Talk:Butlerian Jihad/Archive 1

False statement

"The original Dune novel states that the Jihad ended in human victory at the Battle of Corrin. The leader of the Jihad then renamed his royal house "House Corrino", and declared himself Emperor of the Known Universe. The Emperors of the Empire of a Million Worlds were all of House Corrino for the next 10,000 years, until the events of Dune and the ascension of Paul Atreides."

There are two false statements in this sentence: neither was the winner of the Corrin-battle Sheuset ecevit the leader of Butlers Djihad nor were all emperors in the following 10000 years of Corrino descendance. There would also be Harkonnen Emperors and those did not rank among the least of the Padischahs! At a certain time who became new emperor would be decided by the Sardaukar who showed the tendency to install their favourite members of the court on the throne. The first padischah sheuset I. himself had nothing to do with Butlers Djihad as is deoicted here. In FH´s original timeline which was explained in detail in the dune encyclopedia Sheuset was a powerful local leader who united the warrior tribes of the Sardaukar on Salusa Secundus under his command. When Salusa was "discovered" by one of the great houses (this was already after Butlers Djihad) they recognised the deadly fighting prowess of the Sardaukar and intended to use them as mercenaries. But the Sardaukar (noew equipped with spaceships) conquerec and destroyed their "discoverers" and afterwards started a conquest of the whole known universe. The great houses felt they were in danger and united their forces to defeat sheusets sardaukar but failed because sardaukar proved to be invincible in close combat. The final battle of the Conquest was the battle of Corrin. After the battle Sheuset was declared to be emperor.He set the ruling laws for the next 10000 years, most notably the great convention and faufeluchs-the imperial caste system. The Battle of corrin was not a battle of Butlers Djihad! It took place long after. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.178.248.112 (talk • contribs) 09:33, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Are the Harkonnen emperors and other material in your comment from the Dune Encyclopedia? Although I am not too sure about the Butlerian jihad and the ascendancy of house Corrin being tied together, as you claim it was not, we need references to the original books (not something written by friends or son, ie. McNelly and Brian&Kevin). Lundse 08:06, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

School of mentats

In buttlerial Jihad the 1st memtat is actually trained by Erasmus, the excentric machine mind for fun. The mentats of course tell different story later, but I do not think there is any discontinuation, because the mentats did not want to know about their TRUE origins. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 192.100.124.219 (talk • contribs) 11:55, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I clipped off the statement that connected the Bene Tleilax to mentats, since the Mentats were (became) their own school - just like the Swordmasters of Ginaz. As far as how the Jihad changed the Tleilaxu - it allowed them to start fresh after being decimated by scandal. A conversation by Erasmus and his captive Tleilax Master (for lack of a better term) touched on replacing flowmetal with a biological equivalent - maybe a hint at Facedancers? DrSad 21:14, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

When?

When did the BJ happen? (In Dune time reckoning, of course--BG or AG).

It started around 200 B.G. and ended in 108 B.G.. Then the Battle of Corrin took place in 88 B.G. which could be considered the end of the Jihad. Konman72 22:01, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Conflicting account in the Dune Encyclopedia

Which as a regrettable result of conflicting with recent lucrative prequels means it's permanently out of canon and will forevermore stay out of print! That said -- it does paint an interesting, and largely unrelated picture of an alternate Butlerian Jihad. Is there any reason that rapidly-fading alternative should not be at least noted somewhere here? Pseudo Intellectual

You make a good point; why not have content that conflicts with canon explored in the article for the Dune Encyclopedia itself? And perhaps some other interesting quotes/excerpts. As it's out of print, many people have never seen it. I don't know why that article isn't already full of such info, as there is so much controversy on the subject.

I did notice that the Encyclopedia talk page has some contributors suggesting such info be put under the Dune discrepancies article, but I disagree — the scope of that article is really canon works, that is, inconsistencies among Frank Herbert's own books, and then the Brian/Kevin books. The Encyclopedia falls out of that scope. TAnthony 03:07, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I just recieved a near-perfect condition copy of the Dune Encyclopedia for my birthday. Joy! I didn't realize how rare it is until I started reading about it! I will cherish it always. And, I must say, I drastically prefer the events described in the encyclodia to the events that are currently accepted as "Canon". A philosophical "enslavement" to machines and a genuine jihad, rather than literally being slaves to machines. The whole computers are evil and will kill us thing is so old and overdone now, reading the Dune Encyclopedia's interpretation was a breath of fresh air. This version of the events should at least be discussed, in my opinion, even if it isn't canon. (Although, personally, it will always be "canon" to me...)PiccoloNamek 09:42, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Disambig page

I've reverted the link to the new Butlerian Jihad (disambiguation) page and instead put the Dune Encyclopedia reference within the article itself. This seems to be the convention among Dune articles with such references, and it does seem the most intuitive way to go. I think the real purpose of a disambig page is as a gateway to a term/name used in several unrelated topics; an alternate Dune reference doesn't seem to count. But I'll certainly leave the disambig page alone in case it is useful to someone. TAnthony 17:06, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Reason for name "Butlerian"?

Probably the original meaning of "Butlerian" was actually a reference to the anti-machine chapters in Samuel Butler's classic book Erewhon... AnonMoos 05:08, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

That's a very popular idea among certain factions of the fan base. (I'm rather partial to it, myself.) Unfortunately, we need a citation from FH's writings or interviews supporting it.

There is no quote in the original books that I can find stating that the name came from the leader or figurehead of the Jihad. Jehane Butler is an invention of the (real-world) authors of The Dune Encyclopedia, and Serena Butler must be assumed to be one of BH & KJA, pending provision of definitive proof to the contrary. --SandChigger 11:18, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Has anyone ever written anything proposing this theory? We could just say something like, "Writer so-and-so theorizes that ..." and give a reference. -- Macduff

I don't know of any. Was there something about it in the O'Reilly book? Or the Touponce? (Haven't read the latter, or reread the former in a while.) But, yes, we should be able to include something that way.

Unfortunately, anything not based on FH's own writings or things he said in published interviews—even if by a respected critic—can be dismissed (by those so minded) as simply speculation. :( --SandChigger 20:12, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

There's also the "Some fans speculate that..." option. At least that way the idea would get mentioned. I think that if people want to dismiss the idea, that's fine, our job is just to present all the info and let the reader decide for themselves -- like with the Dune Encyclopedia vs. KJA/BH interpretations. But I also think the possible Erewhon influence/tribute is worth mentioning. In general, I think that there should be more academic-type content to this article, not just plot summaries. The Butlerian Jihad was relevent to all kinds of luddite, technophobia, anti-technology circles and/or references and may have been used in that context. It'd be great to track some of that stuff down. -- Macduff 05:27, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry but that isn't an option since we are to avoid weasel words, but if you find any reliable source discussing it then they can be included in the way you mentioned earlier. Konman72 09:03, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree with Konman on this one. Blogs by fans, newsgroups, discussion boards, etc., are not acceptable sources, even for (true) statements like "some fans speculate that...". --SandChigger 16:27, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Landsraad ref in Rise of the thinking machines section

The Landsraad, by OLD Canon, predates the post-Jihad religious riots by 2,000 years. Please see my comment here. --SandChigger 05:55, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Canon controversy

Difference between Frank and Brian/Kevin Jihads. I have reverted my edits which claim that FH and B&K's jihads are different. I believe whoever deleted them think that FH was so vague about it that B&K's interpretation 'fall under' his description and thus do not contradict him. This is where I disagree - FH does not give many facts (and I do not rely on the Dune Encyclopedia for them) but that there are several hints to what he meant. These are: Characters speak of machines as perversions and something that can 'trap' you into a sense of complacancy - not as a danger to your life and liberty. It is called a jihad, not a revolt or anything else - jihad denotes something religious, connotations which a Terminator-like war in space does not evoke. 'Thou shalt not disfigure the soul' is the single commandment the OC bible creators first came up with, 'thou shalt not make a machine in the likeness of a human mind' fits into this i believe (another reason for believing the revolt was religious in nature).

I collected some quotes from FH's novels below, the word robot or cyborg hardly ever appears in the books - and nowhere is there any hint of men being literal slaves to machines not nor that the war took place with machines on one side and humans on the other. I am not claiming that the 'defenders' against the jihad did not use machines or even autonomous robots against the revolters - that is a possibility for sure. I am claiming that the jihad started for religious and philosophical reasons and was fueled by bigotry and hatred toward machines, probably fear that mankind was becoming unnecessary.

These are the reasons I reverted my edits - B&K have a much simpler and IMHO less interesting backstory than Herbert and they are not compatible. It is not the job of wikipedia to support B&K's claim that they are the literary heirs to FH, nor that they write what he would have written - they should be treated with the same respect as any fan-fic author until such time as they show the notes they claim to have.

"Once men turned their thinking over to machines in the hope that this would set them free. But that only permitted other men with machines to enslave them."

Then came the Butlerian Jihad -- two generations of chaos. The god of machine-logic was overthrown among the masses and a new concept was raised: "Man may not be replaced."

JIHAD, BUTLERIAN: (see also Great Revolt) -- the crusade against computers, thinking machines, and conscious robots begun in 201 B.G. and concluded in 108 B.G. Its chief commandment remains in the O.C. Bible as "Thou shalt not make a machine in the likeness of a human mind."

(About a fencin machine - which is the closest thing to a robot in the Dune universe).

Its possession was the shibboleth of this age, but it carried also the taint of old immorality. Once, they'd been guided by an artificial intelligence, computer brains. The Butlerian Jihad had ended that, but it hadn't ended the aura of aristocratic vice which enclosed such things.

The human-computer replaced the mechanical devices destroyed by the Butlerian Jihad. Thou shalt not make a machine in the likeness of a human mind! But Alia longed now for a compliant machine. They could not have suffered from Idaho's limitations. You could never distrust a machine.

(So trusting the machine was never the problem).

One moment he felt himself setting forth on the Butlerian Jihad, eager to destroy any machine which simulated human awareness. That had to be the past -- over and done with. Yet his senses hurtled through the experience, absorbing the most minute details. He heard a minister-companion speaking from a pulpit: "We must negate the machines-that-think. Humans must set their own guidelines. This is not something machines can do. Reasoning depends upon programming, not on hardware, and we are the ultimate program!"

He heard the voice clearly, knew his surroundings -- a vast wooden hall with dark windows. Light came from sputtering flames. And his minister-companion said: "Our Jihad is a 'dump program.' We dump the things which destroy us as humans!"

(Leto II remembering genetically).

They made their devices in the image of the mind the very thing which had ignited the Jihad's destruction and slaughter.

(So the Jihad is started because of this 'image of the mind', not because of what that image then did).

"The target of the Jihad was a machine-attitude as much as the machines," Leto said. "Humans had set those machines to usurp our sense of beauty, our necessary selfdom out of which we make living judgments. Naturally, the machines were destroyed."

(Leto II again).

Odrade was suddenly aware she had touched on the force that had powered the Butlerian Jihad - mob motivation.

(People do not need motivation for survival, they need it to start a bloody, ideological revolt).

Lundse 13:21, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

I Agree. I'm currently in the process of rereading the original series and I agree that the article should contain some mention of the differences between FH and B&K's jihads. Though he left the nature of the jihad vague, it seemed to be more a cultural and spiritual revolt rather than a war against machine overlords. Also, given the general nature of the Dune series and their focus on humanity, the notion that the Butlerian Jihad was a revolt against machine powers doesn't really fit. Several of the primary themes throughout the Dune series focus on human nature, so it would only be logical to assume that Frank Herbert's vision of a cultural and mental revolution does not fit with B&K's idea of a Terminator-like war. -- User: LetoAtreides 11:24 EST, 30 January 2006

I have added sections in the Frank Herbert talk page referring to this, and people interested in this matter might want to head over there and join the discussion. Lundse 09:59, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

I have changed a few parts to make them fit with a NPOV. They neither confirm nor deny that the prequels go against FH's novels. You and I have been over this elsewhere Lundse, there are many interpretations of Frank's original intent and we need to allow for that. Konman72 13:14, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Gotta remember that the Historical record had 10,000 years to be revised at the point that FH mentions the Jihad. With the Bene Gesserit and the Guild (and many others Im sure) writing and rewriting history in their best interests (or in the best interest of Humanity). Only a select few would have access to the real events that happened after that period of time. What did they gain by fostering a static/stagnant society? Something that was slow to change and predictable, and ultimately controllable.DrSad 13:37, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Some of these Frank Herbert quotes should really be incorporated in the article in a non-POV/OR way; they are cartainly notable but too much is left for interpretation to draw any conclusions. I'll make an attempt soon, but please don't eviscerate me, LOL. TAnthony 18:08, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

If anyone beats me to it, the Old Empire (Dune) article could also use some of the same citations; it currently includes the statement, "This differs from earlier indications by Frank Herbert that it was lack of computers following the Butlerian Jihad which led to man entering a 'second middle age.'" TAnthony 18:12, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Canon redux

This may be a stupid question, but I'm a bit new to WP. Why is it that it's okay to post comments about the disputed canon-status of the encyclopedia but not the prequel version of the jihad? The only reference to evidence for this dispute apears to be a link to another WP page? Am I missing something in how this works?(ATOE (talk) 03:55, 22 June 2008 (UTC))

In a legal sense, Brian Herbert is more or less able to dictate what is canon. The Encyclopedia is established rather firmly as non-canon by Frank and the editor themselves (although with the small caveat that they seemed to think about it as a book which possible could exist in the Dune universe some years after Leto II, this does not imply that it necessarily holds much truth, however.

The reason we do not write about the problematic canon status of the prequels and sequels is the legal matter first and foremost. Secondly, people seem to have accepted that Brian's double claim that "we have notes from my father, we based the books on them" is an acceptable source. I strongly disagree - Brian et al are far to involved, financially and otherwise, to be a useful source. Also, fans of the new books seem to believe that if it is _in any way possible_ to postulate some story which explains away the discrepancies, then there is no discrepancy. In other words, they believe that the new books hold primacy in establishing canon over Herberts work - whenever they disagree, the latter must be taken as meaning something else than what we all though it meant originally. As an example, here are some quotes on the Butlerian Jihad: User_talk:Lundse/Dune_quotes.

I would love to change the articles to reflect all this, but there are simply too many people blocking it. Discussions over it have led to nothing, quotes, arguments made and questions raised have simply been ignored... Lundse (talk) 12:34, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

LOL, the debate on the quality of the prequels/sequels nonwithstanding, the argument that BH/KJA are "too financially involved to be believed" always amuses me; if it was all about the money, they could've saved themselves the time of writing eight books and just sold Dune merchandise. — TAnthony^Talk 22:48, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree, but I don't understand why there can be no mention of the disputed canon-status in regards to the new books, whilst it is seemingly fine to say so about the encyclopedia. Is Lundse correct for the reasons behind this? (ATOE (talk) 02:10, 23 June 2008 (UTC))

I hadn't noticed the "disputed" note here; I've removed it because it's not backed up at all, and officially the Encyclopedia is not canon. The DE article uses this wording as well, but seems acceptable in the context of the "argument" presented there. The canon status of the Encyclopedia is technically not an issue — it is basically fan fiction and legally not canon — but if it is "debated" it is only because Herbert was amused by it and close to McNelly. The differences/discrepancies between Herbert's (hardly explained) version of the jihad and others are presented here as best they can; to avoid original research and POV, we can really only present the quotes/material without analysis and let the reader decide.

What is it exactly that you want stated here? The canon status of the prequels/sequels is not at issue, they are created/approved by the Herbert estate. The fact that a number of Dune fans hate them doesn't mean the fans are disputing their canon status, it just means they hate the books. I'm not saying I loved their books or agree with every one of their plot choices, but they fact is, Frank is dead and he didn't write the books, so they won't be the same as his work and they won't be what he would have written, and no one has ever said they would.

If you're hinting at the whole "do the notes exist" argument, the simple fact is that there is no suggestion that BH/KJA have invented their story of the notes in any verifiable or respectable source. The existence of the notes doesn't really matter, of course fans will single out things they don't like and insist that Frank never could have come up with them. I'd like to find some reviews of Herbert's later Dune books and see how well they were received by the dedicated; I have a feeling if Frank had been alive to write Dune 7, it would have received its own harsh criticism and we'd be debating whether or not he is senile, or perhaps locked comatose in a room while his greedy heirs sign his name to books. Silly. — TAnthony^Talk 03:00, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Re. whether the notes exist and whether they were used in any substantial way in the new books then I am sorry, but laughing it off will not be sufficient. You can believe whatever you want regarding how much more money they would have made by selling plush sandworms instead - the fact remains that they are not a neutral source (whatever their motivation was). An author is not allowed to review his own book, nor make sweeping statements about its accuracy re. former works, his 'interpretations' of same, etc. etc. Couching such self-aggrandaisation in (otherwise insubstantiated) claims that the new books fit with some notes we cannot see does not change this. (The existence of the notes alone do not matter, the claim that they are the basis for important parts of the new books do).

Re. 'legal canon status' then yes, the Encyclopedia is not cannon, and the new books are. Canon status is more than a legal matter, however and whether there are discrepancies between two fictional accounts cannot be settled by lawyers.

Speculation about a FH-written Dune 7 is just pathetic, and completely irrelevant. Stay with the topic, please

You also mention in passing that FH's version of the jihad was unclear, unexplained, etc. I understood it perfectly the first time I read it. I have qoutes to back me up. Noone has attempted any criticism of these which did not hinge upon a belief that B&K's version is correct to begin with - this is called circular logic. So no, we have never been over this because noone actually addressed the qoutes - but please, let me know how this is consistent with humanity being enslaved by insane cyborgs and AIs: Once, they'd been guided by an artificial intelligence, computer brains. Please note the word "guided" - it does not refer to torture camps and extermination, but check Websters if you doubt me... Lundse (talk) 07:34, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Tanthony, you missunderstand me. My problem was with the word "disputed" (which I beleive you have now removed). I wasn't saying we should put that word into the prequels articles, just get it out of the DE articles - because as you say it's not disputed - the author has openly said that it is not canon. As far as the new books - their canon status is disputed. With or without notes, it doesn't matter - the new books contradict the originals in many ways, and two contradicting statements cannot both be canon. If one books says that humanity is multigalctic and another says it's contained to one galaxy - those can't both be cannon, get where I'm coming from on this? Either way, I understand that we'll likely never see that mentioned in a WP article so I don't really care to argue it further, I just want to make sure we aren't using one set of rules for the DE and another for the new books. (ATOE (talk) 18:23, 23 June 2008 (UTC))

ATOE, I think I got that you were talking about the "disputed" stuff, but I wasn't sure and I also can't resist the chance to blather on, LOL. Hope I didn't come across as biting or snarky, I just find the canon discussions basically irrelevant in this forum.

Lundse, I actually agree with your interpretation that Frank probably wasn't imagining human slave camps guarded by robotic killers, but the truth is that he didn't exclude that scenario. Your quote is lovely but it's like nine words, and our analysis of it is meaningless anyway. BH/KJA are unfortunately allowed to contradict Frank and make all the "mistakes" they want, they can set the next book in the Land of Oz if they want to, their work is canon and there is no room for "dispute." Hate it or think of it as retconning if you want, but it is what it is. And no, it doesn't matter what they say about the notes and their use, they are notes and not a complete novel. They wrote what they wrote, how does anyone proving that the books are 27.7% based on Frank's own outline (or that the notes don't exist) change anything? My crack about Frank himself writing Dune 7 is completely on topic, because I feel like all this canon dispute business is just unhappy fans looking for some vindication. There will always be fans unhappy with something (look at Star Wars), the fact that Frank is dead just makes it easier to complain.

Again, I don't even disagree with your points about the works, and it is indeed annoying when the "new" books contradict the original series or follow a path that Frank probably wouldn't have. But there is no room in this encyclopedia for any kind of criticism or comparisons that aren't sourced. I wish someone respectable would write a big piece about this just to end the incessant discussions. — TAnthony^Talk 23:02, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Lundse, I'm actually interested in how you would expand/improve the article, we may very well be on the same page. This article points out that the FH and BH/KJA versions of the jihad differ in a basic way, but certainly more quotes might flesh it out better. However, as there are obviously no published discussions of the topic, I am just leery of editor analysis being applied and thus guiding the argument. — TAnthony^Talk 23:10, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, that cleared up a lot of things. I agree that the K&B books are canon in the legal sense, and that this means wikipedia should, all else being equal, treat them as such. However, when the discrepancies are as prominent as they are, we would be neglected to inform if we did not include it in some way. And I do not agree that K&B's version is compatible with FH's - there is not way the quotes from the original series make any sense, if we assume K&B's Skynet story. I am not saying we should say they are not canon, just that there is a discussion. And I still do not see how we can use K&B's claim that they have based their work on FH's notes et al. when they are the only source we have for it...

Regarding how we proceed with the article - which is really the pertinent question, then we have a hard line to walk. No, this should not turn into an originally researched paper on our beliefs about the Jihad. On the other hand, we have little else than the original and new books, there are no secondary sources of sufficient quality on the Jihad... I do believe the books themselves can be used - I suggest we only extrapolate from text we actually quote in the article, in order to keep speculation down and the readers able to make up their own minds. Lundse (talk) 09:38, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

The thing is, there is no formal discussion of this issue that I am aware of, and anecdotal fan grumblings just don't count. — TAnthony^Talk 21:22, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

TAnthony, referring back to your response above (22:48, 22 June 2008 (UTC)) about "financial involvement/Dune merchandise": I think the point was that Brian Herbert and the HLP have a vested interest in their version of events being accepted as the truth and that normally a higher standard of evidence would be required than just their word and a few statements and photographs of floppy disks on a website. To my knowledge they have yet to provide ANY REAL confirmatory evidence of the existence of the floppies or their contents. (Never any mention of the bank where the safety deposit boxes were, no copies of receipts, etc.)

I think they're being cut a little more slack than they actually deserve. --SandChigger (talk) 01:01, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

LOL, love the edit summary, this argument never really dies ... of course I get the point that they have a motive, I just can't understand the obsession over it. They're not saying Frank wrote the books. The die-hard conspiracy theorists have scoffed at the photos of the floppies. The notes weren't handwritten, so even publishing them would invite doubt. And I still say, who cares if they flat-out lied (which I'm not saying they did)? The books are what they are, Frank didn't write them and some people hate them. I don't see why they have to "prove" anything to the degree of releasing receipts. If you don't believe the guys, don't buy the books. — TAnthony^Talk 01:15, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I also want to direct those involved here to the #Many differences section below, in which some good points are made on this subject. — TAnthony^Talk 01:27, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

The point is not so much the existence of the notes, but to what degree they are useful, they were understood by K&B and how much of them were actually used. That they were not published in The Road to Dune where they would have fit right in speaks volumes (personally, I believe they are either of negligable value, length or were not followed).

In short, the notes prove nothing when we cannot compare them to the novels - they amount to a claim that 'we based this on Frank's ideas' and nothing more. And that claim is, whether it is true or what motives they have in saying it, selfserving financially and regarding their reputation as authors, etc. - it is not an acceptable source for wikipedia. Lundse (talk) 09:38, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Many differences

This article strikes me as biased. The fact is, the Butlerian Jihad as presented in Frank Herbert's novels is not consistent with the Jihad as presented in the Brian Herbert and Kevin Anderson novels. Some of those differences are explained above. Further, the Jihad as it was outlined in the Dune Encyclopedia is also inconsistent with the Jihad from the Brian Herbert and Kevin Anderson novels.

Brian and Kevin's current "Dune Universe" may officially be canonical, since it is produced by the current copyright holders, but it conflicts with earlier continuity. Although the Encyclopedia is no longer considered canonical, there was a time when it was. The "Dune Universe," as such, has not been static but has been changing with time.

I propose that either this article be split into three sections, arranged chronologically:

• An outline of the Jihad as it was in Frank Herbert's novels, where the "Thinking Machines" were obviously intended to refer to computers and to people's dependence on them, not to physical fighting machinery - and of the cultural influence this interpretaion had on the real world at the time;
• a summary of the Butlerian Jihad back-story from the Dune Encyclopedia;
• and the third section being the current summary of the Kevin Anderson and Brian Herbert version

or that alternately, there be three articles, one for each of the versions. That was my intent in establishing the disambiguation page.

Macduff 17:51, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I am totally with you on sectioning the article; many Dune articles which span both the original series and one of the prequel series are sectioned this way (Shaddam Corrino IV, Hasimir Fenring, Margot Fenring, Ix (Dune)). Contributors just have to be very careful about POV and original research when writing these sections and pointing out discrepancies. In the example of the classic Dune series itself, I would quote direct passages from the texts, not summarize, and let readers interpret them. By then providing contradicting direct quotes from the prequels, readers can determine discrepancies on their own. This is really the only way to do it and abide by Wikipedia content rules. Again, it's a bit of a slippery slope, but there are plenty of peoople out there who will slash out the original research wording and leave the acceptable stuff. I'll try to contribute myself.

I think a properly-referenced section with info from the Dune Encyclopedia is totally appropriate. As far as the canon status, though, the Encylopedia may have been "undisputed" for a time, but Herbert himself in the forward reserved his right to diverge from it and did later contradict it. He was OK with it, but he didn't write or edit it so it's basically just fan fiction. Not that I don't own a copy!!! TAnthony 18:51, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Sectioning is fine, but we cannot state objectively that the BJ as presented in the original series is different from the one in the prequels. The fact is, the Jihad is only mentioned a few times and every time it is done so with a certain ambiguity. If you intererpreted it as "computers" rather than "fighting machines" then that is fine but that is your opinion and cannot be presented here as fact. Also I would say that the sectioning should be original, prequel, minor mentioing of DE. The DE is not canon and so it should not be given as much emphasis as the other canonical works. By the way, never assume that something is "obviously intended" to mean anything, especially when writing an encyclopedia article ;) Konman72 19:37, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

OK, I did a quick edit (before reading Konman72's comments) but I think we're on the same page. Good point about "computers" vs. "fighting machines" by the way, that seems to be the issue everyone argues about! I am, of course, on the side that believes Frank wasn't imagining a network of iPod's lulling us into submission, but instead some kind of tougher domination. But that stays out of the article.

And Macduff, in case you haven't noticed, Konman72 is one of the Dune POV/OR commandos I was referring to earlier! TAnthony 19:47, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Why not expand coverage of the Jihad in the Dune Encyclopedia article? (iPod's lulling us into submission. Hee hee. That's the kind of reduction of an argument I love!) SandChigger 21:56, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I kind of like having the bulk of the DE detail confined to that article, especially since it is non-canon. But I can see the value of having some Jihad info from the DE in this article, as the variances are such a debated issue. Somebody needs to write something so we can pick it apart and move it around! LOL TAnthony 23:02, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Of course it's very possible that FH's own views on the BJ changed, which could account for the seeming inconsistencies. I personally find it incredible that a simple crusade of ideology could result in the large-scale social changes we see in the Dune books that apparently endured for 10,000 years. I think one way people are influenced is that BH and KJA didn't do anything very original with the "machines enslave mankind" theme; it's very possible that Frank Herbert could have come up with something a lot more original and better-written. My own hypothesis is that if you collect all the references to the BJ found in the House trilogy books, you will end up with essentially the notes on the BJ that FH left behind -- very simplistic, but probably because he hadn't developed them through writing. Personally I really like the way a number of the Dune articles are done now (this article and Daniel and Marty are good examples) -- first the information in the FH books is presented, then the BH/KJA books, then the Dune Encyclopedia. Speculation about intent, notes, or contradictions is kept to a minimum, and issues of canon are left to other places. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.180.45.200 (talk) 19:17, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

TAnthony - thanks for pointing me here, this is indeed relevant. As I have stated before, I do not agree that FH's description of the Jihad is all that ambiguous, nor that it is compatible with the version in the later novels. Here is my suggestion:

Three sections makes perfect sense, as described above. I am fine with the Dune encyclopedia being 'shortchanged' as it is less relevant than the others.

The 'original' goes first, it describes the impression given by Frank's books without leaning on the encyclopedia or new novels for analysis. We only describe based on quotes we actually put on the page (and we probably end up putting a lot there). We depend primarily on the more relevant quotes, such as those supplied by actual memories of the Jihad: 'Humans must set their own guidelines. This is not something machines can do.' We note that nowhere does Frank suggest that the machines or cyborgs were somehow the aggressors.

The encyclopdia view is described as inspired by and fleshing out the originals, and possibly conversations with Frank (Nellis and him were friends). It is of course non-canon, but like Herbert and Nellis said, a possible way it could have happened, or certainly a possible way historians could later have thought it happened. As said, I am fine with few details and a link.

The new novels version is described (the order of the last two matter little, IMHO), prominent link to the relevant book is given. We note that there is discussion over whether this view is compatible with the originals.

I know this smacks of original research, and we should be careful; but unless we want a blank page or a series of quotes, we have to write something which is based on the books themselves. Lundse (talk) 09:57, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Given the apparent lack of any other pre-BH/KJA sources, I support adding to and/or flushing out the original series section as you propose. It may be best to just go ahead with your plan, and if any of the resulting content looks too original or dubious, then it can be (and most likely will be) adjusted. My goal in adding a section for the Dune Encyclopedia was basically to show that the BH/KJA interpretation of the Jihad wasn't the only interpretation, and that for a good part of Dune's history, there was another. In fact, if the DE version hadn't been so popular, that "non-canon" letter would never have had to have been created nor issued. -- Macduff (talk) 15:24, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Lundse, I also think it's a fine idea for you to expand the article as you mention, and see what kind of adjustments "the usual suspects" feel need to be made. I think you realize this, but keep in mind that your own analysis — as much sense as it may make — has to be kept out. Konman and others may see things differently, but your noting that Frank doesn't mention machines as aggressors could, in my opinion, be POV/OR if not worded correctly. Basically, it's tricky to point out what Frank doesn't say, and to explain/interpret what he does. — TAnthony^Talk 21:00, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I did want to reiterate that I agree with you in theory that BH/KJA went in their own direction, I'm just a stickler for the rules. — TAnthony^Talk 21:22, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I think we agree - this is a fine line to walk. We have to write something on "the original Jihad", but can only sum up from the books themselves.

Hm... Maybe we should, when saying that Frank did not say much about the Jihad, qualify this - what he actually does not do is tell a lot "as third person narrator", this could then be the lead-in and justification for quoting and summarising eg. Leto II. Lundse (talk) 08:37, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

source of the name

The article ought to explain the real reason that Herbert called it the BUTLERIAN Jihad -- namely, that he borrowed the idea from Samuel Butler's Victorian-era sci-fi novel EREWHON, and wanted to acknowledge the source. CharlesTheBold (talk) 02:31, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. One only needs to find a source, either of Herbert's directly stating this, or of another party theorizing it. Macduff (talk) 02:41, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I was myself thinking about the likely inspiration from Samuel Butler-"Darwin among the Machines"-Erewhon ... does the Touponce book have anything? I would think it would. I have to get around to buying that one of these days ... — TAnthony^Talk 18:55, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Touponce is good enough, but he doesn't track down many of the allusions; at least, I don't remember any mention of the Butlerian Jihad in anything but superficial summary. --Gwern (contribs) 16:18 27 June 2009 (GMT)

Slip up

Thanks for pointing that out there Sandchigger. I was actually looking at an article about the real Barbarossa and made a mental slip. Thanks for the heads up and BTW, I do have my info quite right and simply made a mental slip so slow your roll and bring the chin down a bit eyh.MephYazata (talk) 02:17, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Explanation not requested. Only accuracy. --SandChigger (talk) 09:18, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

OMG

I've participated in a few discussions here and on other talk pages about whether or not FH envisioned the Jihad as a Terminator-like war against killer robots. In my opinion, the evidence within the books of the original series suggests that it was just a religious rejection of AI, which in my mind obviously contradicted the primary plotline of the Legends of Dune trilogy, and by extension the Dune 7 sequels. Dune nerd that I am, I've been listening to the original series audiobooks on the elliptical at the gym. Imagine my shock when I heard this quote from GEoD, when Siona shares Leto's vision of the future:

He knew this experience, but could not change the smallest part of it. No ancestral presences would remain in her consciousness, but she would carry with her forever afterward the clear sights and sounds and smells. The seeking machines would be there, the smell of blood and entrails, the cowering humans in their burrows aware only that they could not escape . . . while all the time the mechanical movement approached, nearer and nearer and nearer ...louder...louder! Everywhere she searched, it would be the same. No escape anywhere.

To me, this meant that, no matter how passive the Jihad may have been, the extinction of mankind that Leto was trying to prevent was indeed at the hands of predator robots! Unbelievable! And I checked: Touponce agrees on page 85 of Frank Herbert. I've added this info (with the Touponce ref) to the Thinking machines (Dune) article. Not to say that Hunters and Sandworms were executed how Frank himself may have wrote them, this certainly makes me look at them in a slightly different light.— TAnthony^Talk 05:49, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

sigh. It's not like that passage hasn't been quoted on Wikipedia before. No one disputes that arafel involves intelligent prescience-using machines - but they are intelligent prescient machines developed by the Ixians:

'"Do not fear the Ixians," he said, and he heard his own voice as a fading whisper. "They can make the machines, but they no longer can make arafel. I know. I was there."
Again, Idaho sensed the temptation from the ritual of Siaynoq. "We will see," he said. He turned and looked at Siona. "What did he mean when he said the Ixians cannot create arafel?"'

Still think it has anything to do with the absurd Omnius and Erasmus? --Gwern (contribs) 13:55 27 October 2010 (GMT)

Huh? The purpose of Siona's trial is to sensitize her to the necessity of the Golden Path. The "spice fluid" she drinks from Leto's cowl-teat is enough to kick on them ole Atreides voodoo genes (LOL), but insufficient to provoke a full "Agony" experience and awaken her Other Memory ("no ancestral presences would remain"). So what exactly is it she sees?

My own interpretation requires you to remember the passage where Leto imagines throwing himself off the top of his Sareer tower and he senses the Golden Path "winking" in and out of existence. Even though there's no textual support for it in the Siona trial passage, I like to think that Leto is doing something similar for the duration of her vision; by imagining a universe where the GP does not exist, he opens the possibility of an inescapable future where humankind is extinguished by Ixian super-hunter-seekers (or some other run-amok machine), and it's that future that Siona and Moneo (and all the Atreides before them) see.

Another possibility is that Leto is feeding Siona the vision telepathically, but there's no explicit textual support for that, either.

Either way, it seems really grasping for straws to try to connect the "arafel" vision with the Butlerian Jihad. And since Leto explicitly says the Ixians can no longer create arafel, the nonsense in Hunters and Sandworms is based on a severe misunderstanding (or complete disregard?) of what Frank Herbert wrote. Anderson and Herbert Minor simply don't get it. --SandChigger (talk) 02:12, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

The Golden Path isn't guaranteed; not all paths lead to Rome. Once the Scattering is started, maybe then the Path is locked in, but before then, it's vulnerable. At any time Leto could die (remember his quotes that a lasgun applied enough could kill him), which would end the Golden Path there, or Siona herself could die, wrecking the breeding program and depriving the Golden Path of its Siona gene.

So, the Ixian machines are still a live possibility for Siona and her revolutionary predecessors in Leto's 12-step program. It's that set of live possibilities that Siona is seeing. This seems like an adequate explanation to me; there's no need to imagine a non-GP universe or engage in telepathy. Siona just needs to want to see, in the prescient trance, a universe without Leto but with humans forever - and fail, coming at every branching possibility to death machines.

(If that doesn't satisfy you for some reason, then consider that the Golden Path merely guarantees that some small portion of humanity will survive; death machines could kill off the other 99%, and it could be their deaths that Siona and the others foresee.) --Gwern (contribs) 00:39 30 October 2010 (GMT)

Forgive the lateness of the reply/comment, but using a vision of the future as an explanation of the past doesn't make any sense, unless one wishes to try to justify what Brian Herbert and Kevin J. Anderson have done to the Dune franchise. Whatever the reality of the vision of arafel, it has no bearing on the Butlerian Jihad, the nature of which is, by the way, made much clearer in the original novels than some would care to admit.--172.190.16.197 (talk) 08:12, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Source for Butlerian Jihad

Frank Herbert named the Butlerian Jihad after Frank Butler, at the time a university student in California who led some sort of protest, and with whom Herbert had some contact, and who recently retired as an attorney in Stanwood, Washington. The Daily (Everett, WA) Herald ran a story on this in its December 3, 2000 edition. I have seen and briefly skimmed the article (Frank Butler was my attorney, and keeps a copy of the newspaper article on the wall in the practice's law library) but I do not have a copy of it.

Here is contact information for the Herald if someone is interested in running this down:

http://www.heraldnet.com/section/contact

All best wishes,

Jeffrey Dennis Pearce Stanwood, WA 24.113.135.163 (talk) 05:50, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

To see the article, go to my blog: http://where-we-start-from.blogspot.com/2014/05/source-of-butlerian-jihad-in-dune.html

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Butlerian Jihad. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130615190055/http://www.sfcrowsnest.com/articles/books/2009/Dune-The-Butlerian-Jihad-by-Brian-Herber--Kevin-J-Anderson--13987.php to http://www.sfcrowsnest.com/articles/books/2009/Dune-The-Butlerian-Jihad-by-Brian-Herber--Kevin-J-Anderson--13987.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080513064723/http://www.scifidimensions.com/Aug07/sandwormsofdune.htm to http://www.scifidimensions.com/Aug07/sandwormsofdune.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:38, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Checked OK.— TAnthony^Talk 18:33, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

"has not penetrated popular culture in the way that The Lord of the Rings and Star Wars have"

... because the Lord of the Rings is just chock full of robots and computers. Jyg (talk) 04:23, 23 January 2018 (UTC)