Turtledove

Take a look at what I wrote under "The Two Georges". If that is fine, I will cut and paste the same for the other "Thirteen Colonies". ML4E 22:55, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that is good. TR 23:15, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Right after I added Roland Oliver to the list, I realized I didn't recall the text saying he was born here. Oops. ML4E (talk) 20:43, January 27, 2015 (UTC)

"Notable" Virginians[]

If this section is necessary at all (and I'm not sure that it is), then I submit that we need to become a lot more selective about our standards for inclusion. Many of these people are not remotely "notable," but, as was recently brought up here, somehow it's become a master list for every single Virginian character in HT's canon. This won't do.

I recommend removing from the current list all but the following: Thomas Jackson, Thomas Jefferson, Robert E. Lee, James Madison, James Monroe, George Patton, Jeb Stuart, Zachary Taylor, Booker T Washington, George Washington, Woodrow Wilson, Jake Featherston, and Clarence Potter. I would perhaps consider Jubal Early, Sam Houston, and George Thomas to be in a bubble, but no one else. They're just too obscure.

Also, if we're going to maintain the historical/fictional divide, we should move Patton to the fictional section. In OTL, Patton had no ties to Virginia. Turtle Fan (talk) 22:33, October 12, 2015 (UTC)

However, I'd propose some additions: To the Historicals, George Marshall (commanding general of the US Army during WWII and holder of multiple Cabinet-level positions); John Breckinridge (Vice President of the United States); and John Smith (founder of the first English colony in America, from which the entire United States directly or indirectly descends). To the fictionals, Reggie Bartlett and any other POV characters I'm failing to think of at the moment. And no doubt any key figures from the leadership of the Virginian government in DSA, which I'm afraid I still haven't gotten around to reading. Turtle Fan (talk) 22:47, October 12, 2015 (UTC)

Since no one has weighed in, I'm just going to go ahead and delete the section. Turtle Fan (talk) 04:48, October 31, 2015 (UTC)

I think there should be a list of HT OTL people born in Virginia. ATL is not as important.JonathanMarkoff (talk) 05:42, October 31, 2015 (UTC)

Well too late now, I'm not putting it back. Turtle Fan (talk) 14:11, October 31, 2015 (UTC)
I view it the opposite. Listing fictional characters known to be born in a particular state might be marginally useful. Likewise, historical figures if they were born in a different state from OTL might be useful. But not so much so that I am arguing to restore the list. I take it TF, the elimination of these lists from all other states should be done too? I remember remarking in the NY State article Talk Page, that it would be helpful if we could spread the list across the page the way we do for long Reference Lists. However, eliminating the lists solves that too. ML4E (talk) 20:15, October 31, 2015 (UTC)
I just felt the list was getting out of hand, and when no one commented for three weeks I figured I had implicit support for acting unilaterally. If it really did serve a need, that need could likely be better met with a Category. Years and years and years ago, when the wiki was much smaller and we were making up the rules as we went along, the article on Catholicism included a master list of Catholic characters. Now they're in a category and the article isn't bogged down by a section whose length is as great as its interest value is small.
And yes, I think this precedent should extend to other states. Turtle Fan (talk) 22:42, October 31, 2015 (UTC)
All right. You need to have a word with 75.68.122.13 since he is the one building these things up and has continued today. He may have an argument for keeping them and is unaware of this discussion. ML4E (talk) 19:31, November 1, 2015 (UTC)
I apologize for any inconvenience for expanding the lists for the Notable Virginians and Notable New Yorkers to be very long. I think I have a solution to get out of this problem. Maybe we could make categories for each state people were born in OTL or ATL. For example, for the Virginians, we could give historical figures such as George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and Robert E. Lee a category called "Virginians: OTL". For fictional characters such as Jake Featherston, we could put him under a category called "Virginians: Alternate Timeline".

We could also do this for other states where there is a "Notable (states name here)" sections on the article such as New York, Vermont, Illinois, Indiana, Missouri, and California. This is just my idea. If you guys like or dislike my idea, either leave messages on my talk page or on this talk page.

BTY, some of the "Notable (states name here)" were already on some of the aricles before I did major expanding. --75.68.122.13 21:32, November 3, 2015 (UTC)Jacob Chesley the Alternate Historian

Yes. I think the problem is that we originally intended the list to be for exactly that Notable people from the state and not anyone and everyone. This is subjective so perhaps not listing anyone is better. I do not have strong feelings one way or the other for "State of Birth" for historical (and fiction) characters but don't see much purpose for it either. ML4E (talk) 22:17, November 4, 2015 (UTC)

DSA map[]

The map used for Disunited States on the page is misleading, as it looks like Maryland and Delaware are part of VA, which isn't stated in the text.JonathanMarkoff (talk) 02:56, October 31, 2015 (UTC)

Good point. The OTL section map should be sufficient since it shows West Virginia too, although in the same color as the other shown states. ML4E (talk) 20:15, October 31, 2015 (UTC)

TTG[]

The literary comment that WVA is still part of VA in TTG has been removed. Why? I think it a big deal to point this out, because it's a sound testimonial to a TL where the ACW never happened, and is not obvious from what remains of the article.Matthew Babe Stevenson (talk) 19:24, May 7, 2019 (UTC)

It is obvious that the ACW never happened in that timeline. How could it not be? So the lit comm belabored the obvious.
This really is like Jonathan never left. Turtle Fan (talk) 19:30, May 7, 2019 (UTC)
I don't think it's necessarily obvious that WVA is still in VA in 1995. With circa 230 years since the POD, there could be plenty of butterflies to schism Virginia for reasons unrelated to slavery or war. Remember that Virginia's borders were still in flux at the POD, when Virginia Colony claimed a large part of what is now Kentucky. Also, they had just fought the French and Indian War which began when Virginian surveyors tried to claim what is now Pittsburgh. I think it reasonable to have the lit com "This version of Virginia also includes West Virginia," with no mention of the ACW.
Case in point: in Ben Winters' Underground Airlines, which has a January-February 1861 POD (the Crittenden Compromise is adopted), West Virginia exists, but because the ACW was averted at the last minute, really should not. If TTG had split the states, this would have been annoying, but because there is more room for butterflies in TTG, it would be more tolerable than in UA. Having the proposed lit com for TTG would be a silent confirmation that the authors didn't screw up like Winters did.Matthew Babe Stevenson (talk) 19:56, May 7, 2019 (UTC)
In these situations it is appropriate to assume that conditions as of the POD persist unless there is strong reason to believe otherwise. You've highlighted other butterflies that could have reshaped Virginia, do you want lit comms to cover all of them? Turtle Fan (talk) 20:20, May 7, 2019 (UTC)

The deleted Lit Comm read:

In this timeline, the American Civil War never occurred and so West Virginia remained part of Virginia.<ref>Map [[The Two Georges (novel)|''The Two Georges'']], frontispiece.</ref>>

I do think there is a need for something similar to the other T2G Provinces Lit Comms namely:

Along with taking up OTL Virginia, the NAU's Virginia includes West Virginia.<ref>Map [[The Two Georges (novel)|''The Two Georges'']], frontispiece.</ref>>

But without any references to the ACW. This will address the addition User:90TheGeneral09 made today and TR had removed and is consistent with the other NAU Province article. ML4E (talk) 20:31, May 7, 2019 (UTC)

Like said, "This version of Virginia also includes West Virginia." Period.Matthew Babe Stevenson (talk) 21:00, May 7, 2019 (UTC)

Old Dominion Province[]

"It was known for its quality bourbon"

Well this is interesting. It's well known that Kentucky is the only place you can make bourbon. Their monopoly is a legal one: Of course it's physically possible to follow the same recipe elsewhere, using the same ingredients, equipment and processes, as you could with champagne or cognac. But, as with those, you would not be allowed to label it as bourbon. This is enshrined not just in American law but in every relevant international trade agreement that I'm aware of. Even Kim Jong-Il appeared to respect the distinction in his legendary liquor collection.

Since the monopoly is a legal one, and all sorts of laws were altered or abolished when the new regimes took over, we could spackle over this inconsistency that way. But I find it more interesting to wonder if state lines were redrawn for some nefarious purpose. What we know as Kentucky was part of Virginia in the very early days, might the two have been reunited? The communists may have found that dominating fifty state governments was a tall order and sought to consolidate. Turtle Fan (talk) 18:29, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

KY's exclusive control of bourbon is an urban legend. The Federal Standards of Identity for Distilled Spirits, codified under 27 CFR §5 Subpart I says bourbon can be made anywhere in the 50 states as well as the territories. https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-27/chapter-I/subchapter-A/part-5/subpart-A It is a US product, though that designation only came about in the 1960s.
Huh, how embarrassing. Apparently I've hallucinated a whole slew of false trade agreements. (Too bad Boris Johnson's out of power, he might have hired someone with that skill set.) Turtle Fan (talk) 19:04, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
As far as the geography question--if the government of the Southern Confederated People's Republic decided rechristening names of states was in order, it certainly seems likely (though not inevitable) that it also changed those borders when it was convenient. I had hoped that the novel would more directly address how the US broke apart into communist states rather than just become a single communist country, but Harry's already conceded he was intentionally vague about the POD. (My own personal suspicion, given the clues and references in the story, is that the communist revolutions after WWI actually succeeded and that the Red Scare in the US kept perpetuating itself throughout the 1920s and 1930s, becoming more reactionary and authoritarian; the USSR started playing games in the US much as they did in Europe, and soon states started breaking off in a manner similar to "The Breaking of Nations".) TR (talk) 21:34, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
I suppose it's just as possible as it would be if I hadn't been mistaken about bourbon, but there's nothing to suggest it one way or the other. Beyond the gossamer-thin circumstantial evidence of a willingness to rename states implying a willingness to redraw their borders, as you suggest. Turtle Fan (talk) 19:04, 9 January 2025 (UTC)