Talk: Population Reduction

I don't know, I kinda like the old version better. :p Turtle Fan 19:01, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

You be quiet. TR 19:02, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Why is it saying this, and Ireland too, were changed by the anonymous guy, yet the comparison shows no changes? Turtle Fan 22:55, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm wondering if we should move this article to population reduction. The Black Holocaust name is not canonical. So are a lot of things here, to be sure, but in this case we have a canonical substitute. Turtle Fan 10:10, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Literary comment

While I think the comment has some merit, I don't see it having any value to this article, as it focuses more on Featherston and Pinkard's descent than the actual event.  TR (talk) 16:39, September 25, 2015 (UTC)  

I agree but do wish we had a place to put it since it does have merit as a commentary on the story and character development (or devolution if you will). ML4E (talk) 23:33, September 25, 2015 (UTC)

Southern Victory page, maybe? TR (talk) 23:36, September 25, 2015 (UTC)

I see Blaise MacDuff has done some editing that is not correct. Pinkard defended his black co-worker to a couple of police officers who were investigating him for subversion not to Potter. Unless he is referring to some other incident but I can't think of what that would be since I don't think Potter and Pinkard ever met.

I'm not sure where this would fit in the Southern Victory article. It might be better as a Lit. Comm. for each of the character articles if that doesn't open a can of worms. ML4E (talk) 23:48, September 25, 2015 (UTC)

My two cents: It's well known that I've never had much patience for the "Pinkard used to be such a nice guy!" narrative. And on top of that, it's the kind of heavy editorialization (it even uses the word "monsters"!) that I see no use for in the bodies of real articles (and calling them literary notes just discredits the more appropriate comments). Something like this might not do much harm in an analysis or annotated page, but I really wouldn't want it to remain here or get moved to any other article. Turtle Fan (talk) 03:47, September 26, 2015 (UTC)

I have not been here for some time (quite a bit else in my life...) and find that the literary comment had gotten the axe with hardly anyone standing up for it. My two cents: this was not about "Pinkard used to be such a nice guy!" , this was about how Turtledove regards the (fictional) genocide of blacks and by extension the (real) Jewish Holocaust on which it is modeled. He clearly wants to say that mass murderes were not born mass murderers, were still not mass murderers even when already becoming adults, but had become mass murderers through an accumulation of circumstances which Turtldove takes care to depict with very much detail through volume after volume. As such I think this comment does belong in the Population Reduction page, it refers specifically and directly to the page's subject matter. Blaise MacDuff, the Purple Dragon (talk) 23:48, November 4, 2015 (UTC)

That it pertains to the subject matter of the article does not in and of itself mean that it belongs here. These articles are written on a just-the-facts basis; analysis goes elsewhere. Turtle Fan (talk) 03:12, November 5, 2015 (UTC)

By the way, when reading the earlier volumes - without, of course, knowing where things were headed - I had the very distinct feeling that Pinkard was by far "too good to be true". Here you have a Confederate society where the discrimination of Blacks is entrenched in law, institutionalized in all political and social instituitions. And in such a society a blue-collar white industrial worker finds Blacks in increasing numbers going into his steel plant and directly taking jobs of enlisted White workers - and does not EVER show himself disturbed by this phenomenon, does not even for a second have any trouble whatsoever in fully accepting his new Black co-workers without any reservation or hesitation? Such a situation should logically provoke at least a mildly racist reaction, even in a society more enlightened and egalitarian than the Confederacy of the First Great War. And I am sure Turtledove knew this - in very many other places he lets also reasonably decent characters show a bit of prejudice appropriate to their society and circumstances. My only conclusion, knowing how Pinkard ended up, is to speculate that from the very start Turtledove was setting him up for a very steep moral fall - from a height of very unreal moral purity to an abyss of total moral degredation. This is, in my view, worth looking into deeper - but anyway, it increases my feeling that all this belongs not only in the discussion of the character Pinkard as such but also in the discussion of the terrible phenomenon "Population Reduction". (Blaise MacDuff, the Purple Dragon (talk) 00:04, November 5, 2015 (UTC)

I've heard it before, I'm still unimpressed. That doesn't mean your opinion is less valid than mine, of course, but it does show that there is not consensus on this interpretation. And to have a controversial opinion in an article like this is even worse than having an undisputed one. Turtle Fan (talk) 03:12, November 5, 2015 (UTC)

My recollection is that Pinkard was disturbed by black workers taking white positions. At first, they worked only with other blacks on the night shift but Pinkard expressed his concerns to Cunningham. Cunningham was later called up and Pinkard was assigned a black co-worker which he viewed with suspicion. It was only later, after the black man had proved to be a good worker, that Pinkard defended him to the police. ML4E (talk) 20:58, November 5, 2015 (UTC)

Pinkard was no more racist than any other CSA man at the start. He wasn't an angel, just an average guy. His descent as a prison guard is his most dramatic shift. He starts out in Mexico because he wants to be more humane than everyone else. Later in Camp Dependable he receives the first orders for a "population reduction" with some disgust (although not as much as Chick Blades obviously), later he rationalizes that it's a necessary measure, and before too long he's doing it almost gleefully as if blowing out the bedside candle each night. That's HT's master stroke with the character.JonathanMarkoff (talk) 21:05, November 5, 2015 (UTC)

Blaise's Edit

I reverted Blaise's edits to the Administrators' Comment because 1) he's not an administrator and 2) more importantly, it's way, way too subjective, editorial, far-reaching, and irrelevant for a section that's only there to justify a non-canonical naming choice. Turtle Fan (talk) 14:46, April 16, 2016 (UTC)

Good call. TR (talk) 15:38, April 16, 2016 (UTC)

OK, I'm not an administrator. Well then, this content can be made a Literary Note in its own right, not just removed. I think that quoting what Trutledove chose to write in his own voice and how he chose to comment on his own characters - in the very sepcific context of their part in the "Population Reduction" - is highly relevant here. This is not any kind of invention by me - that is what Turtldoive himself chose to write in his own work, and as such deserves mention. (Blaise MacDuff, the Purple Dragon (talk) 17:34, April 16, 2016 (UTC))

Do you really think these facts aren't so blindingly obvious to the average reader that we "must" spoon-feed these observations to people who read articles here? TR (talk) 17:52, April 16, 2016 (UTC)

By definition, everybody who read the books themselves has all the information contained in this and any other article on this Wiki. So why do we bother to write all this stuff at all? Why "spoon-feed" the readers and not just let them read the books? There are very specific quotes which I made. There are two places where Turtledove felt a need - not just to describe what the characters are saying and doing, but to insert his own personal voice and make a direct statement from the author. in one case he says that a person who was involved in the mass murder of Blacks was "not too far gone", that he could still be made to understand that he had done wrong and feel deep remorse. In another place Turtledove says that another person - who was much more deeply involved in the mass murder of Blacks, and for much longer - WAS "too far gone" and therefore he could never understand that he had done wrong. In my view, the fact that Turtledove felt the need for these direct expressions of his own authorial voice is significant, that is says something about how Turtledove perceives the whole terrible business of genocide and mass murder. In my view, this very much belongs in the Turtledove Wiki in general and in this specific page in particular. I don't want to put in my own interpretations and elaborations - just the simple, direct quotes of what Turtledove did say - in his own voice, in his own book. I feel this is quite simple and entirely reasonable.(Blaise MacDuff, the Purple Dragon (talk) 20:36, April 16, 2016 (UTC))

You quoted an odd word here and there, then editorialized the shit out of them. It's a highly subjective analysis, and has no place here. We're no longer using literary comments to slap a thin veneer of acceptability over such self-indulgent nonsense. The edit will not be restored. Turtle Fan (talk) 00:19, April 17, 2016 (UTC)

This is not the first time I notice that this Wiki is run in a rathrt high-handed way which does not encourage people to give creative attention to deserving points of Turtldove's work. I see no point in continuing this discussion, though I have by no means been convinced of your case. Not in the slightest. (Blaise MacDuff, the Purple Dragon (talk) 22:07, April 18, 2016 (UTC))

Yes, insult us because we're not indulging your narcissism. Turtle Fan (talk) 03:59, April 19, 2016 (UTC)

This was frustrating for me too at first, but I've learned to adapt. I keep finding myself committing faux pas here, but less so than at first. It is pretty strict and intolerant, but there are ways to game the system.JonathanMarkoff (talk) 22:15, April 18, 2016 (UTC)

You game the system, do you? And openly admit it? Careful there; you're perpetually on thin ice as it is, with your own pointless vanity projects. Turtle Fan (talk) 03:59, April 19, 2016 (UTC)

I am not going to "game the system". I can take a hint about when I am not wanted and when my work in vain and where there is no possibility of a sincere and serious discussion. Narcissism, indeed!(Blaise MacDuff, the Purple Dragon (talk) 09:56, April 19, 2016 (UTC))

Yeah, no narcissist would ever storm out in a self-congratulatory huff. Turtle Fan (talk) 22:12, April 19, 2016 (UTC)

While I can understand your frustration, it's just that there's a time and place for everything, and the articles here are for concrete, inflexible objectivity with a strict quota on what is 'relevant'. Editorialism and subjectivity can be showcase in these talk pages. There are sites for creative brainstorming on Turtledove worlds, here is one: http://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showthread.php?t=185493&page=17

While the admins here may seem harsh, they have to maintain logical consistency and not present other people's ideas as Turtledove. There was apparently one guy named Adam here about 7 years ago who put stuff into articles which was his own speculations and not in the Turtledove text. For example, he wrote that in The Two Georges, the British Empire had to step in to protect minority groups in Turkey and Hawaii, while elsewhere in the world the Spanish Inquisition ran roughshod (and unexpected, of course) over everyone in Spanish colonies, even though there is not one word about that in the books.

So the admins' purpose here is to separate fiction from even-more-fiction.JonathanMarkoff (talk) 16:49, April 19, 2016 (UTC)

That wasn't the worst of them. I still fondly remember his "Jimmy Carter, International Man of Mystery" (our name not his) where he had Carter, Menachem Begin and Yasser Arafat conspiring in a guerrilla campaign in Palestine to drive the Lizards crazy. We do allow for that sort of thing in the user blogs but not in the articles proper.

There was Dr King's heroic resistance to the German occupation in ItPoME. And even TR and I played with that a bit in the early days, inventing background stories for people like James McReynolds and Norman Thomas, and even creating an article out of whole cloth for Jennie Jerome. That one's long since been deleted, but the deleted edits should still be floating around.

The point is, we learned that, just because we considered something to be incredibly interesting didn't make it so for anyone else. So we tightened up. Turtle Fan (talk) 22:12, April 19, 2016 (UTC)

For Blaise's additions, I have some sympathy for what he tried to add but that seems to be material more geared to a separate literary analysis type of article rather than one on stating the facts on a particular event. I recall he tried something similar a while ago in the Pickard and Rodriguez articles. ML4E (talk) 19:24, April 19, 2016 (UTC)

Well, I had been doing all kinds of things in other places where I don't have to fight hard to prevent what I wrote being deleted. I think I understand the rules here - they are simple, clear and logical. You don't write your own speculation, you ONLY quote what Harry Turtledove himself wrote in his own books. Nothing else. Fair enough. So I did precisely that - I quoted what Harry Turtledove himself wrote in his own books. Nothing else. And I got what I quoted from Turtledove promptly deleted. Well, if that's the way you want to run it, suit yourselves. All the best! (Blaise MacDuff, the Purple Dragon (talk) 00:14, April 30, 2016 (UTC)) .

They're really not so bad once you get to know them.JonathanMarkoff (talk) 03:43, April 30, 2016 (UTC)

If you're going to storm out in a huff, then fucking do it, and good riddance to bad rubbish. Don't come back weeks later and expect to wound us with the wittier parting shot you think you've come up with. Now you're just embarrassing yourself. Turtle Fan (talk) 02:52, April 30, 2016 (UTC)

Since I do appreciate Turtledove's work and I do appreciate the fact that there is a special Wiki set up to deal with it, I can't promise to get out of your hair forever. It just means that before spending time and effort on anything in this Wiki I would have to think it over very carefully indeed, to make sure that I am very strictly adhering to the rules so as to have a cast-iron case and leave not the smallest pretext for anyone to undo my work. If I think of something a bit more daring and creative (I do have some such ideas relating to Turtledove's work...), you can bet I will look for somewhere else to place it. So long, guys. See you again one of these days! Cheerio. (Blaise MacDuff, the Purple Dragon (talk) 09:50, April 30, 2016 (UTC))

Yes, that's a wonderful idea, go torment someone else with your "daring and creative" self-indulgences. Or better yet, since you're the only one who cares, buy yourself a notebook, write them down, and keep it under your bed, where it won't bother anyone else. But don't think you can keep sniping at us; the very next barb you try to set will get your account, and all IP addresses associated with it, blocked. Turtle Fan (talk) 15:24, April 30, 2016 (UTC)

As I said, I am going to be VERY careful not to provide you any pretext remotely giving a shred of justification for any such action. Anyway, for at least some time I am going to give you a complete rest from my highly disturbing presence. And now I AM going to provide you with a cherished opportunity to utter THE LAST WORD - yes! THE VERY VERY VERY LAST AND UTTERLY ULTIMATE WORD of this specific exchange. Not one more word by me will be added here, not as much as single letter or digit! You have a dragon's most solemn word of honor on this point. When next we encounter each other it will be on another page entirely and over a completley different issue (I don't yet know which, but I will think of something...) Meanwhile, farewell and be of good cheer!(Blaise MacDuff, the Purple Dragon (talk) 21:48, April 30, 2016 (UTC))

Pretentious bastard.

I look forward to your long absence. When and if you do return (and please, don't feel like you're under any obligation to do so), just suppress the urge to editorialize within the articles. Remember, an editorial does not stop being an editorial just because it includes a direct quotation or two. Remember as well that TR, ML4E and I hold all the cards here, so if we revert your edits, you will accomplish nothing with histrionics and melodrama, except perhaps getting yourself blocked. Turtle Fan (talk) 00:43, May 1, 2016 (UTC)

Remember, this place is supposed to be good, clean fun, not something to get too upset over. Right?JonathanMarkoff (talk) 02:41, May 1, 2016 (UTC)

Mind your business. Turtle Fan (talk) 02:43, May 1, 2016 (UTC)

New Lit comment

"Harry Turtledove has confirmed that the "Population reduction" is modeled on the Holocaust."

Was there any doubt? I realize Jonathan was cleaning up an even worse comment, but still do we need this? TR (talk) 16:54, December 30, 2017 (UTC)