Talk:Inconsistencies in Turtledove's Work

Lee Secretary of War
Lee says that Davis is going to be Secretary of War before his inaugration, and Davis survives the Richmond Massacre, but the martial law document is signed by Secretary of War S. Cooper. - 82.38.98.206 17:52, 1 March 2009 (UTC)


 * S. Cooper is the Adjutant and inspector general. TR 18:17, 1 March 2009 (UTC)


 * He was the Confederacy's senior soldier OTL, outranking even Lee. I believe he was the only full-time (as opposed to brevet) general officer to defect from the regular army. And he wasn't a Southerner--He was, I'm rather sorry to say, from my home state. We briefly had the top generals of both sides at the same time, and neither did us proud.


 * Actually Cooper should have an article. NJ history demands he be rescured from obscurity. Turtle Fan 21:10, 1 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Playing around in GoTS to fact-check the above yielded a wealth of "should have articles" (well, the whole book needs to be catalogued, but you know what I mean). Cooper really had nothing to do but sign a memo, but he could stand an article. Gladstone is mentioned. And Varina Davis plays a fairly prominent role. TR 01:13, 2 March 2009 (UTC)


 * That could be a good way to get to 5000. We need to make sure it's someone or something prominent--I'd have trouble claiming Cooper deserves the honor with a straight face. Turtle Fan 03:05, 2 March 2009 (UTC)


 * "All persons infringing the above prohibtion will suffer such punishment as shall be ordered by the sentence of a court-martial, provided no to hard-labour be for more than one month by sentence of a regimental court-martial, as directed by the 67th Article of War. By command of the Secretary of War. S. Cooper, Adujant and Inspector General" 82.38.98.206 08:20, 2 March 2009 (UTC)


 * So Cooper countersigned because Davis was too busy or too important? Turtle Fan 16:59, 2 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Not so uncommon in those days. Or now, really. One would prefer x official to look over and sign everything, but they sometimes leave that to a duly appointed, duly empowered subordinate. TR 18:55, 3 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh, I know, it happens all the time. I've even signed things on behalf of superiors myself. Turtle Fan 20:26, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Also could you make an article for Wigfall why your at making articles. - 82.38.98.206 08:20, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Robert Lansing
Aren't 50 years of butterflies enough to think that people who were enemies in OTL could be friends in the ATL?


 * You'd think so but HT offers more evidence to the contrary than anything. The point is, both known secretaries in Roosevelt's Cabinet seem to have been chosen by HT for no other reason than that they filled those spots at the same time in real US history, which is INSANE!!


 * As for arguing for butterflies in general, the case is weakened somewhat by the fact that we're discussing an AH story whose root philosophy is "Let's change one variable and watch how everything else unfolds in parallel fashion over a long period of time." Turtle Fan 16:58, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Patton
In regards to inconsistency no.8 under Southern Victory, Patton's family was from Virginia. His grandfather fought for the south in the Army Of Northern Virginia. If the south won the war, its possible and even likely he would have been born in the south.Bschur 18:57, 28 March 2008 (UTC)


 * AAAAUUUUUUGGGGGGHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!


 * We should start imposing discipline for repeating that tired old whine. Turtle Fan 03:18, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

From Wikipedia: Graduating from the Virginia Military Institute in 1877, Patton's father served as L.A. County District Attorney and the first City Attorney for the city of Pasadena, California and the first mayor of San Marino. It's not that likely, though still possible, that Patton's father would leave the Confederacy for a Union State if the south had won. Being a graduate from a military academy would have set him in hot water during the events of How Few Remain, as Sam Clemens was brought in for questioning for his 'involvement' during the War of Secession.Steelblade 21:12, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

The point is, we don't retcon for HT. We point out where he made mistakes. Given his history of ignoring people's birth states in this timeline and assigning them to wherever he damn well pleased, I don't see why everyone's so damned certain he got this one right without his having dropped any hints that he did so. History seems to be against that assumption. Turtle Fan 04:33, 8 December 2008 (UTC)


 * In fairness, you are basing this on Daniels, who is relatively obscure (and looking over his history, I grow to suspect that HT knew exactly what he was doing). Patton is VERY well known in this country. I think it plausible that HT was aware of the butterflies when assigning Patton to the CS. TR 16:02, 8 December 2008 (UTC)


 * There's also Walker, who is not obscure at all. And if Daniels is so obscure, doesn't it become less likely that HT pored over the record and figured out a butterfly scenario, not more? I mean, this was the same time he couldn't even be bothered keeping Carsten's and Enos's character histories straight, for God's sake.


 * Well, the version I wrote bears the precious disclaimer for everyone who wants it--as does the "Possible Explanation" category, which over the years has been moved from the bottom of the page to the top. There's just no pleasing some people. Turtle Fan 18:09, 8 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I am forced to agree with Turtlefan in Walker's case. His parents Stayed in the north for the whole time, moving to Missouri, a Northern State in 1857 and remaining there till at least 1892, according to Wikipedia.Steelblade 19:00, 8 December 2008 (UTC)


 * No, Walker is pretty clear. As for Daniels, hard to say, since I wasn't looking over HT's shoulder when he did the research (no one here was), but he was introduced early in the series, when HT seemed to be more careful. TR 20:02, 8 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Daniels would have served early in the series, but he did so offstage. He was introduced in DttE, when most of us noticed HT getting sloppy. Turtle Fan 01:49, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

North and South border
"In The Victorious Opposition, Armstrong Grimes attends a high school history class in which the question "What happened to the border between the United States and the Confederate States between the end of the War of Secession and the end of the Great War?" is "correctly" answered "Nothing." In fact, the border was extended in 1881 with the Confederate purchase of the states of Chihuahua and Sonora from Mexico."

Whoever posted this as an error got caught with a trick question. The questions ask to 'the border between', not 'the borders of' since the two states in question are not set between the Confederacy and the Union.Steelblade 21:06, 7 December 2008 (UTC)


 * But a border's a one-dimensional line, and if extending the length of such a line doesn't count as something happening to it nothing does. You're saying it refers only to line segments? I don't know, sounds like an odd semantic trick. I'll agree that "between" doesn't seem like the natural choice of preposition in that situation, but as I recall the teacher was promptly blown out of the water by one of her own students, so I'm not sure she was clever enough to conceal a trick question--and a pretty bizarre one at that--behind an odd word choice. And if she were, wouldn't she try to squeeze out of it a way to defend herself against the kid? Turtle Fan 04:48, 8 December 2008 (UTC)


 * It may be a trick question or poor teaching skills, but the question still refers to only the parts of the border which connect the two countries. While the CS gained to Mexican States, it is also true the the US lost part of Northern Maine to Canada. But the US lost no territory to the CS, likely the point of the poorly phrased question.Steelblade 19:08, 8 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The context of the subsequent discussion, what happens to the three states taken from the CS, suggests bad semantics. TR 22:16, 8 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The border extension did go between the two Americas, though. The northern Maine thing had nothing to do with the US-CS border; the acquisition of the Mexican states did. It's not that important, but if we are lost in a semantic thicket, I fail to see the obvious way out that seems so obvious to you guys. Turtle Fan 01:52, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Arizona and New Mexico
The Arizona Organic Act had passed the U.S. House before the POD and would likely have passed the Senate in 1863 despite the changed circumstances. 4.154.5.115 02:51, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Quebec and Labrador
The border between Quebec and Labrador was not settled in OTL until 1927 with a settlement by the British Privy Council that was totally in favor of Labrador. It is unlikely that the Republic of Quebec would have accepted that boundary and at minimum gained the boundary used on official provincial maps today. 4.154.5.115 03:07, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't recall any mention of the boundaries in the books. If you are basing it on the maps, then all the Great War maps are incorrect since the current provincial boundaries in OTL were the ones depicted on those maps and were not set until the 1920s too. Until then, Ontario and Quebec only included the watershed of the Great Lakes/ St. Lawrence. They did not include the former Hudson's Bay Co. holdings of Rupert's land around Hudson's Bay / James Bay. In my opinion, map errors should not be considered HT Inconsistencies since they are not his work. ML4E 03:03, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

That's not the case. Save for the Quebec-Labrador boundary dispute, the boundaries for all of Canada's provinces had reached their current form by 1912 in OTL. The boundary between Ontario and Quebec was set in its final form in 1898 with Ungava added to Quebec in 1912. 4.154.2.205 23:53, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

My mistake, 4.154.2.205 is correct. This is a link to a Government of Canada website that gives the [1912 Provincial Boundaries] which should have been the base map for the GW books. you can see the smaller Labrador boundaries that he is taking about. Never-the-less, I don't think HT mentioned this one way or the other so I don't think it should be considered an inconsistency. ML4E 03:08, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Josephus Daniels
Another Josephus Daniels inconsistency is that in OTL, he lived until 1948 and IIRC, the USN at that time did not name ships after living people. Of course, he may have died sooner in TL-191. 4.154.2.205 00:26, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Worldwar
Barbara larrsen forgets the meaning of fubar between in the balance and titling the balance

In Down to Earth the ratio of men to women on the Lewis and lark is given as 3 to 1 while in Aftershocks it is 2 to 1


 * Well, throw 'em in there.


 * In the latter's case I seem to recall it had something to do with the second US starship joining the first. In the former's--HT sure loves giving himself the chance to insert the little quip about "fouled up, but not really" into the dialogue. Turtle Fan 00:11, 19 August 2008 (UTC)


 * They can't; it's protected. TR 15:35, 19 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Only against unregistered users. Turtle Fan 22:46, 19 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Dialogue from on of Johnson's scene indiactes that they don't have the crew ratios combined. I made the edit.--Darthbalmung 01:53, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Tau Ceti
Are you sure they didn't say "about ten light-years"?

And by the way, isn't Tau Ceti supposed to be too metal-deficient to form terrestrial planets? Turtle Fan 04:57, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Maybe that's another POD, the early forming of the star has it's makeup changed so it can form terrestrial planets. Azecreth 10:55, December 10 2009 (UTC)

Isabella's and Albert's Wedding
That's one of the oh-so-few here that's been addressed to even my satisfaction. Philip wanted her married before he installed her in London, and his brother obliged. Furthermore this was his stated plan when he planned the campaign. I guess after back-to-back ascensions of single women, neither of whom produced an heir of any sort, he might have expected the stability offered by a married queen taking the throne right away, with promises of children to come. Though now that I think of it, the Hapsburgs were never said to have produced issue either, meaning that the RB English, like the OTL ones, had to wait (assuming the Stuarts assumed the throne in 1603 as in OTL) sixty-six years between kings with sons and undisputed heirs in place. (And there were those who disputed Edward VI, since his mother was so far from unique in having been queen and even the most Protestant of monogamists were growing weary of the queen-of-the-month club. That takes us all the way back to Henry's birth in, what was it, 1491? England went the entire sixteenth century without a single prince being born and making his birth stick.) Turtle Fan 04:22, 3 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Fairly put, Turtle Fan. I can see that happening, although I find it slightly far-fetched to have her married off so soon. I know, I know, Catherine of Aragon was married off young too, it's just odd to see the decade speeded up like that. And damn, you're right about the 16th century being relatively princeless. Also, Queen of the Month Club conjured up a pretty hilarious mental image of Henry VIII and the QoMC. :) Can you tell I'm tryign not to write a paper right now? Elefuntboy 23:40, 6 December 2008 (UTC)


 * It wasn't just Catherine of Aragon; young marriages were the norm for princes in those days. Dynastic marriages were matters of alliance and when an alliance had been planned it needed to be cemented quickly; wait till the young lovers-to-be had come of age and any number of things might crop up in the interim to disrupt the desirable match. That the Tudor queens entered adulthood without husbands was the exception, not the rule, and bespoke just how tenuous were both of their holds on legitimacy. No one was going to give high priority to a princess who'd been declared a bastard just last month and was liable to be so again next month. Turtle Fan 00:55, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Ophelia Clemens
Didn't exist. Clemens oldest daughter in OTL was Olivia Clemens, named for her mother. She went by Susy. TR 00:19, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

So HT screwed up the name? Turtle Fan 01:22, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I'd say its more likely a "Daniel MacArthur" type of thing since Clemens married a different woman in TL-191. ML4E 14:16, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

He did? Huh, never noticed. Turtle Fan 15:38, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Olivia Langdon Clemens in OTl, Alexandra Clemens in Southern Victory. - 82.38.98.206 07:08, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

What an odd detail to change. Of course, HT was trying a little harder when he wrote HFR than the rest of TL-191. Turtle Fan 11:44, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Teddy Roosevelt?
Has anyone done anything on TR? Wasn't his mother a Confederate? I doubt he'd have been as successful in American politics with a Rebel mom in this timeline.... Elefuntboy 23:41, 6 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Not quite. His maternal grandfather was a blockade runner. The mother had already moved north before the war and in fact had given birth to her son (1858) before Sumter came under fire. Plenty of people moved around between north and south in the antebellum, as befits a single, united nation, and quite a few had ties on the other side. In most cases it was up to the individual to declare allegiance. And anyway, Roosevelt's career in this timeline was a meritocratic one: he earned his own high political stock in Montana during MW2 and never let it drop until the labor nonsense in B&I. His personal heroism would easily drown out any accusations that his pedigree was not quite correct enough. Turtle Fan 01:02, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Braswell Monument
Was indeed real, as was Benjamin Braswell. Whether or not it still stands, I can't quite figure out, but as of 1946, the monument was still there. TR 18:10, 8 January 2009 (UTC)


 * No kidding. I looked long and hard for it when IatD came out. Turtle Fan 21:51, 8 January 2009 (UTC)


 * So did I, and found nothing. But HT really likes dropping local "flavor" into his works like that, so I got bored and tried again. I found his web page run by his descendants, a copy of his will, and a 1946 book about Georgia tourist attractions. No pictures, though. TR 21:55, 8 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Wait, you actually tracked down a copy of his will as well as some tourist guide from the mid 40s? Jelay14 23:42, 8 January 2009 (UTC)


 * On the web, yes. I'm not that tenacious. TR 23:53, 8 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh, okay. ^_^ Jelay14 23:55, 8 January 2009 (UTC)


 * That's the Internet for ya.


 * Can we write an article about Braswell? Turtle Fan 05:27, 9 January 2009 (UTC)


 * What we have is what I could find. Aside from selling his slaves and giving the money to educate poor kids, Braswell doesn't seem to have made many ripples in history. TR 05:32, 9 January 2009 (UTC)


 * There must at least be DOB and DOD. Turtle Fan 06:45, 9 January 2009 (UTC)


 * We have DOD. TR 15:44, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Arango
I don't think it's insignificant to mention that he moved to Chihuahua long after it changed hands.

Another possibility is that the Rad Libs knew they didn't have a prayer of winning no matter who their candidate was, so eligibility would never become an issue. Therefore they ran someone who would launch firey attacks against Semmes and wound him, maybe get enough RL voters to turn out to pick up a few Congressional seats. Turtle Fan 20:00, 13 January 2009 (UTC)


 * There's no evidence that shows when he moved to Chihuahua. He could have been just before or years after. This issue is not addressed in the books. TR 20:07, 13 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Hard evidence, no. There is however a great deal of circumstancial evidence if one considers that oh-so-much of the offstage history of people and events that played supporting roles in the series unfolded on OTL patterns till it came into contact with the changed circumstances in America. Turtle Fan 07:16, 14 January 2009 (UTC)


 * And Mexico's contact with the circumstances in America came almost instanteously with that change. TR 22:13, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Mexico's, yes. Mexicans', maybe not. Nineteenth-century Mexican governments were not known for offering their people high levels of political efficacy, least of all the government that got butterflied into a stable long-term existence. Turtle Fan 07:51, 15 January 2009 (UTC)


 * My overall point is that the information we have is that he was born in Durango, and magically he's a CS citizen. I think you're getting hung up on the incidentals. It's an inconsistency enough to say "He was born in Durango, Mexico, but is depicted as a CS citizen." Trying to layer on additional points to make HT "more inconsistent" is unnecessary, especially since those points are speculative.


 * The simple truth will do. TR 15:35, 15 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Very well. I do enjoy the chance to geek out, though.


 * If that's the case, perhaps "It's possible he moved but HT never addresses this" should also be removed. Turtle Fan 18:50, 15 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Done. TR 19:05, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Jennie Jerome
TR, did you delete the 191 Inconsistency about Churchill's mother? That's still an inconsistency we can and should address. We'd just need to undo the link. Turtle Fan 04:32, 17 February 2009 (UTC)


 * If you can't live without it. TR 05:19, 17 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Maybe later.


 * Jennie had to go but I kind of miss her. She certainly did get around! And I believe it ran in the family--Wasn't she herself rumored to be some President's bastard or other? Turtle Fan 11:56, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

FDR
Who says someone from an alternate party can't be a member of the Cabinet. Plus, he was a hawkish Socalist and therefore quite a likely choice for Secretary of war (this is during the Pacific War you know), Hurley's a Southerner and Good's dead. - 82.38.98.206 20:35, 19 February 2009 (UTC)


 * It's possible, and certainly the article on FDR was written in such a way, but his party affiliation is unaddressed in TCCH, and the parties were quite partisan in the series generally, so it seems quite strange that a Socialist reached that level in a Democrat's cabinet. TR 21:19, 19 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Daniels reached higher still, and at a time when the Democrats felt they could laugh off their opposition. Of course he's never called a Socialist, either, and we know HT already got one huge detail wrong on his count. Besides, Daniels appears to have been more of a philosophical socialist than anything else.


 * He wasn't a member of the Socialist Party in OTL. He was a full fledged Democrat. And after bopping around the web, I see no evidence of socialist world views. He owned several newspapers, engaged in a fair deal of free enterprise, etc. White Supremacism seems to have been his thing. TR 15:50, 20 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Odd. I seem to have once read that he believed in collective ownership or something like that. So I figured, if the Socialists were a real party, with governors and senators and everything, he'd be comfortable there. Turtle Fan 21:31, 20 February 2009 (UTC)


 * That may have been in reference to his efforts to take control of all telephone, telegraph, and radio service during his term. That was mostly in the name of national security, though. TR 23:10, 27 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Other than that I agree with TR. And come on, FDR's appearance really makes no sense at all. Turtle Fan 23:50, 19 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Turtledove probably couldn't think of a conservative to take the job, because, like I said, Hurley's a Southerner and Good's dead. So its quite likely he'd opt for a Socalist, and FDR's the perfect choice since he's hawkish on foreign policy, plus Blacford's just been First Lady, and there probably the only hawkish Socalists in the party, or atleast Congress. - 82.38.98.206 07:06, 20 February 2009 (UTC)


 * It's not at all likely given how partisan politics were in the 191 20s. And the Socialist and Democratic defense policies were so radically different. Of course HT could have had Hoover come up with a member of his own party for the job somewhere or other--especially since he got to assign party affiliation however he saw fit. Witness the Dewey-Truman ticket! Turtle Fan 11:48, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Blanket Historical Figure Comment
I'm starting to think that some opening statement of "most historical figures who appear in HT work after the POD really ought not to exist" might be appropriate. TR 23:11, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps. Yes, I think it would. Turtle Fan 21:10, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Andersonville Camp
This would be more of an Inconsistencie if it was said it had stayed the same all the way through its lifetime. - 82.38.98.206 20:08, 3 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Would you mind starting new sections at the end rather than the beginning? That's where people look for additions. Turtle Fan 21:16, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Okay, but just move it next time please. - 82.38.98.206 20:08, 3 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Just wanted to let you know that this is where these things need to go. Give a man a fish and all that. Turtle Fan 20:26, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Inconsistencies in After the Downfall
The sole point of contention in this area is that the MP-40 was referred to as a Schmeisser. Schmeisser was the slang name used by both Axis and Allied forces in reference to the MP-40 smg.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MP40

http://www.olive-drab.com/od_other_firearms_smg_mp40.php

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugo_Schmeisser

This section should be removed.

74.140.181.62 06:57, 7 March 2009 (UTC)


 * It was suggested by an anon just like you. I don't know how we're supposed to choose between two strangers to determine which is the reliable one. Turtle Fan 07:32, 7 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I think we shouldn't bother with borderline or trivial items like this. Remove it. My $0.02 worth. ML4E 16:16, 7 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Perhaps reading the articles which offer proof of my comments would help. Quoting from the first link "The MP40 was often called the "Schmeisser" by the Allies, after weapons designer Hugo Schmeisser." Quoting from the second link "The Schmeisser MP-40 machine pistol (Maschinen Pistole or MP) was widely used by unit leaders in the German army in World War II." Quoting from the third link "They became internationally known as "Schmeisser MP"s, mainly due to the use of the straight magazine he had patented." Delete it or don't, or google the information, or read any of the links provided. The slang name still remains the same, and after looking in novels, history books, or the web all information will remain the same. It was called what it was called. 74.140.181.62


 * I'm not saying I don't believe you, but the other guy came up with links too. I've never heard of olive-drab.com. As for wikipedia, it says whatever the last person who bothered to edit it wants it to say. Anyway, these technical details of weapons' names and specs and so on bore me to tears. That's not true for quite a few Turtledove fans. I've never been able to figure out why. Either a weapon gets the job done or it doesn't. Beyond that its historical significance is nil. Turtle Fan 17:17, 8 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Let's take it out. Even the first guy admitted that this is a universal error. I'd rather this section be about inconsistencies specific to HT's work. TR 18:38, 8 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Whatever.


 * By the way, did anyone here read Stalin's Ghost? There's a German pistol that features fairly prominently in that story. I don't remember what sort it was. Turtle Fan 03:37, 9 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The list of German pistols during the current period for that novel is rather lengthy. My suggestion is to check http://world.guns.ru/handguns/hg00-e.htm and see if you can find it under the Germany section.74.140.181.62 09:40, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Flora Hamburger
While in American Front Flora Hamburger works for New York City's Tenth Ward Socialist Party headquarter, in Walk in Hell it suddenly becomes Fourteenth Ward.


 * Redistricting? Turtle Fan 19:46, 11 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Let's vet it and add if it appropriate. TR 21:32, 11 March 2009 (UTC)


 * If we confirm it, it would certainly be appropriate.


 * (sigh) This list has suffered a bit of late. We've become too cautious to throw up mistakes for fear that it's we who are somehow missing something. Turtle Fan 22:26, 11 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Since certain inconsistencies have been removed precisely because we made the mistakes, I think being cautious is ok. TR 22:55, 11 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I think erring on the side of boldness is forgivable here, since HT is so prone to missing things himself. But anyway, have we confirmed the bit about Flora's district? Turtle Fan 02:35, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

TR, does it say NY State as opposed to NY City? I'm used to thinking of wards as a local subdivision. Turtle Fan 04:52, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Flora could have run for Congress at 24 as long as she turned 25 before assuming office. Joe Biden ran for the Senate at 29. [unsigned]


 * When did we say she couldn't? Turtle Fan 19:17, September 16, 2009 (UTC)

I forget which number it was but it was in the section comparing Flora and Ophelia's years of birth. It made note that Flora would be unable to run which isn't necessarily true. 146.186.228.206 20:33, September 16, 2009 (UTC)JP

Else I'm a Dutchman
Villa, there's nothing wrong with nitpicking here, and I've long been advocating casting as wide a net as possible in addressing errors here. I would however remind you that England was conquered in RB in part because the Dutch did not oppose Parma when he left to land in England, so one assumes there's some ill will. Turtle Fan 18:22, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm fully aware of the former. But since both the Dutch language and the divergence of the Dutch as a separate ethnos from the Low Germans only took place after independence was achieved I suppose there is reason to believe that neither of these would happen and the English word "Dutch" would still have the broader meaning of its cognates "Deutsch" and "Duits(ch)", and would be synonymous with "German". And even presuming such a divergence would happen, it is bound to be slower than in our world, and is unlikely to have happened by the time RD is set. Even in our world the word "Dutch" only came to refer to the Netherlands because of the dominance of the Low Countries in trade during the Dutch Golden Age and the resulting close contact with the English. With the Low Countries now being an obscure swampy peripheral region of the Spanish Empire, neither the dominance in trading nor the close contact seem very likely things to happen. Before independence the common term to refer to the Low Countries as a whole used abroad was "Flemish", with Flanders having been the dominant state within it (similar to the also erroneous modern foreign habit of using "Holland" to refer to the whole of the country). And come to think of it, actual Flemish dialect doesn't even feature the guttural sounds mentioned in the book, being known for its "soft G". This gives me reason to believe that if the fact you stated created a substantial degree of enmity to the Low Countries (which does seem likely, don't get me wrong), popular use of the word "Dutch" as a derogatory term, combined with guttural sounds, would still be unlikely. Anyway, I hope that makes my point clear. Please feel free to alter or even remove my comment if you're not convinced though. --Villa Cruoninga (talk) 20:12, 31 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Sounds good to me. Turtle Fan 22:33, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

World War-Jewish resistance scale
Did anybody noticed how much different the Jewish armed movement is in World War compared to OTL ? It is shown as huge underground partisan movement throughout Poland almost bigger then Polish Home Army when in OTL it was much more smalller and concentrated in few spots(mostly Warsaw Ghetto)?

Missouri and Arkansas
Somewhere between Breakthroughs and Return Engagement, the piece of Arkansas annexed to Missouri is mysteriously returned to the CSA. I don't see this listed as an inconsistency, though I think it should be. Mellophonius 05:06, 19 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Featherston bitches about small chunks of states that need to be returned along with the ones that passed back and forth wholescale. Perhaps it had something to do with the Rebel forces taking that piece in the opening action of the war? But those maps reflect legal borders, not military ones. Yes, I agree that a listing is appropriate. Turtle Fan 10:39, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

And he will make the face of heaven so fine/That all the world will be in love with night/And pay no worship to the garish sun
I've been on a bit of a Shakespeare kick of late: yesterday I read an article in a magazine revisiting the question of his recusancy; before that I saw Hamlet over the weekend; and, shortly before that, incorporated lines from King Lear into my newly-completed version of The Aristocrats Joke. It's a very intellectually, culturally, and morally uplifting version.

Anyway, in these meanderings I've stumbled upon a bit of Shakespearean trivia: He rarely wrote at night. He would write in the morning, act in the afternoon, and take the evening off. Writing at night was expensive, since the only available source of artificial light burned itself out very quickly.

In RB, of course, he writes late at night by candle all the time. Now granted some of that writing was subversive, but it's not that much harder to conceal what one is working on by day than it is by night. Turtle Fan 19:26, September 16, 2009 (UTC)


 * True, but that subversive component is there. TR 19:31, September 16, 2009 (UTC)


 * For Boudicca, yes. For King Philip and Love's Labours Won, no. Turtle Fan 23:49, September 16, 2009 (UTC)

The War That Prematurely Ejaculated
I'm a bit surprised that the only TWTCE inconsistency we've uncovered is the screw-up with one minor character's name. Well you do have the bits with Smigly-Rydz and Antonescu; maybe we should throw them in.

Still, I'm surprised. He was pretty good in Hitler's War.

Of course, maybe he was so shy about dates, commanders, and characters' back stories specifically to avoid giving himself details he could contradict. The POVs, for one, are all so generic and formulaic that if Alistair Walsh were to remember doing something that Vaclav Jezek had done, I'm sure I'd never notice. Hell, I had to open to book to select two POVs' names; that's how undifferentiated they are to me. Turtle Fan 20:48, October 25, 2009 (UTC)

Molotov Cocktail
You know, I've long been curious: What is the relationship between Comrade Foreign Commisar and the incendiary device which bears his name? Turtle Fan 05:05, November 8, 2009 (UTC)


 * "The bombs were derisively named after the then Foreign Minister of the Soviet Union, Vyacheslav Molotov, by the Finns during the Winter War."


 * See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molotov_cocktail ML4E 05:15, November 8, 2009 (UTC)


 * Why Molotov, though? I'd think Stalin or Zhukov would be more obvious choices. Turtle Fan 13:59, November 8, 2009 (UTC)


 * Perhaps, as Foreign Minister, he was a more public face to the Finns? I believe he conducted negotiations prior to the outbreak of war and so the Finnish military named it in his "honour"? ML4E 00:47, November 9, 2009 (UTC)


 * I suppose that makes sense. Well, now I know when and where the term came about, anyway, and something of the circumstances, and both are more than I knew before. Obliged. Turtle Fan 03:22, November 9, 2009 (UTC)
 * Early when the USSR invaded Finland in 1940, Molotov gave a radio speech claiming that what the Soviet planes were dropping were not bombs, but food packages for the poor starving Finns. Naturally, the Finns were enraged by such claims, and during the following battles would shout for Molotov to eat his food packages, and drink that cocktail to go with the food. Well, that's what I've always heard anyway.WastedTime 14:38, April 30, 2011 (UTC)
 * Early when the USSR invaded Finland in 1940, Molotov gave a radio speech claiming that what the Soviet planes were dropping were not bombs, but food packages for the poor starving Finns. Naturally, the Finns were enraged by such claims, and during the following battles would shout for Molotov to eat his food packages, and drink that cocktail to go with the food. Well, that's what I've always heard anyway.WastedTime 14:38, April 30, 2011 (UTC)


 * Works for me, thanks. Turtle Fan 15:16, April 30, 2011 (UTC)

The Gap
Hamnet (and other characters) mention how difficult it would be to supply an army through the narrow, brine-filled gap. Their immediate response upon returning to their home country? Worrying about an invasion through the gap. - locked for editing so I can't edit the page

Liberating Atlantis
I'm willing to bet that Frederick was being a bit hypocritical in that statement. TR 15:52, December 14, 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh, surely. Usually HT has his POVs mention their own hypocrisy in their private thoughts, however. "'Blah blah blah,' he said, wishing it were truer than it was." Turtle Fan 17:00, December 14, 2009 (UTC)

Categories
I decided that this article was at best tangential to the various stories, so the categories were probably unnecessary. Besides, we have the various articles listed in the inconsistences, as well as links in the text. TR 20:11, January 27, 2010 (UTC)


 * Good thinking. I support your decision. Turtle Fan 20:21, January 27, 2010 (UTC)

Thach Weave
I recall that a survivor of the first attempt to retake Hawaii gave a talk to Joe Crosetti's class about tactics that proved effective against the Zeros and described the "Thach Weave". I don't recall if he called it that but I do remember he mentioned by name the person who came up with the idea. I don't have a copy of EotB so I can't check but it might be that the tactic was not widespread before Dec. 7 due to overconfidence. ML4E 00:11, June 17, 2010 (UTC)

How about that, it was Jack Hadley who described the maneuver. ML4E 00:15, June 17, 2010 (UTC)


 * If Hadley was part of the first attempt--that came in 1942. In OTL, it was first tested at Midway. So I don't think that is an inconsistency. TR 00:30, June 17, 2010 (UTC)


 * The whole point I was trying to make in that article, was that Harry made the Zero more powerful than it was In OTL. Tactics like the "Thach Weave" helped Wildcat pilot's to even the odds against the zero and prevented the fighter from gaining complete dominating the skies while the wildcat was still in use. If you go back and read the actual battle, there's never any exact reason given as to why the Zero wins the air battle. They just do. If that was the case, then Midway would've been a disaster. The "Thach Weave" was first used during -- and helped win -- the Battle of Midway against the fast and highly maneuverable zero in OTL, so why doesn't it help win the first battle of Hawaii against an evenly matched foe? The answer is simple; Harry made the zero more powerful. Mr Nelg

Josef Lemp
Good, so I wasn't imagining it.

This guy is a historical figure. You want to call Oleg Lopatin "Igor," you're only hurting yourself; but with a real person, it made me want to bang my head against the wall. Turtle Fan 06:06, July 29, 2010 (UTC)

Help
Tried moving the Hossbach picture to make it more readable but the Theo Hossbach tag keeps appearing interrumpting the text.WastedTime 13:32, April 5, 2011 (UTC)


 * I hope that's what you meant. TR 14:59, April 5, 2011 (UTC)

Emilio Mola
Is that really an inconsistency? They didn't say "There's no such general as Emilio Mola," they merely didn't mention him. Is it that hard to imagine he'd slip their minds? Turtle Fan 17:15, April 5, 2011 (UTC)


 * We can debate that. The "pro-argument" would be that at that point, Mola was really the chief planner and leader. Sanjurjo was a figurehead. So not thinking of Mola as an obvious replacement is "strange".


 * If I said that I thought the likeliest GOP ticket in 2012 will be Gingrich-Pawlenty and you said Romney-Barbour, and we both snubbed Mrs Palin, would it really be that "strange?" Turtle Fan 17:50, April 5, 2011 (UTC)


 * While I see your point, my counter-argument would be that while Palin is a front and center figure, she is hardly as indespensible as all that. Given the importance of Mola to the nationalist cause, a better analogy (not a perfect one) would be two people wondering if John Boehner or Daniel Inouye could possibly replace Obama as POTUS, without mentioning that Biden is still alive and is ahead of the other two in the line of succession.


 * True, but the line of presidential succession is clear cut. In the Nationalist leadership there was no equivalent of a vice president, so it's up to the individual handicapper to consider whom he pleases. Maybe it was foolish to ignore Mola, but really, where's the law saying he would have to? Whereas there is indeed a law (Presidential Succession Act, or Act of Presidential Succession; I forget which) saying that one must consider the Vice President before going to the Hill. Turtle Fan 00:10, April 6, 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't think it's an error, but an artistic choice on HT's part. But I do want to afford the person who posted it an opportunity to join the argument. TR 18:10, April 5, 2011 (UTC)


 * That's fair. Who posted it, anyway? An anon? I seem to remember it having been there awhile. Since the editor moved it to the top of the list instead of putting it at the bottom as per tradition, we can't judge its relative age. Turtle Fan 00:10, April 6, 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi, it was me who posted it. At the time I read it the whole opening scene struck me as kind of lame and badly written - having Sanjurjo name half a dozen generals and plainly forget about Franco, who was almost a nobody at the time, would have been a lot more clever, funnier and realistic way to carry on the whole see-they're-not-going-to-be-lead-by-Franco-this-time-thats-the-POD thing. But I see the con point. It can be bad writing, bad alternate history even, but it is not a clear cut, factually inaccurate item so to speak. As you say, they didn't deny that Mola existed, nor was there a law that said Mola had to succeed Sanjurjo if he was killed. So feel free to take it down if you feel it's the best thing to do. Oh, and about posting it as the first of the entries, I did it just because I was under the impression that the entries had to be included in the same order as they happened in the books.WastedTime 16:19, April 27, 2011 (UTC)


 * No biggie with the order of entries. We tend to tack each one onto the end so they reflect the order in which we thought of them. Since that's not necessarily of any great interest to most readers, your idea might be better. I think I will remove the Mola entry, though. Turtle Fan 16:49, April 27, 2011 (UTC)


 * On "con" side--as HT was obviously being twee in that moment, this probably isn't so much an inconsistency as an artistic choice of HT's.


 * I'd go along with that. Turtle Fan 17:50, April 5, 2011 (UTC)


 * Incidentally, what the hell did happen to Mola? He's mentioned in passing in HW. In OTL, he died in a plane crash in 1937, and given how HT conducts history before 1938, that's arguably what happened to him here. But it would sure be nice to know one way or the other. TR 17:33, April 5, 2011 (UTC)


 * Beats me, but we can't have everyone survive airplane crashes in this timeline, now can we? Turtle Fan 17:50, April 5, 2011 (UTC)

Jews in Spain
WastedTime, I don't believe they were referring to an actual statute against being a Jew, but to the political and social disadvantages Jews faced--hyperbole. Though with the Republic and Reich being much more closely intertwined in this timeline, one never knows, I suppose. Turtle Fan 02:30, July 10, 2011 (UTC)


 * I'll still need some days to put the reply, sorry.WastedTime 12:34, July 25, 2011 (UTC)

Featherston's Age
I can't find a single reference doing Amazon search to Featherston turning 35, much less after 1921. Can anyone remember any specifics on that one? TR 21:38, November 8, 2011 (UTC)


 * I remember Mak laying it out in a discussion of discontinuity in HT's fictional universes on one of the message boards. I just transplanted it over here when I created this page. If anyone still knows how to reach him maybe he could explain? Turtle Fan 00:03, November 9, 2011 (UTC)

Buckingham Square Shopping Center
I'm sorry to hear it's gone. I remember having a very nice lunch at their food court one afternoon. The significance of that meal became greater over time: In a discussion of science fiction, someone recommended that I check out a book I'd somehow never heard of till then, called Dune by Frank Herbert. It would be many years before I got around to doing so, but once I finally did it would become my favorite book. Turtle Fan 03:37, January 8, 2012 (UTC)


 * That must have been a while ago. Mrs. TR and I lived within walking distance of the place from 2003-2008, and unfortunately it was obviously on the decline from 2003 to the end.  TR 19:48, January 8, 2012 (UTC)


 * 2004. I remember because we went from there to Coor's Field.  The Rockies were playing the Red Sox, Tim Wakefield was pitching, and I tried taunting him with his then-recent home run to Aaron Boone the year before.  It didn't help; they shut the Rox out. :(


 * I don't remember it looking decrepit, but it didn't look too grand, either. My impression of the place itself was long the lines of "Meh, it's okay." Turtle Fan 23:34, January 8, 2012 (UTC)

Book covers
Wondering if you'd list inaccuracies in book covers such as wrong uniforms, flags, etc, both in relation to the book content and real life (such as this clusterfuckseen in one of Breakthroughs paperback editions). I know they are not "Turtledove's work", though.Eljuma (talk) 21:39, August 26, 2012 (UTC)
 * Those of us who are S. M. Stirling fans wince every time a new cover comes out. They're NEVER right!  Personally I wouldn't pick on HT for the "sins" of the publisher/artists.-- 21:46, August 26, 2012 (UTC)


 * My inclination is not to list those, as Turtledove has no control over the covers of his books. Others may have a different opinion.  TR (talk) 21:47, August 26, 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree with TR. Turtledove can't help what publishers put on book covers (although according to him, it did lead to GotS so its not all bad). ML4E (talk) 20:14, August 28, 2012 (UTC)

Wilhelm I serving under Napoleon
In How Few Remain, Alfred von Schlieffen mentioned that Wilhelm I is one of the last surviving soldiers to have served under Napoleon in the early 19th Century. While Prussia was allied with France for a time during the Napoleonic Wars, it joined the Sixth Coalition against Napoleon in 1812, having previously been a member of the First and Fourth Coalitions. Wilhelm I didn't join the Prussian Army until 1814 when he was 17 years old so he never fought under Napoleon. In fact, he fought against him at the Battle of Waterloo and was one of its last surviving veterans when he died in 1888. GusF (talk) 21:32, February 13, 2014 (UTC)


 * Good catch. I'm going to just copy and paste this paragraph into the page.  TR (talk) 22:12, February 13, 2014 (UTC)

Japanese carrier organization in Days of Infamy
One of the errors that comes up in Days of Infamy is the way Turtledove depicts Japanese aircraft carrier organization. In the novels, the carriers are deployed as individual ships, so that the Akagi and the Soryu are left to protect Hawaii while the other carriers are sent west.

One of the advantages the Japanese had over their American counterparts was that they had organized their carriers in pairs. The carrier divisions weren't randomly created either: each pair of ships was roughly the same age, had a similar aircraft capacity and possessed other matching capabilities.

So if the Japanese were going to leave the Soryu to guard Hawaii, they would have left her division mate Hiryu with her, not the Akagi which was a much older ship and already paired with the similar vessel Kaga. The Shokaku and Zuikaku are sent to Hawaii together, but Days of Infamy implies that the reason is simply because they are Japan's biggest and best carriers, not because they've been operating together from day one as a single unit.

There are already points on this page about how the 1st Battle of the North Pacific is fought in a way that contradicts real-life Japanese doctrine, and how the Zero is shown as an all-powerful master of the skies when in fact it wasn't. Perhaps a point can be also added that the Japanese don't seem to be using the effective carrier organization that served them well in real-life.

OrwellianfromOz (talk) 06:29, July 26, 2014 (UTC)


 * If you can boil that down to something relatively concise, feel free to add it. TR (talk) 15:17, July 26, 2014 (UTC)

Is Liberty Hall Independence Hall?
I talked about this on the talk page on the Liberty Hall artical a while back. The building is called "Independence Hall". However, in Southern Victory, it is called "Liberty Hall". Did the name of the building change? Also, one of the books said that the inside looked like an office (as it was the meeting place for the U.S Congress). However, Independence Hall looks nothing like an office in real life. Is it a entirly different building?! I just wanted to know. 24.147.1.197 21:20, September 19, 2014 (UTC) Jacob Chesley


 * Yeah, I think it is. Independence Hall still holds the Liberty Bell.  Liberty Hall is where Congress meets.  TR (talk) 02:03, September 20, 2014 (UTC)

Confederate inauguration
"60. Inauguration day for the Confederate President is said to be March 4, the same day as the US President until the 1930s, but Jefferson Davis was inaugurated for his "full" term on February 22, 1862. It seems highly unlikely that the date would be changed to March 4, given that the CS of this timeline would almost certainly not adopt a "damnyankee" custom."

That's utterly subjective. The CSA in OTL and in the series adopted a number of US customs and laws at the outset, which makes perfect sense, as the Founders of the CS had lived under those US customs their entire lives, and generally speaking, the logic for them still applied in the CS. In OTL, Davis was inaugurated in February 1861 under the provisional constitution in place; he was rubber stamped in under the final Constitution of the CS the following year (as one might expect in a nascent government that was in open rebellion, protocol was uncertain). It doesn't automatically follow then that they'd keep February as inauguration day just because they hated the US so much they wouldn't dare use March 4.

That HT opted to keep March 4 is not an inconsistency, but an authorial choice. It's not like Tennessee voting for Coolidge in TCCH. It doesn't belong here. TR (talk) 15:32, July 24, 2015 (UTC)

Great Schism
"The Great Schism between the Latin and Greek churches had not occurred by 700 AD, yet there seems to be great animosity between the western and eastern branches of Christianity in the story."

Not sure if this really qualifies. Obviously, the Great Schism didn't happen overnight--there were centuries of opportunities for the West and East to split. TR (talk) 06:49, September 7, 2015 (UTC)


 * A quick perusal of Wikipedia on this traces the discontent and disagreement back to 476 AD with the last Western Roman Emperor. The west was Latin speaking and the east Greek so that was part of it.


 * Also, from Wikipedia "In 732, Emperor Leo III the Isaurian, in revenge for the opposition of Pope Gregory III to the emperor's iconoclast policies, transferred Sicily, Calabria and Illyria from the patriarchate of Rome (whose jurisdiction until then extended as far east as Thessalonica) to that of Constantinople." Leo III is the grandfather of one of the Byzantine priests in the story. And then "The West's rejection of the Quinisext Council of 692 led to pressure from the Eastern Empire on the West to reject many Latin customs as non-Orthodox." Looks to me that there was a lot of animosity in OTL between the two well before the Great Schism and certainly at the time of the story. ML4E (talk) 15:18, September 8, 2015 (UTC)


 * So it's not all that weird that they don't like each other. Obviously, given the rise of Islam, that split isn't in their best interest. But disunity even in the face of what should be an overwhelming, unifying threat is not uncommon in human history. Not really an inconsistency for our purposes. TR (talk) 17:08, September 8, 2015 (UTC)


 * Agreed. It appears Johnathan added this from the Criticisms section of "Islands in the Sea". ML4E (talk) 19:22, September 8, 2015 (UTC)

Dom Pedro IV
Not comfortable with this one, as we don't know much of anything about the history of Brazil in this TL. HT may have (I'm snickering as I type this) done an elaborate bit of mapping out how Brazil is ruled by Pedro IV in 1914. But the fact that we don't know really means we can't call this an inconsistency. TR (talk) 06:58, November 13, 2015 (UTC)


 * I agree with TR. Its a bit of a stretch for Pedro IV but not impossibly so. While its possible that HT made a mistake, it is speculative too. If it were say Pedro VI then definitely but I always thought that some of the entries here were too persnickety so try to discourage them where possible. ML4E (talk) 17:49, November 14, 2015 (UTC)

Blaise?
Is there a reason you've gutted the article? Turtle Fan (talk) 15:34, January 17, 2016 (UTC)


 * I notice Blaise typed something like "What happened here?"


 * Some glitch will occasionally prevent the text of longer articles like this one from appearing when you first bring them up. You have to refresh a few times.  If you don't, it looks like someone has deleted all of the text.  Given what Blaise typed, I think that might have happened here.  TR (talk) 17:27, January 17, 2016 (UTC)

Inconsistencies in The Two Georges
I see Jonathan has added a general comment about historical people being born well after the POD and referencing Richard Nixon specifically. I don't think this fits here as it is applicable to any AH work set well after the POD. A separate article outlining this might be in order instead. This addition references Turtledove's "Alternate History: The How-to of What Might Have Been" essay in We Install and Other Stories so an article on that non-fiction piece might be the place to put it. We do have some already and I have intended for some time to do one on "The Ring and I".

Also, Jonathan has added Category: Inconsistencies to the Nixon article. I think that shouldn't be done since any historical character born in the 20th century would have to be flagged that way which defeats the purpose of categorization. In any case, its a generally accepted Trope of AH so really shouldn't be treated as an inconsistency. ML4E (talk) 22:36, February 9, 2016 (UTC)


 * I agree--it's a trope, not an inconsistency. I wasn't dying to have articles on the non-fiction pieces, but I think that this would be the best place for the section.


 * Definitely not in the inconsistencies page, that's for sure. TR (talk) 02:21, February 10, 2016 (UTC)


 * Not only is it a trope, it's a Trope; that TV Tropes website refers to this version of Nixon specificslly.


 * In the old days Jonathan's entry might have flown. As it is, this page is well overdue to have us go through it swinging machetes. Turtle Fan (talk) 03:33, February 10, 2016 (UTC)


 * HT seems to be saying it's an inconsistency. Also, the Nixon matter is apparently quite controversial, so it should be addressed somewhere.JonathanMarkoff (talk) 03:32, February 10, 2016 (UTC)


 * No, he's admitting that there are certain expectations for the genre, but that it's also fiction and so tropes aren't ironclad. TR (talk) 05:02, February 10, 2016 (UTC)


 * Another way to put it is that its an acceptable break from reality the way FTL travel and transporters are in science fiction. Another way to address the issue occurred to me, namely to put a note to that effect in "T2G Characters" category description. If you really want to, that could then be cat'ed into the "Inconsistencies" category but I strongly object to cating every historical born in the 20th century there. ML4E (talk) 19:49, February 10, 2016 (UTC)


 * There are only three 20th-century-born OTL figures confirmed as appearing in T2G: RMN, JFK, and MLK. (RFK and Thatcher are too ambiguous and shouldn't really be in T2G char list.) That's not too big a list, I think. This is coloured by my subjective personal opinions on what is appropriate for a POD and what isn't. I'm just barely OK with Edward VIII's existence in T2G, so I refrain from pointing him as a goof. Since the book creates fictional royals after him, it avoids problems to my view after that point. (I really like T2G version of MLK, however implausible he is. RMN and JFK are done reasonably well as cameos, but that's all subjective.)JonathanMarkoff (talk) 20:02, February 10, 2016 (UTC)

I'm Feeling Lucky
I just reread the Inconsistencies for "Throne Room" and so tried to Google "RD". I just realized that the "I'm Feeling Lucky" button no longer exists when you type into the search bar. Instead you get suggestions with hitting the return the only way to get a response. ML4E (talk) 19:28, May 3, 2016 (UTC)


 * Oh really? I haven't actually gone to Google in quite some time. I just type whatever I'm looking up right into the navigation bar these days. Turtle Fan (talk) 22:31, May 3, 2016 (UTC)

Arkansas Gov Mansion in Worldwar
The entry about the Gov Mansion in Worldwar considers it an inconsistency that the building is called the New White House in one book and the Gray House in the next. I don't think that's enough to be an inconsistency. Maybe different members of the press call it different things? There are plenty of real buildings with more than one popular name. I vote that that hair-splitting part be removed from the goofs list. However, the point that at the POD, Arkansas didn't have a Gov's Mansion for the POTUS to move into, is valid and should stay.JonathanMarkoff (talk) 09:31, May 14, 2016 (UTC)


 * It's called the "White House" exclusively in Second Contact. It becomes the "Gray House" beginning in Down to Earth without any reference to the White House name.  Moreover, we learn it's called the "Gray House" to honor the destroyed "White House".  That's a textbook inconsistency.  TR (talk) 13:49, May 14, 2016 (UTC)

Reorganization
Just FYI, I'm slowly reorganizing the 191 section to get things in a chronological order. I looked at the TWPE and THW sections, and realized that they would receive the benefit of being written as each volume was released, and I find I like that look much better than the more hap-hazard approach we wound up with in 191. I'll probably do the same thing with Worldwar. TR (talk) 17:49, September 5, 2016 (UTC)


 * Ok, done. I also deleted a couple that were just silly. We don't have enough info about the history of Brazil to say whether Dom Pedro IV is a legit inconsistency, for example. Also, I reviewed the scenes between Ophelia Clemens and Flora Blackford--Flora concludes that Ophelia "had to be fifteen years older", not that she is in fact 15 years older, so it's not precise enough to call into question Flora's age/eligibility to serve in the House. TR (talk) 19:31, September 5, 2016 (UTC)


 * And appears WW was already done. Huh. TR (talk) 19:32, September 5, 2016 (UTC)

The Case of the Toxic Spell Dump/Thessalonica
I think it best to regard the two novels as separate universes where HT simply recycled a lot of ideas, and consider that Steven Silver was mistaken. Then move Case to its own section, as there are already two discovered inconsistencies within the novel itself. If someone ever catalogs Thess, then it can get a section.JonathanMarkoff (talk) 21:50, September 13, 2016 (UTC)


 * Silver was HT's official webmaster at the time, so was able to speak ex cathedra. On the other hand, "does seem to be" is not the sort of phrase a person uses when invoking infallibility. And while I do find it hard to imagine Poseidon outliving Zeus by so long given the rules of henotheism outlined in Thess, stranger things have happened. We don't even get confirmation that Zeus is dead, in fact, just that he hadn't been seen in a long time. Maybe the Olympians were hibernating? Turtle Fan (talk) 23:05, September 13, 2016 (UTC)


 * If the novel doesn't say Zeus is dead, he should be removed from the list of dead people, also there is no inconsistency.JonathanMarkoff (talk) 23:28, September 13, 2016 (UTC)


 * You're right. We were way too quick to add to this list back in the day. Turtle Fan (talk) 06:09, September 14, 2016 (UTC)

Much-earlier analogs
As analogs who were born in an earlier time than their models seem to be a Turtledove trope, I move to remove them from the goofs list. This includes Richard Trevithick, the wiretapping soldiers in The Grapple, and the pirates of Avalon. Sigismondo Gioioso has never been considered a goof. Nor has Wilberforce (A Different Flesh). Trevithick's article should be overhauled to make him completely fictional.JonathanMarkoff (talk) 07:18, December 6, 2016 (UTC)


 * I always felt Sgt. Carl Bernstein, Bob and Dick were a deliberate joke on the part of Turtledove and shouldn't be called an inconsistency. As for fictionalizing Trevithick, I am of two minds. I can see the value of treating him as a wholly fictional character. On the other hand, it is pretty clear Turtledove is using the historical figure as an analog and so doing up the character as a historical rather than fictional character gives more background on what Turtledove was thinking when he wrote the story. ML4E (talk) 20:04, December 6, 2016 (UTC)


 * I agree with removing Carl, Bob, and Dick from the inconsistencies page. The joke is terrible, but quite deliberate on HT's part.


 * As for Trevithick...(sigh). Initially, I assumed HT just sort of lost sight of the fact that OTL Trevithick wasn't old enough to build a steam engine in 1782. Now I think HT deliberately made this decision, and that ADF Trevithick is not "our" Trevithick. So I think I agree that we should just move him to "Richard Trevithick (Fictional Character)" and leave a lit comment. TR (talk)


 * Guess I agree, to both. Turtle Fan (talk) 02:47, December 7, 2016 (UTC)


 * For an article title, I think "Richard Trevithick (A Different Flesh)" is more helpful than "Richard Trevithick (Fictional Character)". For comparison, there has also been talk about Jeb Stuart Jr.'s precise status. I personally believe HT meant to depict the historical figure, and got the wrong year of birth - an easy enough mistake, as Stuart Jr.'s biography is fairly obscure, and HFR was being written at a time when wikis were unknown. HT made a comparably simple mistake in The Guns of the South when he misidentified the incumbent French foreign minister in 1864. By contrast, Trevithick appears in ADF about a century after British and American history have been significantly impacted by the POD, plus his nationality is changed, so it's pretty clear he's not the same man as in OTL. The article may require a lengthy lit comm, as I doubr many people outside of specialised researchers have heard of Trevithick.JonathanMarkoff (talk) 10:21, December 7, 2016 (UTC)


 * The last part, a lengthy lit. comm. is why I think it might be better to leave Trevithick a Historical Char rather than Fictional. Then only a short lit. comm. would explain things. ML4E (talk) 23:35, December 7, 2016 (UTC)


 * How about Trevithick as a fictional character, followed by this lit comm: "This character was previously assumed to be Richard Trevithick (1771-1833), a British inventor who built the first full-scale working railway steam locomotive in 1804. However, he was only 11 years old in 1782. Furthermore, the A Different Flesh character is American. Thus, the character is more likely to be a fictional analog of the historical Trevithick." Anyone wanting more info on the historical Trevithick can search out Wikipedia.JonathanMarkoff (talk) 09:13, December 8, 2016 (UTC)


 * Or how about "Richard Trevithick is probably based on the historical inventor who built the first working railway locomotive. Given their difference in age, they are not the same person." We don't need to belabor it much more than that. TR (talk) 15:59, December 8, 2016 (UTC)


 * I agree with TR. It all depends on how much biographical info on the historical figure we decided we need. Jonathan was previously suggesting a need for an extensive biography as a Lit. Comm. That, I think, would be better handled as keeping Trevithick a historical character. On the other hand, if the consensus is that a minimal bio is all that is needed, then treating this as a fictional character with a short Lit. Comm. is fine. ML4E (talk) 16:30, December 8, 2016 (UTC)


 * Back to the drawing board: "Richard Trevithick (1771-1833) was a historical British inventor who built the first working railway locomotive in 1804. Given the difference in age and nationality, this same-named character cannot be the same person."JonathanMarkoff (talk) 21:08, December 8, 2016 (UTC)

Austria in ItPoME
Austria became Ostmark at the Anschluss, but characters still refer to it as Austria. I think this is not a goof, but a translation issue. Austria's German name is Osterreich, meaning Eastern Realm, whereas Ostmark means Eastern March (of the Greater German Realm). Austria is a Latin corruption of Osterreich, but the Latins never heard the term Ostmark and so had no reason to make their own version of it. If they had, they might have come up with something like Austmarca, but they didn't. Thus, it is reasonable to use Austria as the English "translation" of Ostmark as well as Osterreich. Remember that the novel's main characters are all speaking German (except for short intervals like when Susanna is in England), which is "translated" to English for our benefit, so when we read them saying "Austria" they are really saying "Ostmark." In short, this issue is not an inconsistency and should be removed from the list. At least that's my interpretation.JonathanMarkoff (talk) 18:51, February 5, 2017 (UTC)


 * It's not about translation. Austria has not been independent for 70 years by the time of the novel's setting.   Haldweim is said to have been born in "the Ostmark when it was still Austria."  The number of people who have have a living memory of Austria being called that is probably quite small, and decreasing every day. Every POV character was born well after the Anschluss. The "default" name on the region should therefore be "Ostmark".  However, when we get the elections results, it is called "Austria".  TR (talk) 19:15, February 5, 2017 (UTC)

Generations in A Different Flesh
Similar to the Tomayto, Tomahto, Osterreich, Ostmark, debate in an above section, I don't think the "generation" stuff in ADF is a goof either. The item even basically says that "generation" means any length of time you want it to. E.g., look at Star Trek. Picard's career is supposed to be the "Next Generation" from Kirk, but it's set 100 years after Kirk's 5-year mission, rather than a mere 20 or 30. To point out a similar example in real life, American and British people can't even agree on how much is a billion.JonathanMarkoff (talk) 18:51, February 5, 2017 (UTC)


 * Turtledove's own usage suggests that he subscribes the the 20-30 year model. TR (talk) 19:19, February 5, 2017 (UTC)

Gentlemen of the Shade
This isn't an inconsistency. The graffito did indeed include that spelling of "Juwes". Therefore listing it simply to point out that HT did his homework serves no purpose. TR (talk) 19:24, February 5, 2017 (UTC)


 * HT incorrectly records the spelling as "Jewes" rather than the correct "Juwes."JonathanMarkoff (talk) 19:26, February 5, 2017 (UTC)