Talk:References to Historical Figures in Turtledove's Work

Story Character Categories
Previously I had mentioned that we should keep the character categories for those articles whose sub-sections had been moved here. See Talk:Stephen Douglas for more on that. I see that TR has removed them during the latest batch of changes. I assume that was an oversight but want to see if there is any more thoughts on the matter. I do wish to point out that for those who are only redirects, the character cat(s) remain. ML4E (talk) 17:17, August 20, 2016 (UTC)


 * I'm inclined to remove and leave the "See Also" sections. TR (talk) 17:23, August 20, 2016 (UTC)


 * My reasoning is to make it easy for people looking in the story cats but it might not be obvious for them to look at the "See Also". Maybe back to the individual story redirects as I previously suggested. Or not. I don't have strong feelings on it. ML4E (talk) 17:38, August 20, 2016 (UTC)


 * I'm tempted to do the story redirect, but then I think we'd simply sow confusion--why are categorizing these redirects, but not redirects for the substantial characters? I don't know, I don't see a completely satisfying resolution to the issue. TR (talk) 18:52, August 20, 2016 (UTC)


 * Because the substantial articles appear directly rather than as a redirect. For instance, the "Charles Coughlin" article would appear in the Joe Steele Characters cat while "Charles Coughlin (Worldwar)" as a redirect to here would appear in the WW characters cat. In addition, the redirect would show in italics indicating to an experienced user that it is a redirect and so unlikely to be a major appearance. ML4E (talk) 18:08, August 21, 2016 (UTC)

Additional Popes in "Under St. Peter's"
In USP, Pope Benedict XVI reflects that he won't have as long a reign as Pope John Paul II, but John XXIII showed you didn't need a long reign to make your mark.(We Install and Other Stories, p. 249.) On page 253, on his way to the Order of the Pipistrelle's hidden chamber, Benedict passes the tombs of Innocent VIII and Pius X.JonathanMarkoff (talk) 17:56, August 1, 2016 (UTC)


 * They are just name-checked so I don't think they need sub-sections here. Readers will just think "a couple of dead popes" and don't need any other information. ML4E (talk) 17:55, August 3, 2016 (UTC)


 * I think the reference to John 23 is a mildly interesting character moment for B16, but not worth a complete J23 page. I'm not going to argue for the list of tombs.JonathanMarkoff (talk) 06:17, August 4, 2016 (UTC)


 * Also, at one point, B16 is thinking about a reporter's apparently surprised statement that "the new Pope is named after a previous one", and is thinks to himself that the reporter should have figured out he (B16) is named after not just one, but 15 previous Popes. He thinks something like "what did he think the 16 after the name meant." Maybe this could justify a ref subarticle on Benedict XV.JonathanMarkoff (talk) 20:10, August 4, 2016 (UTC)


 * It seems like it would be a reference to B 1-15 if we really wanted to stretch it. And no, I don't see any point in stretching it. TR (talk) 20:33, August 4, 2016 (UTC)

Locked page
I have a lot of legitimate passages from HT works that I'd like to submit here.JonathanMarkoff (talk) 05:55, October 7, 2016 (UTC)


 * While Jonathan has added some useful references, he has unilaterally started adding individuals who we have not yet agreed to change. I have therefore increased the protection once more. Jonathan should use the article(s) talk page(s) rather than changing things. If he promises to not do this in future, then maybe we can unlock the page since he has correctly added a few minor historical references. ML4E (talk) 16:23, October 15, 2016 (UTC)

Henri Pirenne
Henri Pirenne is probably more appropriate to be moved to Literary Allusions in Turtledove's Work rather than hist refs.JonathanMarkoff (talk) 08:00, October 10, 2016 (UTC)


 * He is a historian not a literary figure. Should stay where it is. ML4E (talk) 16:48, October 11, 2016 (UTC)

James Longstreet

 * "In The Hot War: Fallout, Rolf Mehlen also comments on the Ivans being as sensitive about their flanks as virgins. Given that Mehlen is not American and doesn't seem especially educated, it's a safe bet that he, too, is ignorant of the quote's source."

The way Rolf says it, it is not at all like a quote but as though it is a notion he came up with himself. This is Turtledove being twee rather than directly quoting Longstreet. Suggestions on changes in wording would be appreciated. ML4E (talk) 17:22, October 11, 2016 (UTC)


 * It could be something that Rolf heard some educated Nazi mucky muck say, and it imprinted into his subconscious, so he comes up with a previously existing saying without being conscious that he's plagiarizing. If HT had Conan say it in Whatever BC, it would be twee, but since Longstreet's life is unchanged in THW universe, the quote still traces back to Longstreet.JonathanMarkoff (talk) 20:44, October 11, 2016 (UTC)


 * Its not presented that way and I do not think it should be stated as if it were. A specific example where it cannot be subconscious memory is Jeremiah Stafford repeating Lincoln's line about borrowing the Atlantean Army if Colonel Balthasar Sinapis isn't using it. Stafford's thoughts of Augustus' line after the disaster in the Green Ridge Mountains "Consul Stafford, give back my Army!" are a direct quote. Precedence for Turtledove being twee rather than direct quotes are shown by the two statements. ML4E (talk) 17:33, October 13, 2016 (UTC)


 * If you're going to play that game, you might as well suggest that Longstreet subconsciously paraphrased something he'd picked up from some long-forgotten source himself, and that it's turtles all the way down.


 * However, as Rolf is a fictional character, he's had no experiences beyond those which the author chooses to portray or allude to in the text. So the assumption that he met some Longstreet-reading mucky muck in his non-existent past is entirely baseless. Turtle Fan (talk) 23:00, October 11, 2016 (UTC)


 * Any suggestions on how to change the wording? ML4E (talk) 17:33, October 13, 2016 (UTC)


 * I'll try to think of something, though I'm not certain it needs to be said at all. Sometimes these things are so subtle that calling them out only serves to annoy. Turtle Fan (talk) 21:53, October 13, 2016 (UTC)


 * Well, my original entry was only to note Rolf made the comment about green troops being nervous about their flanks without going into how he came up with the phrase. Maybe reverting to that would be best. ML4E (talk) 15:46, October 15, 2016 (UTC)

Out of universe refs
Out of universe refs are already common on Musical References in Turtledove's Work and Literary Allusions in Turtledove's Work, so I think they are suitable here. For instance, the Beatles ref list has a character in The War That Came Early just happening to recite lines from a Beatles song, a few years before any Beatles were born. If one character paraphrases a famous Abraham Lincoln quote in a timeline where Lincoln never existed, or in a quasi medieval fantasy setting, I think that counts as a hist ref, even if it's not such in universe. And I think the historical analogs that are the basis for fictional characters are interesting and worthy enough for this page.JonathanMarkoff (talk) 19:17, October 16, 2016 (UTC)


 * I assume this is in reference to Blair and Waldheim. Both Charlie Lynton and Kurt Haldweim both have lit comms AND we have a Parallelism in In The Presence of Mine Enemies page. Listing that info for a third time here is just a redundancy. TR (talk) 19:48, October 16, 2016 (UTC)

Assassins and Other Rif-raf
Jonathan appears to be proposing that four unnamed assassins be added to the Hist Ref file. I think that is not needed. The relevant passage is one paragraph on page 273 of Bombs Away where Truman is musing about the probable ineffectiveness of the Secret Service when they rushed past him at LAX to guard against possible assassins among a group of reporters. None of these individuals are named so users of this wiki would have no way of keying in on them. It might be marginally useful to include a paragraph on this in the OTL Truman and Roosevelt articles (naming the individual assassins) for those interested but I see no useful purpose in including them here. Likewise, the Mayor of Chicago, who was killed in the FDR attempt, is unnamed so a subsection here serves no purpose. A William McKinley sub-section might be warranted for the purposes of outlining his murder, but Czolgosz needs to only be named there and no separate subsection created for him.

However, I am not convinced even the three presidential additions are necessary. This is a wiki on the works of Turtledove not the Wikipedia. Anyone interested in more details can Google that but including superfluous info that Turtledove does not include or need for his story is beyond the purpose of this wiki.

Likewise, I have marked Aaron Burr‎ for deletion since his name is a throw-away line with no significance to the reader of Turtledove's works. If anyone is interested, they can Google him but any information gleaned will not increase the appreciation of the story. ML4E (talk) 18:55, October 17, 2016 (UTC)


 * I'm more and more inclined to agree with ML4E. At some point, the Historical References page is going to become unwieldy and full of minutiae.


 * Yes, I have some concerns in that area too. Turtle Fan (talk) 22:51, October 17, 2016 (UTC)


 * We once broached the idea of a "Historical Events" type page. That might make a better fit for these sorts of references, if that was the route we wanted to go. TR (talk) 19:06, October 17, 2016 (UTC)

Anything you want to say to defend adding them here Jonathan? ML4E (talk) 18:00, October 18, 2016 (UTC)


 * Collazo and Torresola are a colorful recent experience of Truman. The others are useful because they make clear who the unnamed figures in the novel are.JonathanMarkoff (talk) 21:44, October 28, 2016 (UTC)


 * You do not address my point above that they are unnamed and so a user of this wiki will have no way of searching for them here. Instead, anyone having an interest in this historical, unchanged event should and would Google "Truman assassination" and get this as the first result. Likewise Googling "FDR assassination" gets the Giuseppe Zangara Wikipedia article and "Mckinley assassination" gets us this. The purpose of this wiki is to document Turtledove's work not minor historical references he may make. If Turtledove had devoted several paragraphs to recreating the attempted assassination of Truman, then yes but a throw-away line, no. Anyone interested can get much more information by Googling other, more detailed sources. ML4E (talk) 16:51, October 29, 2016 (UTC)

John of Brittany, Earl of Richmond
The picture of John of Brittany's coat of arms should be included in his section because that's what his reference in "Clash of Arms" focuses on.JonathanMarkoff (talk) 05:46, October 18, 2016 (UTC)


 * Agreed and done. ML4E (talk)

John Stubbs
When Philip Stubbes refuses to repent before being burned by the Inquisition, he says "Elizabeth cut off my brother's hand for speaking the truth." This is a fleeting reference to the behanding of John Stubbs, who might or might not have been Stubbes' brother. The Stubbs guy's bio is worth a look, if only because of how bizarre it is.--Eljuma (talk) 16:53, October 28, 2016 (UTC)


 * This might be worth investigating.JonathanMarkoff (talk) 22:22, May 22, 2017 (UTC)


 * I agree. Let's add John Stubbs. TR (talk) 22:24, May 22, 2017 (UTC)

Photos
Did we want to add these back in? We don't have to have pithy little comments, just post the pics we already have. TR (talk) 04:00, November 8, 2016 (UTC)


 * I guess. But if we're saying these people aren't worth articles, are they worth illustrating even so? Turtle Fan (talk) 04:53, November 8, 2016 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure we need any photos unless they illustrate something e.g. Franz Joseph's muttonchops (pithy comments optional). Off hand, maybe Leonid Brezhnev to illustrate his distinctive eyebrows. So it would be photos for those whose physical attributes are significant to the story (e.g. French chippie falling out of her clothes if we move her.) ML4E (talk) 18:56, November 9, 2016 (UTC)

Sections needing improvement
There are plenty of subsections on this page with misspellings, incomplete titles, bad punctuation, etcetera, that need fixing.JonathanMarkoff (talk) 07:15, November 27, 2016 (UTC)


 * I don't see much of a much but will take the next few days to personally go through the list. You have made this claim in the past but then used the opportunity to make meaningless changes instead. However, if there is anything in particular, please note it here and I will edit it. ML4E (talk) 21:54, November 27, 2016 (UTC)

Wilhelm II
Wilhelm's section could be improved like this: "In addition to his significant background roles in Turtledove's work, Wilhelm II, German Emperor is a frequent topic of discussion in The War That Came Early. Throughout the series, numerous characters, from all sides, debate the degrees of Wilhelm's character, his competence as a military leader, and his culpability in starting and then losing World War I."JonathanMarkoff (talk) 18:12, December 23, 2016 (UTC)


 * I do not consider a general statement like this one an improvement on a specific example we currently have. Please provide specific comments by particular characters (with page references) and I will be willing to incorporate that into the sub-section. Provide enough, and what you have proposed might serve as an introductory sentence. ML4E (talk) 21:49, December 23, 2016 (UTC)

Nicholas II
In addition to his more significant references in Turtledove's work, Tsar Nicholas II of Russia is mentioned in passing on other occasions. In The House of Daniel, American popular wisdom holds that Nicholas (or perhaps his fantasy analog - this point is unclear) was killed by vampires, but no one outside of Soviet borders really knows for certain. JonathanMarkoff (talk) 08:40, January 15, 2017 (UTC)

Donald Trump
Can somebody remove the part about the american election being rigged by putin to get trump elected, because it is biased. I would apritiate that very much thank you. BenGarrisonFan101 (talk) 23:45, February 25 2017


 * You're out of luck. Turtle Fan (talk) 05:19, March 6, 2017 (UTC)


 * The CIA has presented a damning case that Putin and Russia did act to influence the election in Trump's favor. It is not biased to point out legitimate facts. TR (talk) 02:18, February 26, 2017


 * Oh sure and I bet if the cia said that islands can float in the air you'd believe that to? Come on man, do research yourself, don't listen to what your government tells you to do. Also you exuate Donald Trump with Adolf Hitler witch is absurd. He is nothing like hitler, if anything he is more like mussolini than hitler.


 * BenGarrisonFan101 (talk) 22:31 2017-05-22


 * Wow, 3 months to respond. You must care deeply about this issue.


 * I have done the research. It isn't just the CIA, saying this. Your analogy is silly. It is objectively impossible at this time to make islands float in the air. It is however not unheard of for governments of one country to interfere in the running of other governments and the affairs of other countries. (And yes, I am painfully aware of the horrors the US has inflicted on other countries. Doesn't absolve Putin.)


 * What!?!?! You mean Laputa isn't real? ML4E (talk) 16:00, May 23, 2017 (UTC)
 * Wait, don't tell you use the mainstream media as a resource. Dude, the mainstream media is full of lies and misinformation, I thought you just like most other people ine the united states understood this. And yes I do know that a country can manipulte elections to get the one they want in power, but last time I checked the russian hacking was hoax. (Also I'm not defending putin, I'm just saying the trump article isn't accurate)


 * BenGarrisonGan101 (talk) 2017 05 24 08:12


 * You do know that comparing Trump to Mussolini isn't better than comparing him to Hitler right? TR (talk) 21:55, May 22, 2017 (UTC)


 * Well it's much more accurate than what you guys pruposed.
 * BenGarrisonFan101 08:13 2017 05 24


 * This. Turtle Fan (talk) 05:19, March 6, 2017 (UTC)


 * This2 ML4E (talk) 16:00, May 23, 2017 (UTC)


 * Apparently the moderators are firmly committed to breaking their editorial objectivity for the Trump matter. I think it unnecessary overkill myself.JonathanMarkoff (talk) 21:08, February 25, 2017 (UTC)


 * The alt right seems to think that objectivity means not making the Pussy Grabber look bad. However, the only way to do this is to invent an alternate reality out of whole cloth. Turtle Fan (talk) 05:19, March 6, 2017 (UTC)


 * This is a wiki dedicated to a writer of fiction, not a news organization. Even so, as stated above, there is ample evidence that yes, Russia fucked around in this election. Reporting it is quite objective. TR (talk) 02:18, February 26, 2017 (UTC)


 * And we'll hear nothing of fake news and alternative facts, either. Turtle Fan (talk) 05:19, March 6, 2017 (UTC)

James Smithson
Discussion in Talk:James Smithson stands as to why this should not be included here either. The Lit. Comm. in Atlantean Museum covers it sufficiently. ML4E (talk) 21:45, March 5, 2017 (UTC)


 * I was wondering why this suddenly appeared. TR (talk) 21:54, March 5, 2017 (UTC)

Sherman and Sheridan
Jonathan: See Talk:William Sherman for why your addition of the two is crap and why I once more locked this article. Quit trying to shove in things we have previously discussed and dismissed. ML4E (talk) 17:52, March 6, 2017 (UTC)

Alphabetical Division
This article seems to be getting a bit unwieldy. Do we want to break it up into A-M and N-Z, or something like that? Turtle Fan (talk) 03:05, March 11, 2017 (UTC)


 * We probably should. TR (talk) 04:58, March 11, 2017 (UTC)


 * As things now stand, A-K and L-Z would get us closest to a 50-50 split. It would also leave us with over ninety entries on each article, and plenty of growth potential, so maybe division into thirds would be more desirable? Turtle Fan (talk) 19:23, March 11, 2017 (UTC)


 * I suspect of the project lasts long enough, we'll have plenty of opportunities for splits. For now, I agree three is best. Since 26 does is not evenly divisible by 3, I propose A-I, J-R, and S-Z. TR (talk) 04:03, March 12, 2017 (UTC)


 * For the record, the closest we could get to breaking the current list into even thirds, assuming we don't want a situation where one letter is split between two lists and you have to look to the second letter in the name, is A-G, H-N, and P-Z (there are no O's at this time). That's not to say I object to your proposal, but it never ceases to amaze and amuse me how many more names there are at the beginning of the alphabet than there are the end. Turtle Fan (talk) 09:19, March 12, 2017 (UTC)