28, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
Again, I cannot see how ownership of copyrights can mean anything, it is two different writers. The notes would mean something, if we knew whether what he is writing is in accordance with them - but we do not even know if they exist! And how will you deal with the contradictions? In themselves, they prove that we must count two different dune universes.
It's not the literal ownership of the copyrights, it's the fact that Brian Herbert is Frank's son and heir, who was (according to Frank) consistently involved in discussions of the Duniverse with his father. I don't doubt the existence of the notes because Frank himself said that he took extensive notes.
Look, I really sympathize here: I think what Brian and Kevin Anderson have done to the Duniverse is abominable. I think that we're justified, everywhere that Brian's contributions contradict Frank's work, in noting that as a deviation from the authoritative source. But we can't summarily bracket Brian's work as non-canonical just because we're disgusted with his handling of his father's legacy. Justin Johnson 00:11, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
Its isn't just because we don't like what he has done but it is because some of his writings directly contradict those of his father. Therefore everything by Brian should be considered little more than fan fiction that you or I could write. I doubt that Frank had developed robot characters like Erasmus or come up with the lame Butler family.
And everywhere there's an explicit or implied contradiction, it's fair to note it as a deviation from Frank's books. But like it or not, Frank Herbert's estate is carrying on his work, and to do anything more than note contradictions (or that the source is Brian, not Frank) is to violate Wikipedia's NPOV policy. Justin Johnson 06:33, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
How big does the deviation have to be before it must be two seperate universes? Lundse 10:02, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
This is just to add a link for those watchin this page, to bring the discussion together at the Frank Herbert talk page, because I started a relevant discussion there. Lundse 10:02, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
Just to provide another perspective here, I think the use of the word "canon" is in how "official" certain material is. If a fan writes something it is not official because it has not been agreed to by the owners of the material they are basing it on. As Brian Herbert "officially" owns the rights to this material, it is by default canon for that reason alone. Whether we like it or not doesn't matter, whether its good or not doesn't matter, and especially whether it contradicts the original or not doesn't matter (George Lucus contradicted himself in star wars, does that mean his own work is not canon?). Sadly I agree that as the owner of the copyright, what is written by them should be considered canon. Enigmatical 00:27, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

New Additions

The new additions form the Encycopedia are mixed in with those from the prequils which makes the article confusing. Notes should be made to distinguish the different sources.

I agree, and the overview should be Frank Herbert first, then mention of what it Dune Enc. and what is B&K inventions. The rest of the article should be structured the same way - whoever added all the new stuff should fit it into these sections. I think the article has taken a turn for the worse lately, I would like to redo it (especially the structure), unless there are any objections? Lundse 21:09, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Deleted additions that were clearly palgerized from "The Dune Encyclopedia". --Eldarone 20:35, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Is this wholesale plagiarism? What parts? Please support what parts before replacing with a degenerate version of the article.

The sections I deleted which discussing Mentat ranks and history was ripped out of the Dune Encyclopedia. It was wholesale plargiarism, almost word for word from the main source. --Eldarone 03:12, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

More spefically, sepficically the article of Mentat Organization, subsection Mentat Ranks, and Mentat Dysfuction. from pages 520 -524. It's a violation of Wikipedia policiy. --Eldarone 16:18, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
I was wondering about that. It was quite a surprise when I looked Mentats up in the Encyclopedia and saw entire paragraphs from here staring back at me. It's so much better written than anything else in this article, though. Would it be possible to just summarize it? Also, it might be worth including what details Frank did himself provide. For instance, I don't believe I see any mention of the Mentat trance, which figured much more heavily in the books than Sapho did.Black Carrot 03:20, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
Sumarizing the mentat articles wouldn't be a problem, as long as it it's not a copy of the orginal work, and is identified as from the Dune Encyclopeidia. I also agree with adding stuff from the books would be greatly worthwhile.--Eldarone 03:40, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

As I see it there are 2 ways of writing the article. The first is to treat it chronologically in terms of the writing. Start by giving the definition from Frank Herbert's perspective, then expand upon it from the dune encyclopedia and then retcon those parts which are required from the B&K novels as it should be done. The second approach would be to write a single article using the latest information with possible spin-offs or a section detailing what retcons happened. Enigmatical 00:44, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

It seems to work pretty well as it is now. We have Frank's info about mentats and then give B&K's expanded information. I actually think B&K's info should go first since it goes that way chronologically, but others would disagree and it isn't that important so I let it go. Konman72 01:28, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
Well the way it is now it currently states that Gilbert Albans "coined" the phrase "mentat", which while that may have been true at the time of the encyclopedia has now been retconned to being a phrase coined by Erasmus himself which contradicts both the encyclopedia and this whole "mentis" definition. It should either mean the complete removal of any reference to those which are out of date or since retconned or specific mention of what it was and what it is now. Enigmatical 02:27, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
The Dune Encyclopedia is not canon, Frank himself said so. Brian's work however is canon and therefore the canon version should be what is used. Dionyseus 02:32, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Paul Atredies was a Mentat Duke???

My recollection of the original series may be from a few years ago but I cannot ever remember Paul Atredies being in any way described or associated as being a Mentat. Does anyone have any facts to back this up? Enigmatical 04:25, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Paul is a mentat, but there are varying degrees of mentat. Paul is one of the lowest ranked mentats, whereas someone like Thufir would be one of the highest ranked. As for proof, there's a part where his father Duke Leto is talking to him and mentions the fact that they trained him as a mentat. Also, the part where they introduce the ghola Hayt to Paul, I think Paul mentions in his mind that it's interesting that they brought in a mentat assasin to kill another mentat. Dionyseus 06:44, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Ah ok, I knew he had mentat training but I didn't think that earned him the title, and I especially didn't think I ever heard the term "Mentat Duke" used anywhere in any of the books. Enigmatical 22:22, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
It is, once, on that same page. When his father asks him whether he wants to continue the training, and he agrees, his father goes wild thinking of the potential of a "Mentat Duke". It's never used again, at least in the novels Daddy Herbert wrote. Black Carrot 18:07, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
As mentioned above, it is talked about in Dune Messiah. Konman72 20:36, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Here's the exact passage found in Dune 1:
"You'll be the Duke someday, Son," his father said. "A Mentat Duke would be
formidable indeed. Can you decide now . . . or do you need more time?"
There was no hesitation in his answer. "I'll go on with the training."
"Formidable indeed," the Duke murmured, and Paul saw the proud smile on his
father's face. The smile shocked Paul: it had a skull look on the Duke's narrow
features. Paul closed his eyes, feeling the terrible purpose reawaken within
him. Perhaps being a Mentat is terrible purpose, he thought.
But even as he focused on this thought, his new awareness denied it.
And here's a passage in Dune Messiah in which 'mentat' is listed as one of Paul's abilities:
This man, born Paul Atreides in an ancient Great Family, received the deep
prana-bindu training from the Lady Jessica, his Bene Gesserit mother, and had
through this a superb control over muscles and nerves. But more than that, he was a mentat,
an intellect whose capacities surpassed those of the religiously
proscribed mechanical computers used by the ancients.

There's also more passages in Dune Messiah in which it is stated that Paul is a mentat. Dionyseus 06:20, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Ah cool, clearly my brain hasn't quite categorized all of the information from the books and some of it has faded over the years since I read it.... damned "human" brain. Enigmatical 04:34, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

images of series mentats

this article needs images of the mentats from the movie serials (or at least one)