Talk:Frank Herbert/Archive 1

message: Can we really say that Herbert left notes for his son to use?  The only base for that claim is Brian Herbert, a rather undistinguished novelist, who is hardly a disinterested, impartial source; he has also notably not let anyone see or examine the purported notes.  Perhaps that should be reflected in the article. -- Maru Dubshinki  08:00 PM Saturday, 12 March 2005
:Agreed, unless there is proof, we cannot just write Brians POV. I added the same comment under controversies and more under the heading "Brian and Kevin claims" Lundse 09:52, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Legacy 

message: (unfinished text moved from the article here, Pavel Vozenilek 16:17, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inspirations and influences 

message: It seems that the section under controversies, which details the dispute over the canoninical nature of BRIAN Herbert's novels, would be better located on a page about Brian Herbert or Kevin J. Anderson, with links from all of the new Dune books to those pages... There is no relevance of this dispute to either a Frank Herbert Article nor any article regarding the original Dune books. Does anybody disagree? --jonasaurus 00:07, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I do. The issue is very much tied in with Herbert's legacy, and how (in the estimation of some fans) his son is raping it for his own gain.  --Maru 02:48, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I see your point, I had not thought about it that way. However, there is hardly an adequate explanation of that controversy within the article. It seems to me that the section encompasses two disparate issue (only one of which belong on that page). 1. The controversy over the legitimacy of his son's writing and 2. the debate over the canoninical nature of the new books.
I plan on clarifying the section regarding topic #1, and creating an article on topic #2 with links that lead from the pages on the new books. Does this sound like an adequate plan?
--jonasaurus 03:02, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

text: However, even if the issues are true there are minimal conflicting issues when compared to many other works of fiction - especially speculative fiction. The amount of readers who state these opinions are minute, most critics applaud Brian and Kevins addition to the DUNE saga; the New York Times, The Los Angeles Times are just some examples.
Aside from being ungrammatical, it's both POV by minimizing the discrepancies at the heart of the controversy (without supporting analysis or evidence) and empty of content.  The hand waving comparison to other fiction and such discrepancies requires some sort of articulation to be useful (possible c.f. with Tolkien's work?).  Critical acclaim by newspapers would be a useful counterpoint to claims of low quality if it's cited. Justin Johnson 20:18, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Controversies 

message: I've deleted the text stating that the 1984 film "while often called flawed, is widely considered a classic of the genre." (Sorry about marking this as a minor edit -- that was a mistake.) The film gets a 6.4 rating on imdb. I haven't seen any evidence that it's "widely" considered even a good movie, let alone a classic of the genre.--Bcrowell 23:09, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: film "widely considered a classic of the genre"

message: I think it should be decided once and for all how wikipedia is going to handle the controversies over Brian and Kevin's additions to the Dune universe - how we are going to refer to the notes, and whether the new writing is cannon. My claims on the notes are:
Unless the two offer any proof that they have the notes, I cannot see why we should believe them. Wikipedia should reflect the fact that we only have their words for it (which is hardly NPOV). Also note that for a long time there were no notes, they were alledgedly found just before Kevin and Brian started writing their prequels.
Lundse 09:52, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Given Brian's status as Frank's estate in this matter, it's not for them to prove the existence of notes to us.  Regardless, it's not the notes that make Brian Frank's heir, it's his legal status as son and inheritor.  The notes aren't required for Brian to be the 'official' estate. Justin Johnson 20:13, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am talking about whether wikipedia should say the notes exist or whether that is claimed by Brian Herbert (on other matters, see below). Some people claim there has been some proofs offered, I would like to know whether this is true. And I do think that in order for wikipedia to write that the notes exist, we must have more than the word of Brian Herbert (who has too much to gain by this claim to be neutral). Lundse 08:08, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Brian and Kevin claims - the notes