Talk:Alternate history

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Peer review template has been removed, please see the bottom of the page.

Contents

[edit] What is Alternate History?

Turtledove looks interesting (+wishlist), but it's not Alternate History, it's common SF placed in the future, while Alternate History may or may not be placed in the past. A key element of Alternate History is that only a small thing happens which changes everything. An alien invasion is not a small thing.

Very little of Turtledove's writing is set in the future. And AH does not depend on a "small thing" happening. It depends on a change on something historical happening. The size is inconsequential. An alien invasion occuring in 1941 is alternate history unless you have some proof that it did, in fact, happen.

Why must it be a small thing? "The Man In The High Castle" is premised on the Axis powers winning WWII, not a small thing but undeniably an Alternate history novel -- GWO

"Undeniably"? Please.

For practical reasons: What other qualifier is there? Any SF story is Alternate History, I'd even say any story is alternate history.

The thing must only be small at the very beginning. There are several points in the history that could have changed the war's outcome. Just kill Hitler at age 25, as Yulsman did.

Most SF stories take place in the future -alternate history have to involve a change in the known story we call history. Some may be set in the present or future but they must involve a change in the past. I agree that the "World war" books combine alternate history and standard scifi. Turtledove's Civil War books are better examples. -rmhermen

There are lots of SF stories requiring change in our past, because they were written decades ago. Have they transmogrified into Alternate History?

The key feature of AH is IMHO that any random piece of trivia would modify our world. What if Helium would not be found in Kansas, but in Sachsen? Lots of Zeppelins in the air. What if some unknown Austrian artist died at age 25? No WWII. What if aliens invade the earth? An invaded earth.

Turtledove's WWII series looks interesting and has something AHish about it, it's only not a prime example, TMITHC is, and the Civil War series probably too.

I cannot find details about J. C. Squire's collection. Someone? --Yooden

Now that I think of it, Darcy doesn't qualify. The stories are about crime and magic, not about alternate history. --Yooden

Not true. The Darcy stories are set in a world in which Richard I of England lived to an old age, settled down, became an enlightened monarch, and led to England turning into the Western Empire. RickK 22:33, 22 Sep 2003 (UTC)

All SF is not alternate history. Alternate history is based on known ahistorical events that took place in the past. Any number of SF stories put their change in the future.

The size of the event is irrelevant. Consider Harry Harrison's "Eden" novels. There the event is the lack of a 100 km diameter asteroid slamming into the Earth 65 million years ago. It doesn't get much bigger than that.

There's a decent discussion of what is/is not AH at http://www.uchronia.net/intro.html --Paul Drye

The asteroid was (not) long ago. Is the movie Armageddon alternate history?

Fatherland is not the best AH book, but it may be the most archetypical.

On the other hand -is all alternate history sci fi? All that I have read was classed as such but why would it need to be. ---rmhermen

No, Fatherland, for example, is mainstream fiction. Len Deighton's XPD is another example of mainstream alternate history. Also, Robert Musil's Viennese epic, Man Without Qualities, plays with alternate outcomes and historical actualities. sjc

It should be important whether AH is SF. SF is often categorized wrong.

Fatherland is no SF because of what? No time machine? Success?

--Yooden

Success, mainly, but it is mainstream principally because it deals with the alternate nature of history without implying any major technological differences, and was marketed as a mainstream novel. Certainly there was an acute shortage of time-machines...sjc

The thing about Fatherland, as I see it, is that it's a detective/thriller novel. It has a detective/thriller plot, it is constructed as a detective/thriller novel, it has no SF elements in it. Apart from the setting, of course, but the fact that it's set in an alternate history is not in any way the point of the novel - it's a detective/thriller novel that just happens to have an unusual setting, more like (insert name of detective novel set in historical ancient Japan) than like (insert example of novel where the fact that it's an alternate history is the whole point). --Paul A

Are you sure that Jonbar hinge is ever used? Google only has three results. In shwi, the word is POD for Point of divergence -- Error

I was coming here to post the same thing. I changed the article before even reading this comment. I changed it to POD (although in my case it was Point of Departure. I'll change that to Point of divergernce. RickK 22:28, 22 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Nobody yet seems to have mentioned the source of "Jonbar Hinge".

It's from Jack Williamson's story "The Legion of Time", which first appeared in "Astounding" in 1938, and has since been published in book form. The alternatives are the good civilisation of Jonbar or the bad one of Gyronchi, and the pivotal event is whether a child called John Barr picks up an old magnet, or a pebble .

Paul Magnussen

AS far as I am concerned, I would be sad to see a decision ending the question of whether early Science Fiction that does not portray the existing present is or is not alternate history. I think the question itself is one of those "fun to argue about but never settle" issues that should be mentioned as such in the article on alternate history, and should not be settled. Separate lists of alternate history fiction could be maintained to satisfy the purists.

[edit] 'Alternate' or 'Alternative?'

'Alternate history' as a phrase always bothers me. To alternate is to switch between two states (as in alternating current). The phrase ought to be 'alternative history', surely! --Suitov 11:53, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, I've just fixed that. I'll fix the links over the next few days. — Chameleon 15:47, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Alternate History is the term commonly used by the people who actually use it. Google search for alternate-history-novel gives 14,800 hits. alternative-history-novel gives only 889 hits. The former is used 1564% more often than the latter. Clearly the latter is not the accepted term. Even within wikipedia alternate history is used more often in things like category names: see category:alternate history characters, category:alternate history films, category:alternate history games, category:alternate history novels, category:alternate history writers etc. etc. Most of the articles linking to alternative history actually say "alternate history"in the text; "alternative" is only in the link. When such a discrepancy exists between common usage and what you believe the correct usage should be, it is likely that your analysis of the terminology used is at fault rather than the common usage being incorrect. Please see the American Heritage dictionary under "alternate"—the usage here of "alternate" is adj. 3 "Serving or used in place of another; substitute:an alternate plan." But whatever the reasoning behind what the correct term is, it is not Wikipedia's job to change overwhelming common usage; see Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names). I am beginning the link correction process. pfahlstrom 01:44, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
What's this "very commonly but incorrectly" stuff? Google says "alternate history" beats "alternative history" 170k to 44k. (Actually, the latter was bigger than I expected.) ––wwoods 18:12, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Google also reports over three million results for ‘ain't’, without this making the word standard English. Get over Google! — Chameleon 07:36, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Not a persuasive example. Google says that "isn't" beats "ain't", 12.9M to 4.2M. "Alternate history" may not be to your taste, and I've got language peeves of my own, but it just ain't "incorrect". ––wwoods 08:14, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)
It's not a matter of my taste. This grammatical confusion is common but a confusion nevertheless. In distinguishing properly between the terms ‘alternate’ and ‘alternative’, I am following the Wikipedia Manual of Style and, more generally, the writing habits of educated people.
The Google test is not a good one. The phrase "alternate history" gets 180,000 results on Google, yes. But there are 284,000 pages' worth of people thinking ‘tongue’ is spelt ‘tounge’. Netizens' illiteracy is irrelevant to us in our task of building and improving Wikipedia. — Chameleon 09:15, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Actually, it is both a matter of taste and grammer. Grammar because, yes, grammatically, it should be alternative. Taste, because through common (and long) usage, the incorrect (grammatically) form of alternate history is accepted as a marketing tool and the name of the genre which Chameleon disagrees with. More people will recognize the term alternate history than alternative history and the question then comes down to: is the purpose of Wikipedia to be correct in a manner which diminishes its usefulness or incorrect in a manner which allows people to find what they are looking for. You can find many books with the phrase "Alternate History" on the spine (as you would find "science fiction," "mystery," "fiction," etc.) but you won't find any with the more grammatically correct "alternative history." - shsilver
Using the correct term doesn't make anything less useful to anyone in any way: anybody searching for the term "Alternate Fiction" will be redirected to the article. Don't make out that people will be wondering around deprived of information because we have good grammar. On the other hand, opting for the incorrect term has the negative effect of a) making Wikipedia look stupid and b) condoning the error. It is much the same as not correcting spelling mistakes in articles.

Actually I don't think alternate is "wrong" here in modern usage. The term is used as a synonym for alternative in modern English in a variety of contexts. Correctness is dictated by usage, after all: many of the words you currently use would have been "incorrect" in that usage a mere 300 years ago, but the meaning has shifted. --Delirium 11:13, Apr 22, 2004 (UTC)

For what it's worth, the 2000 American Heritage dictionary lists this as a correct usage as well: "alternate, n., 3. Serving or used in place of another; substitute: an alternate plan." --Delirium 11:16, Apr 22, 2004 (UTC)

-- Rewrote article to make it more useful and get away from semantic disagreements.- shsilver


Bah, whatever. — Chameleon 08:58, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)

[edit] For Want of a Nail?

If this article is about alternate history fiction in particular, rather than about the concept of alternate history/virtual history, does 'For Want of a Nail' really belong there? 'For Want of a Nail' is not a story set in an alternate timeline, but a history book from an alternate timeline. Does it belong in the Virtual history article? GCarty

I would suggest that it is fiction and does tell a story, just not one that uses a traditional narrative style.
'For Want of a Nail' is definitely fiction, of the tongue-in-cheek variety, in that it purports to be a work of academic history. Libraries always classify it as fiction, FWIW. --Michael K. Smith 12:42, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

In addition, the newsgroup soc.history.what-if is mainly composed of serious counterfactual history discussion - in fact its own FAQ states that discussion of published alternate-history fiction should be done on rec.arts.sf.written only. GCarty

[edit] Categorization

I removed the article from Category:Fictional events and Category:Fictional universes, see Category_talk:Fictional -- Pjacobi 21:12, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Link suggestions

An automated Wikipedia link suggester has some possible wiki link suggestions for the Alternative_history_(fiction) article, and they have been placed on this page for your convenience.
Tip: Some people find it helpful if these suggestions are shown on this talk page, rather than on another page. To do this, just add {{User:LinkBot/suggestions/Alternative_history_(fiction)}} to this page. — LinkBot 01:04, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I added the links that made sense. Edward 09:58, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Becoming alternative history?

"Stories which were set in the future when they were written which has since come and passed (such as George Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-Four) are not alternative history."

What if an official (canonical) sequel were to be written in 2005, which worked from the premise that the events in Nineteen Eighty-Four has actually occured, just as in the original? Would the original Nineteen Eighty-Four then become alternative history? --Corvun 23:15, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)

The sequel certainly would be! -- Logotu 04:34, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

No, it would not. There's no POD in 1984. No specific POD, no AH. --Jrittenh 7 July 2005 08:30 (UTC)

Presumably, any history that is the same as the real world up until a certain general time period, after which history is different, has had at least one POD (even if the specific POD isn't known, that doesn't mean there wasn't one).
A good example is the Eugenics Wars in Star Trek. When first written, it was a speculation concerning the future. Since Trek cannon still upholds that the Eugenics wars occured in the 1990's, would this not make the Star Trek series take place in a future based on an alternative history of our own world? (Of course, this isn't the best example, as the ST universe has several points of divergence going back to before the appearence of life on Earth, making the whole Trekkiverse an alternative timeline almost from the get-go.)
That being said, what if a story set in the future when it was written, which has since come to pass, were to spawn a sequel after this point, specifying the events of the first story as the POD? If both stories are to be taken as part of the same cannon, and if the sequel specified the first story as the POD, making the sequel itself an outcome of an alternative history, would not the first story have to be taken as the very alternative history upon which the sequel were based? --Corvun 06:45, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
Interesting idea. OK, in 1956, you write a story about how John Kennedy is elected in 1960 and gets into a war with the Soviet Union over them putting missiles in Cuba. Result of the war is that Cuba and the USSR is nuked to pieces. The actual story didn't deal with the details of all this, but is a cautionary anti-nuclear war story set in a part of Europe just returning towards civilization around 2010 after a long period of savagery.
It was not a far stretch in 1956 to imagine JFK (a) getting elected in 1960 and (b) being a Cold Warrior that got into a war with the Soviets. (Cuba as a source of conflict would have been a far harder call, but let's say this person got to be a reeeealy good guesser. Reeeealy reaaaaly good. And if you put it far away in place and time you don't have to have a lot of the details; the people in Eastern Germany, say, wouldn't have them. And the story (and its sequels) wouldn't need a lot of the details to still be effective.
But (and this is a BIG but) you'd have to be a good enough futurist to call something like this on the nose. Heinlein fails - you see any 'Roads Must Roll' around? I can't imagine very many things being pulled out that would fit this sort of thing. Not impossible, but waaaaaaay hard. --Jrittenh 00:49, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
What POD is there in Star Trek? This is news to me.
Depends on when you place the Eugenics wars. If you assume they're still in the 90's then the Pod is genetic supermen who should not be there. If (as many do) you decide the Eugenics are actually WWIII then no Pod. Plus of cause there are a few matters where the timeline obviously diverges from ours (expanded voyager program).

As For 1984 the POD is obvious (though at the time this was set in the "far" future) at some point (probably the late 1940's) the East and West get into a fight (I'm guessing Berlin), in the process the USSR takes over western Europe and an isolated UK forms common cause with the USA maybe even becoming a state (and taking along the colonies) this creates Oceania, in the havoc caused by the war the conditions are about the same as those of Russia in 1917. An English Socialist party stages a coup, it spreads to America and eventually is perverted by BB into the world we meet in the book. Tobias1 15:19, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Alternate Personal History

Has anyone coined a term for these stories? (e.g. It's a Wonderful Life, etc) Osprey 21:56, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Um, no. I enjoy a lot of stuff like this (movies like Sliding Doors, etc) and APH is probably a good title for such things. Strict AH involves some kind of a change in 'public' history, but 'personal' could become AH in this manner: say that John F Kennedy was crippled by his combat experience in WW2, and ended up in a wheelchair, and lost all interest in politics. The story starts with a older Kennedy, say, around 1970, tsking about public affairs as he's reading the paper, and we'll say further that he's enough of an invalid that he's never married, and has muddled along as the administrator of some charity organization. The story goes on to have him meet old friends, and maybe a politician that he knew well in our time-line, but here is just a benefactor to the charity. The story hints of his restlessness, and desire to *do* something, and closes with him dying of a stroke in his sleep.

Sad, but...here, you have a public figure going off on the what-ifs in his life, in a quiet enough way that it's really quite personal.--Jrittenh 7 July 2005 08:25 (UTC)
There is an extremely good example of this "alternate personal history" that actually does involve JFK. It's a short story called "The Winterberry" by Nicholas Dichario. In this future, JFK survived his assassination, but in a severely brain-damaged state, and his family, for the sake of the country, covered up his survival. However, the future history remains entirely unchanged; there's a strong hint that JFK would have been better off dead than in the mentally-retarded state he is in during the story. --L. 22:05, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
As a working (but retired) historian, I have professional problems with the "Great Man" theory of history. On the other hand, as a lifelong SF fan with a particular soft spot for alternate history, I have to say it's (at least) much more interesting when the individual to whom something different happens -- to create a POD -- is one of the movers and shakers, like JFK or FDR or Genghis Khan or whomever.
A purely personal alternate history, especially when it involves a purely fictional person (as in It's a Wonderful Life), is purely pointless. This is because part of the fun of reading alternate history, at least to me, is evaluating the cause-and-effect of the author's chosen POD. Is it reasonable and believable? For this reason, I don't have much use for many of Turtledove's novels. In Guns of the South, he posits transporting AK-47s back in time, which is not the sort of subtle POD that might actually happen in our version of the real world. Likewise, having aliens invade in the middle of WWII smacks of deus ex machina to me. (Harry's earlier works with a Byzantine setting were much better in this regard.) --Michael K. Smith 12:58, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Future History

Josquius seems intent that future histories (i.e. science fiction) becomes alternate history when the time in which it is set has passed. To support this, Josquius has cited ah.com (which is Advanced Healthcare, S.C.). Looking at definitions used by Uchronia and the Sidewise Award for Alternate History, this is not alternate history (see discussion above, "becoming alternate history"). Shsilver 13:46, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Don't be facetious, I meant alternatehistory.com... A well written story set in a future which has passed and has not happened does become a honourary alternate history. 1984 is a main example of this, its a popular discussion topic of exactly what the alternate timeline behind 1984 is. They were not alternate history at the time they were written but they are now. - Josquius

Not facetious at all. If the goal is to be accurate, please be accurate. If somebody doesn't know about alternatehistory.com and followed your link... Anyway, by your definition, other classics of alternate history include Jane Eyre, Bleak House, and The Scarlet Letter since the time in which they are set is passed. Being alternate history is as much a matter of intent as anything else. Shsilver 17:32, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

If ' Jane Eyre, Bleak House, and The Scarlet Letter' were written about what the writer thought the future would be like then yes they would be. I am only familiar with Jane Eyre there and I'm pretty certain its a Victorian love story, not a future history. -Josquius

But by your argument, it has talen place in our past and didn't really happen, therefore it is alternate history, even if not on an earth shaking scale (see above, the discussion on personal alternate history). Sure, it wasn't intended as alternate history, but to look at it from now, it would be if your definition fit. Some sources which agtree that your definition for AH is incorrect include Karen Hellekson, author of The Alternate History: Refiguring Historical Time, Uchronia, Andy Duncan, who wrote the article on alternate history for The Cambridge Companion to Science Fiction, and the rules for the Sidewise Award for Alternate History.Shsilver 18:33, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

...no that's not my argument at all... Every book except science fiction is alternate history by your definition there as books set in the present when wrote were obviously published in the past. I can see how you could regard my original edit as incorrect however my new revision is totally correct. You are obviously a semi-decent computer user with being on wikipedia and claim to be a expert on what alternate history is yet you hadn't heard of ah.com... Most strange. -Josquius

No, I've heard of alternatehistory.com, not ah.com (which is a healthcare company), which has nothing to do with my most recent argument, which cited several sources in support of my argument. By your definition, all SF would eventually be considered alternate history, which is not the case. Interestingly, I was discussing your assertion with a couple of the judges of the Sidewise Award over the weekend and they both found it, well, ridiculous.Shsilver 18:25, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)


Since you now say that you are wanting a reply…

To your sources: uchronia says ‘You might argue that excluding all such retroactive alternate histories from this bibliography is "limiting", in which case you'd be exactly right. A limit must be drawn or else this bibliography would have the impossible goal of including a significant fraction of the books and stories that have ever been published, and potentially the majority of all science fiction.’. It says here that retroactive alternate history does exist. It is simply choosing not to list them. It is not denying their existence. This source backs up my argument not yours, in fact it goes beyond mine in saying every outdated sci-fi is alternate history.

For the sidewise award- 1: I can find no criteria of their own 2: They are part of the uchronia site so I would assume they use the above - Josquius

And by your definition, ah would "includ[e] a significant fraction of the books and stories that have ever been published, and potentially the majority of all science fiction." and therefor be an essentially meaningless term.
And just because the Sidewise Awards are hosted on the website, doesn't mean they share Uchronia's definition (they don't).
Interesting how four tildes works for everyone but you.Shsilver 20:06, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

And I like your latest edit and can be happy with it.Shsilver 20:07, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Well what is the sidewise definition then? They do not include it on their main site. I do not think too highly of some minor Internet award though which is what they seem to be (though forgive me if I am wrong on that). How many times must I say THAT IS NOT MY DEFINITION. That is your fictitious warping of my definition. The likes of (original) Flash Gordon where its just a case of ‘ohh it’s the 1980s and we fly around in space ships fighting aliens’ are not honorary alternate history. They are atrociously bad alien space bat alternate histories though in my opinion they lack the honour to be honorary alternate history (though some will disagree with me here). The likes of 1984 however where the world is perfectly plausible had things gone differently (i.e. the technology is all proven to be possible) are honorary alternate history. You hang around at that alternate history newsgroup. Surely you have encountered the conversations about it and other honorary alternate histories that appear? It is not just ah.com that agrees with me, many at that newsgroup seem to too despite your warping of my definition. - Josquius

Hey, you got the tildes to work. Congratulations. Actually, that is your definition, just taken to its logical (or illogical, your choice) extremes. One of the problems I see with your definition is that it requires a qualitative call as to whether something is AH, which shouldn't be the case.
As for the Sidewise Award, it has been around for ten years and many of the judges are considered by publishers, editors and authors to be experts in the field of ah. Two of them have written dissertations on the topic. It may be a minor award, but it isn't an internet one, and authors like Charles Stross, S.M. Stirling, and others (who haven't won the award) view it rather highly.

I have known how to get a link to my page to work all along, I am simply not typing it out every time. It is close at hand here though so I'm using it. Most genres require some sort of definition in them. The line between sci fi and fantasy for instance is very vague in places. - Josquius

[edit] Hey Josquius

I've provided several sources, from many respected experts in the field to refute your assertion. Your comment is based, apparently, on one argument and you haven't tried to refute what I've written. Please either make a specific argument for your case or stop changing the entry in error. So far, your argument amounts to "because I say so" and one minor website (which points to the sites I've mentioned as comprehensive).Shsilver 28 June 2005 14:33 (UTC)

I have been unable to post on the discussion page for a day or two. It keeps coming up with the preview screen when I click on save. What I wrote last was: Of course judges of some award would not class them as being alternate history as awards by their nature usually go to new books. They won't suddenly out of the blue give it to something written a few decades ago. I remember a book I read last year called ‘Total War:2006’. The version I read was a reprint and one of the many comments they take from reviews was that the book was a good example of what might have been if things had gone differently in the late 90s. The book was originally written in the mid 90s and post 11/9 it was re-released as a story of what might have been. This also applies to other books set in a future that wasn’t. They are still published despite what they depict not having happened.

Stop your close minded straight reverts. Its immature. -Josquius

Not immature. Accurate. And several of the names I mentioned are of academics who study Alternate History. Oh, and the Sidewise Award can be given out to older books (notable Sobel's For Want of a Nail and Garrett's "Lord Darcy" series.Shsilver 29 June 2005 16:50 (UTC)

I've documented my claims that most people view it as not AH. You haven't, instead blindly changing it back without answering claims to the contrary.Shsilver 6 July 2005 14:57 (UTC)

I understand the idea of claiming things that are 'fictional history' that has passed as 'alternate history', but here's my viewpoint.

FWIW, I'm one of the Sidewise judges that shsilver was going on about, and among those worthies, I seem to be the toughest grader and the toughest on definitions. So here's the story:

"Fictional History" is what you'd call 1984, any of the Clancy books, things like Heinlein's historical setup of stories and novels that follow a similar timeline, and political novels like Seven Days in May.

"Alternate History" requires a simple Point of Divergence. Not a complex one. Not "well, what if this and this and this changed." Like, what if Marilyn Monroe was President, and Jackie Kennedy was the head of the Soviet Union and the Pope was openly gay, and....

That's not AH, that's some kind of weird fantasy. Period. --Jrittenh 6 July 2005 19:17 (UTC)

I am not claiming these books are alternate history. I am just stating the fact that they are commonly regarded as honourary alternate history. Go and check out places where alternate history is discussed by fans of the genre (alternatehistory.com being the biggest place) you will find that many wrong future histories always pop up. Those bad PODs you mentioned. They would make a alternate history. A very bad one. But it would still be a alternate history. Just as all of that pulp sci fi nonsense of the 1930s is classed in the same genre as A.C. Clarke and other respected writers bad alternate history does exist. Something that springs to mind here is The Two Georges which just has a vague 'ugh well...The American Revolution sort of didn't happen' POD. There is no way that agreement between the two Georges could have happened. For the purposes of fiction though it did. I can not find the original poll from the old ah.com forum, it is just not worth my time however there was one created a week or two ago which shows that fans do agree with me on this. http://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showthread.php?t=17295 -Josquius

Josquius, linking to a poll that you created and in which you refer to Shsilver as an "idiot" does absolutely nothing to lend weight to your side of the debate -Rjo 09:53, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

There is no such thing as 'honorary' alternate history fiction = any future history. I went to that poll, and thought that 20-odd people on that board agreeing on anything doth not decree that the moon is made of green cheese. I don't care how well something is written, AH is dependant on a POD. I read very POD-based true AH all the time that is utter crap.

The only things that a lot of people consider AH that is iffy in my book is where the POD is caused by time travellers and the like. ISLAND IN THE SEA OF TIME and THE GUNS OF THE SOUTH are the best-written of that sort. They make me itch, but I'll deal with a few like that as 'honorary' because it's a manufactured by time travel POD. --Jrittenh 05:17, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Print Sources

I've added a short bibliography of printed sources whcih discuss alternate history and its place within science fiction, literature, and historiography. These tend to be more academic works and are extremely useful in understanding what alternate history is.

[edit] Please end the edit war

Shsilver and Josquius should both stop and count to ten before editing any more. (And, Josquius, it would be polite for you to sign your posts on the talk page with the special code ~~~~.) If you can't agree between yourselves, then I highly recommend that you submit your dispute to peer review or mediation and see whether a consensus approach to the issue can be reached. Russ Blau (talk) July 6, 2005 19:26 (UTC)

Signing posts no longer works for some reason. I do try to do so.

I have tried many times to compromise and I too am getting sick of this. - Josquius

[edit] I have moved the page from Peer review to Requests for comment

Russ Blau, I appreciate your intervention. Peer review isn't the right place for content disputes, though, so I have moved the article to Requests for comments, which is. I hope you get good input from that. If it doesn't help, then the next step would indeed be mediation. WP:M seems to be broken, unfortunately, but there are two new, experimental, very simple mediation pages to try: Wikimediation and WP:TINMC, take a look! I've removed the peer review template from this page. Bishonen | talk 15:05, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] SF / AH line.

would a discussion of the sf-ah line explicitly in the text help? I would propose something like the following to be posted after the bullet points of what characterises AH:

This leads to readers encountering stories which read as though they were alternate history, but which are not. An example would be Robert A. Heinlein's The Man Who Sold the Moon. Written in the 1940's, it posits that the first moon launch is run by a private organization rather than a govenment agency in the 1960's. New readers encountering the book may well presume that this is alternative history since it is clearly a counter-factual depiction of the first moon lauch, now almost 40 years in the past. however, when written the first moon launch was nearly 30 years in the future. Thus, The Man Who Sold the Moon is Science fiction, not alternative history. The point of divergance happend after the time at which the author was writing.
The boundary, like many in literature, is a broad line with grey edges. Would a 2005 author writing a story set in 1970 in Heinlein's universe, or Jules Verne's Captain Nemo universe be writing SF or AH? Opinions differ.

I think that helps... but I'm not jumping into an edit war, so I am posting it in TALK FIRST. Rick Boatright 15:56, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

I rather like this and it discusses the difference between an author's intent and the tropes with which the later reader might approach the issue.Shsilver 17:10, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Moved into articleRick Boatright 00:27, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Boundaries of AH; cross-time tales

If someone notices that the sentence about "secret history" has been removed from the first paragraph, don't panic. It has merely been moved to its logical place under "Boundaries of Alternative History" (a new subhead in the article's T of C). I also added some stuff about cross-time stories, since it is really impossible to separate them from alternative history (essentially they are alternate history tales that include a framing that allows the exploration of multiple alternate histories in a single novel).--Nov. 27, 2005

[edit] Battle of Dorking/alt history

As far as I can tell (not having read it), the Battle of Dorking wasn't an alternative history because it posits a 'what-if' (the invasion of England) that begins at the time of the book's publication (1871--at least that's what I remember reading about it in the New Yorker last week. Invasion literature in general is not alternative history. --Birdmessenger 23:40, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

I'd agree. Of course, I'd also say that much of what has been added in the last week isn't ah and tends to dilute the usefulness of the entry.Shsilver 00:36, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Reading the section "Elements of Alternate History", the Battle of Dorking fits those qualifiers. Written in 1871, it outlines an alternative history of England from 1871 forward 50 years to around 1930(?). --Stbalbach 01:01, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Of those, this one is crucial:
  • A point of change from the history of our world prior to the time at which the author is writing
Battle of Dorking fails to meet that standard entirely, unless I'm missing something. The author did not fictionalize a historical event.
--Birdmessenger 01:17, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
True, but it also says "Alternate histories do not Need to be set in the past". I don't disagree that the usefulness of the article is better with a more specific view, in which case I think it needs stronger language about what defines the genre. But currently, one could consider an alternative future history as alternative history. --Stbalbach 01:51, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
It has been discussed before. Works don't become alternate history simply because they are set in the past. There is the matter of intent. Had "The Battle of Dorking" been written in 1910 and detailed things differently from 1871, it woul dhave been AH. As it is, it isn't, any more than 1984 or The Man Who Sold the Moon is.Shsilver 02:15, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
In a nutshell, it doesn't need to be set in the past, but it needs to stem from a change in the past.
My own personal view on this is that, critical to the writing of alternate history is an understanding of the difference between true history and the counterfactual history; comparison between truth and the fiction is the core of the genre, and that's obviously impossible if one is just guessing at what the true history is. Binabik80 02:20, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Someone said the new material dilutes AH and cites the example of Battle of Dorking. But the whole point of the paragraph added about what-if's such as Dorking was to draw a distinction between them and AH. At the same time, there IS the grey area which turns on whether the historical changes are treated as having occurred prior to the time the author is writing.--Nov. 29

Removed reference in alternative history media section to the movie "Red Dawn," which is a cautionary tale but not alternate history.--January 23, 2006

[edit] List of published histories needs reorganizing

Everyone is putting their favorites books into this list, which is fun for all (and alerted me to some works I'd never heard of), but I think it would be best to divide them into at least four categories: conventional (self-contained) AH, time-splitting AH, cross-time AH, and magical pseudo-AH. (Some works would probably end up on at least two lists!) Also, the lists within each category should be alphabetized by author's last name. If people persist in adding works of secret history, mythical history, cautionary tales, etc., well let's just make separate categories for them and clearly label them as not AH or as borderline AH. -- 10 February 2006

[edit] Invitation for editors

Hey, I'm working on the related article Parallel universe (fiction) which needs help and TLC. I just did a complete re-write of the lead section, and imposed some structure, as well as merging in content from the hideously-named Many worlds and possible worlds in literature and art but I now have a main article body that's a laundry-list of novels, stories, role-playing games and Magic: The Gathering :( I'd like any help from interested editors. --Saswann 21:18, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Alternate history and fantasy

[edit] Split Article PROPOSAL

The section on alternate history and fantasy just keeps growing and growing. Obviously, this is a subgenre that lots of wikipedians enjoy and feel passionate about. I'm wondering however if this shouldn't be turned into a separate article since alternate history with magic is really a kind of grey area. It should certainly be mentioned in this article but perhaps the full treatment should be spun off. As a fan of alternate history with or without magic both, I don't feel strongly about this. I'm just throwing it out as a possibility, especially since this section will probably continue to grow.--03 April 2006

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 208.222.71.17 (talk • contribs) Revision as of 01:41, 4 April 2006 (UTC) (FrankB 20:02, 13 July 2006 (UTC))

[edit] Split Article Discussion

Spliting into two articles is probably wise, especially since the fantasy section could probably endure being given further subdivision. Goldfritha 02:17, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

:'Split' per nom.' —This seems to be technically a sort of 'Uchronia', which merger suggestion brought me here to check into. Same deal as Harry Potter, I would think. Such long sections can be split out and referenced as for example, see History of India (I get '37', count them!), uses of the phrase Main article:), or other long articles with tons of information (like British Empire). While I like both genre's, I think your suggestion has merit aside from length. The two are different beasts, save both are technically genre's of speculative fiction. This is supposed to also be a sub-genre of Science fiction which disdains and turns up it's noses at mere Fantasy. <g> So, agree! // FrankB 20:02, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Many Worlds Theory

I removed for the second time in recent months a reference to an Everettian "wave function collapse". There is no wave function collapse in MWT; instead the universe splits so that Schrodinger's cat both lives and dies--in separate universes. "Wave function collapse" is what is presumed to occur in the older Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics.

However, the author of the disputed paragraph has a valid point about some universes being possible and others not, although this is an issue of literary framing (and possibly of philosophy) rather than of quantum mechnics. I clarified the phrasing on this point and will later move it to the subsection on Points of Departure, with examples.--10 April 2006 —The preceding comment is by 64.12.116.65 (talk • contribs) Revision as of 19:31, 10 April 2006: Please sign your posts!


Then the term "wave function collapse" should be replaced with a different reference to a quantum level event. Especially since the example given -- the Puritans deciding to convert to Catholicism on land -- is not, like the life/death of Schrodinger's cat, dependant on a single particle's action. Goldfritha 02:47, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
I tinkered with this a bit more; if you don't like it, change it. Also, you added something about "all" possibilities and about how characters just happen to end up in the world where they just happen to avoid behaving in a cowardly manner. There were grammar problems with this paragraph which I tried to clean up, but I may inadvertently have distorted your meaning. Try to make your point more clearly, perhaps with an example. -- 17 April 2006 (unsigned post by user:152.163.100.65)
(Attrib. Annoted: FrankB 17:37, 20 April 2006 (UTC))
Incidentially, your claims about "possible" universes do not seem proper to me. In a fictional multiverse, we can meaningfully state that a universe is not possible -- the author can say so. But to claim that Victoria Woodhull's election is not possible? How would we know? The most we can say is that it is implausible, which is an eminently arguable point, and not a criterion for distinguishing an alternate history from works of another genre. Goldfritha 23:16, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
Of course the election of Woodhull would have been possible PROVIDED THAT a prior point of departure (for instance, a virus wiping out two thirds of all men in the United States) had produced huge changes in American society and culture. Without such major POD changes I still maintain her election would have been utterly impossible. American voters of the post-Civil War era (when the franchise was only available to men and the viewpoint of the average American on religious and sexual matters was such that Jerry Falwell would be regarded as daringly liberated by comparison) would simply not have voted for a woman candidate who advocated free love. To suggest that anything is possible under any historical circumstance is to deny the lawful nature of history (and of physical reality). Of course the portrayal of bizarre happenings AS IF they were possible is perfectly valid for literary purposes, and the fine short story about Woodhull's Presidency can be said to obey the "higher principle" of satiric license.--dking 31 May 2006
You can maintain it all you like, but on what grounds? I don't see how you could have any evidence for that view that bizarre happenings can not happen in an alternate universe. Goldfritha 23:18, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Bizarre things happen all the time, but the election of Woodhull in the 1870s would have been something far beyond "bizarre." Nevertheless, I conceded above that yes, it could have happened in a parallel universe, provided that a point of departure at a prior moment had created the conditions for transforming the beyond-bizarre into the merely bizarre (or, if the POD was a virus killing the majority of U.S. men) transforming the beyond-bizarre into the commonplace. The key concept here is that of an adequate POD. The author of the short story did not provide an adequate POD because she was writing satire, which does not require it.--dking 1 June 2006
"Adequate POD" is your opinion. It does not belong in this article except as a statement that some people don't regard alternate histories as alternate histories if they don't think the POD is plausible enough. Goldfritha 00:05, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
A distinction has to be made between alternate history that deals with things that are possible given a certain POD, and things that are simply impossible (as in certain satires as well as the fantasy-based alternate history novels). "Possibility" is an important dialectical category in philosophy and indeed in all rational thought and implies "impossibility." "Plausibility" is a different concept with a fundamentally different meaning from possibility. The recognition of the distinction between possible and impossible events in alternate history is owed to those military historians and other scholars who use alternate history in the classical sense as a means of illuminating real history through the study of possible outcomes different from those that actually occurred. I have nowhere suggested that "impossible" events (events for which an adequate historical POD has not been suggested or that posit a reality that violates the basic physical laws of our universe) are not part of the alternative history genre, but they are a different category of the genre. I am merely applying to alternate history the same distinctions that are commonly made in science fiction between "hard" and "soft" science fiction and between science fiction proper and science fantasy, all of which are regarded as honorable categories within one and the same genre.--dking 1 June 2006
A distinction has to be made between distinctions that can be made, and distinctions that can not. Unless you are hiding some quite interesting evidence, what really is impossible is your knowing that some alternate histories are "impossible." Philosophical smokescreens about words and pointing to other distinctions between genre are beside the point. Goldfritha 01:57, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Wait a minute. You are applying these distinctions? Original research does not belong on Wikipedia. Goldfritha 23:25, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
All right, then, I'm deleting as original research Goldfritha 23:35, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] When will it be fixed?

I thought there was going to be official mediation here to set the article right. That was about a month ago now though... When is this happening?--84.12.59.87 19:25, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I can't see why mediating is needed any longer. Just present both viewpoints, "some students of AH argue X, others argue Y...." The persons who argued heatedly over the disputed point last year seem to have moved on. I frankly think official mediation is a waste of time on the point they were arguing.--9 May 2006

Actually, no, it was raised for mediation because the one who had moved on returned. (He now appears to be making changes using only his IP rather than his user name.) Shsilver 14:21, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
I made one change using my ip when I didn't realise I was logged out...
The thing is that I tried to present both viewpoints, only my very very early edits (which shisilver flatly reverted) stated it as fact. Since then I have just been saying that 'many consider x' (which shisilver...flatly reverts). He is the antagonist in this, we had previously reached a agreement of a edit which suited us both and I assumed he was a man of honour and moved on. When browsing however I returned to find that it had all been changed to totally remove my changes.--Josquius 14:38, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
You've made the cockamamie statement about an agreement before and I've stated that I never came to an agreement with you about this. The only agreement I've ever come to with you was to offer this up for mediation, so I would prefer it if you stopped lying about any agreement. Shsilver 11:35, 23 May 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Uchronia MERGE-here Proposal

Why on earth would that be merged with this? All the examples given in that article are clearly not alternate histories. Goldfritha 02:00, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Oppose MERGE      Strong Agree with sentiments of prior party— with a dash of caution and the Split proposal above on Fantasy. THAT may warrant some strong linking, but 'even that' shouldn't be merged. Uchronia is a nice little article all on it's own merits. At most they should be linked. // FrankB 20:09, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose Pictureuploader 07:30, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose Uchronia needs work for sure, but not by adding it to this article. - Lady Aleena @ 18:22, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose Rick Boatright 18:35, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose Dking 11:32, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Link removal

A disgruntled member of the forums at alternatehistory.com keeps on deleting the link to the site? Since AH.com is the most comprehensive ah-themed website in the english language, the link should be included in the appropriate section. Is it possible to lock to stop this vandalism?

alternatehistory.com deserves a listing (but ah.com doesn't), but it shouldn't be listed as the largest or most comprehensive unless that statement can be verified as not POV (I'd suggest that uchronia is more comprehensive, but again, that is POV). Shsilver 21:43, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Id say it deserves mention. With all the censorship and chasing off of those with opposing viewpoints that goes on I dont see how its the "most comprehensive".

Any other person who removes the external link will be summarily blocked. User:Zoe|(talk) 23:33, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I'd request a source for the claim of "largest" (or "second largest") for alternate history.com and This Day in Alternate History.Shsilver 01:35, 25 July 2006 (UTC)


Fair enough on the phrasing of it, the terms are a little loaded. It certainly is promiment enough though that it's worth a mention, certainly more so then some of the other links, how about something along the lines of "a large web-based alternate history discussion board"? The vandal hasn't stopped, as of 2200 EST it has been changed again.

Alternatehistory.com has by nearly an order of magnitude the most active alternate history discussion forum on the net (I have no idea what the phrasing was after this deletion war, but I wrote an original phrasing specifically about being the largest AH *discussion board* on the net). It has approximately 1100 posts per day as of last month, generally 600-700 members who have posted within the last month, and an archive of nearly 700,000 posts. The second and third largest forums that I'm aware of were the newsgroup soc.history.what-if and othertimelines.com. I haven't checked the latest google stats but SHWI was averaging something like 120-150 posts per day in 2005 (and, unfortunately, continuously declining on a year-to-year basis). A quick glance at the Google stats indicates that SHWI has roughly the same number of archived posts, since its creation in 1992 (alternatehistory.com dates from late 2000). I don't know othertimelines.com's daily activity level (though it is nowhere near alternatehistory.com's) but it has about 125,000 posts total in its archive. - Ian M, board admin Ian M 02:32, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with the notion alternatehistory.com is "the most active alternate history discussion forum". Yeah, theres quite a bit of traffic. However, most of the activity goes on in two chat rooms where AH is rarely ever discussed. Also, the most active members rarely ever post in the alt hist areas.

Not sure who this anonymous naysayer is, but it's no accident they don't post figures. Alternatehistory.com has 50% posts in chat, which leaves 550 posts per day in the purely on-topic forums. soc.history.what-if averaged 120 posts per day in 2005, including off-topic posting and trolls (which occur with regularity on the unmoderated newsgroup): http://groups.google.com/group/soc.history.what-if/browse_frm/thread/778af20335f71409/89d5e25ccf4f000a?lnk=st&q=&rnum=42#89d5e25ccf4f000a Hard to figure the activity level of othertimelines.com as it recently dropped a lot due to severe hacker attacks. The phpBB post count claims 80,000 archived posts in the mostly on-topic forums, but it's clear that this number of posts aren't actually visible. Anyway, that site isn't nearly as active either. Ian Montgomerie 07:35, 25 July 2006 (UTC)


Saying Alternatehistory.com is "the most active alternate history discussion forum" is like saying MTV is the greatest music video channel on cable TV! Ah.com has heavy traffic. Certainly more than Unwritten History or Alternia from any vantage point. It doesnt change the fact that at least every other post has almost nothing to do with alternate history. Contrast that with othertimelines.com where most all posts are relevant to the stated purpose of the board. Nah, "most active" is too vague a term

It is the largest, and has more on-topic posts verifiable than any other group. Fadethebutcher 21:44, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Othertimelines has essentially died due to hacker/spamming activities. The community however still exists, in a very active undisclosed website. Although OTL still has the largest collection of esaily accesable AH TLs on the internet.

I've been posting a link to the active Othertimelines discussion board, and while its in there when I go to edit, it doesn't show up on the page, is the link section locked or something? If so I'd appreciate whoever has the power in inserting the link onto the page. Nevermind its working now, probably just some trouble with my machine.217.84.184.73 23:33, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] pseudo-alternity

I have removed POV comments from the Fantasy section. Whether these "should" be called "pseudo-alternities" or not, the fact is that they are not so called. Goldfritha 23:33, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Interesting term. Would it apply to an alt-history work that not only bends the past but also bends physical science? Orson Scott Card's Alvin Maker series comes to mind as an example. --Erielhonan 01:39, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
I removed it because it was original research. The term is not in common use, and until it is, the question of what it applies to is not clear. Goldfritha 21:50, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] PKD major writer?

An edit summary comment by recent editor says he or she is not sure PK Dick qualifies as a major writer. For the record, the prestigious Library of America is coming out with a Philip K. Dick volume next spring (I presume Man in a High Castle will be one of the novels included). Although I personally think the LOA's first choice of a science-fiction writer to honor should have been the incomparable Jack Vance, the LOA volume will certainly consolidate Dick's well deserved reputation as an important figure in mainstream as well as genre literature.--14 Sept 2006

Oh, yes, Philip K. Dick qualifies as a major writer. Goldfritha 03:44, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Userbox

Wikipedians who read alternate history should consider deploying this userbox {{User:Erielhonan/UBX/Alt-history}} on their user page to be included in Category:Wikipedians_who_enjoy_alt-history. This userbox and category were started to create a wikicommunity that will strive to keep articles about alternate history up-to-date and up to Wikipedia standards. --Erielhonan 01:39, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] immediate alternate history

Here's a vivid example I've never seen mentioned: that the fall of the USSR depended in large part on the untimely deaths of two men: Yuri Andropov being one. He was not planned to be a caretaker leader, his death after 11 months in office was truly unexpected. The plan was for him to be the hard-line Soviet leader for a good 20 years.

The other was Pope John Paul Ist, dead after--what?--10 days. Murdered? Maybe. Untimely, either way.

So then, imagine: no Polish Pope in the Vatican to defend Soldarity and Walesa against an Andropov-led Kremlin. No Gorbachev in the Kremlin to promulgate Glasnost and Perestroika.

A tremendously different recent history, due to the unexpected deaths of two men.

miguelj

[edit] Iron Dream - may could be mentioned

Sorry, if this comment is placed wrongly. Just wanted to mention "Iron Dream" by Norman Spinrad as an interesting piece of AH. It is a novel "by Adolf Hitler", if Hitler migrated to the U.S. in 1919 and became a sci-fi author, including an editorial note from the paralel history, which shows some context. 194.108.220.58 08:54, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] (fiction)

Per this CfD discussion, it was suggested that the parentheses be removed from "fiction". The only reason not to do so was to match the article name. However, in light of the discussion, perhaps the parenteses should be removed from both the article and the category (which would make the article name: Alternate history fiction - which is currently a redirect). The category discussion is now "on hold" awaiting any thoughts or concerns that may be mentioned here. - jc37 15:59, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

It's now been 11 days (over twice the typical 5). I'll go ahead and move the page. - jc37 17:52, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
The CfD discussion doesn't seem to exist any more...what was the argument for this? The fictional genre is usually just called "Alternate History", so I thought it made more sense to have that as the article title, with (fiction) to avoid confusion with things like counterfactual history. Hypnosifl 02:37, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
The discussion was archived as Wikipedia:User categories for discussion/Archive/November 2006#Category:Wikipedians who enjoy alt-history. The distinction between "Alternative history (fiction)" and "Alternative history fiction" was brought up, but I don't think there was a real consensus to move this page.
Hypnosifl asked at WT:NC if there was a standard convention applying here and I don't there is. Clearly, "alternative history" is the common name for the genre, but WP:COMMONNAME directs us to use a well-accepted alternative when possible to avoid disambiguation.
I don't think "alternative history fiction" is really qualifies an alternative name, so I would support moving back to alternative history (fiction). Try these Google searches: "alternative history" fiction -wikipedia (294,000 ghits) vs. "alternative history fiction" -wikipedia (416 ghits). – Anþony  talk  22:11, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Hmm, reading the debate at Wikipedia:User_categories_for_discussion/Archive/November_2006#Category:Wikipedians_who_enjoy_alt-history I don't see a single person who argued in favor of removing the parentheses from the main article, the proposal was just to "elide the parentheses" from "Category:Wikipedians who enjoy alternate history (fiction)", so that it would become "Category:Wikipedians who enjoy alternate history fiction". The only place where anyone suggested changing the main article was jc37's comment at the beginning of this subsection of the talk page, but no one else chimed in to support this proposal so there was certainly no consensus, and both Anþony and I seem to be against it. Unless there are any objections within the next few days I think we should change the main article title back to "Alternate history (fiction)". Hypnosifl 18:27, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
  • (Restarting indent)

Please re-read the nomination, the discussion, and the closure. The main thing is that the category name should match the article name in most cases. And this case doesn't seem to be an exception to that.

We've already had a CfD on this, and my post was here unresponded to for well over a week. However, I am a strong proponent of Consensus can change, so I have no problem with the idea of starting a new discussion on this. The main thing I ask is that before this page is moved again, that a new CfD is started for the related category first, and then we can use that discussion as a model for determining consensus for the name for this page as well.

As for my own opinion, just a thought, but unless there is a concern that readers may be confused between alternative and alternate, perhaps "(fiction)" should be entirely dropped?

One last thing: I would like to commend you (plural). As far as I can tell so far, this has been a civil, and thought-filled discussion, with no outbursts or other disruption. Believe me when I say that it's a pleasure to see : ) - jc37 20:53, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

You say "please re-read the nomination", but if you're referring to the discussion at Wikipedia:User_categories_for_discussion/Archive/November_2006#Category:Wikipedians_who_enjoy_alt-history, I see no one there suggesting that "Alternate history (fiction)" should be changed to "Alternate history fiction", only a discussion of whether "Category:Wikipedians who enjoy alt-history" should be changed to "Category:Wikipedians who enjoy alternate history (fiction)" or "Category:Wikipedians who enjoy alternate history fiction". For example, when Mike Selinger says "I think you can ditch the parenthetical", it's clear to me he's referring to the paranthetical in your suggested title of "Category:Wikipedians who enjoy alternate history (fiction)", not the parenthetical in the main article. He even says "let's not be too enamored of page titles", meaning that the category's title does not need to precisely duplicate the article title. Similarly, Erielhonan says "If rename happens, I support Mike Selinker's proposal to elide the parentheses (thereby making the category title Category:Wikipedians who read alternate history fiction)", so again, that is clearly only referring to "eliding the parentheses" from the category title, not the main article. Nowhere in the discussion does anyone suggest changing the main article title, unless you count Mike Selinger's summary of the "result of the debate" at the top, where he suggests "testing" a rename of the main article and says that if that is accepted then the category name can be changed too. No one there or here has said that they support this change to the main article title, though, so I see nothing resembling a consensus.
As for your suggestion, I think it'd probably be OK to drop the (fiction) from the main article title, although I'm not sure that people are actually 100% consistent about exclusively using "alternate history" for fiction and "counterfactual history" for academic speculation about what-if questions, so if people do sometimes use "alternate history" in a non-fictional context that'd be a case for keeping it. Hypnosifl 23:40, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
I don't think the article and category have to match in this regard. The category is "Wikipedians who enjoy alternate history fiction". Fiction is being used there as a generic term with the name of the genre as an adjective. You could easily rewrite it to say "Wikipedians who enjoy alternate history books", but clearly we shouldn't call this article alternate history books.
jc37 is also right to point out that the historiography subject is alternative history, while the literary genre is alternate history. That link even redirects here. I would support dropping the "fiction" entirely. – Anþony  talk  02:17, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
As initiator of the category, I support Anþony's suggestion to remove the word "fiction" (and any punctuation associated with it) from both the category and the article title. If this is done it should be accompanied with disclaimers ("this is an article about a literary genre called alternate history. if you are looking for the historiography subject called alternative history, then go there.", etc., etc.) in all appropriate places. Cheers, Erielhonan 05:16, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Clarification is a rather good idea. : )
It looks to me that we have consensus on this. We'll need an admin to delete the redirect. Also, this page has had several page moves (click on "what links here"). The double redirects need fixing. If someone knows a helpful bot owner, that would be great, else they will need to be done by hand. - jc37 21:56, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Well it looks like this has the (dubious?) honour of being my first admin action : )
The page is now moved, and I fixed several redirects, but the rest still need fixing. Let me know if you have any further comments/concerns : ) - jc37 14:24, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. The page name is now correct at last. The whole (fiction) thing stems from when both articles used Alternative in the title due to the misunderstanding way up on this talk page. (The literary genre is definitely much more commonly called Alternate history rather than Alternative.) Anyway, the policy you may have been referring to is that a page title should have a parenthetical in it only if the non-parenthetical version is already taken (by a different main article or a dab page). —pfahlstrom 00:23, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] better than Iron Dream

Spinrad wasn't able to stretch his one idea in Iron Dream to make a succesful novel out of it. It is boringly repetitive--probably the main reason it's so hard to find. A much better AH ad Hitlerum is where a present-day protagonist goes back in time to Vienna in the 1920s and convinces that city's Jewish art dealers and art critics to boost Adolf's career (beyond its real merits) so that he makes a living as an artist and never goes into politics. Who wrote this book? No one yet.... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.8.166.178 (talk • contribs) 06:48, 4 December 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Why is there a separate section for "point of divergence"?

The basic concept of a "point of divergence" is already discussed in both the introduction and "introducing the paratime patrol", and the extra section titled "point of divergence" doesn't really add anything beyond discussing two examples in great detail (one of which was not even originally intended as alternate history, just future history which later became alternate history due to the failure of predictions like the Eugenics War). This seems pretty random, I'd be in favor of eliminating this section altogether, since the article is already quite long. Would anyone object to this? Hypnosifl 11:00, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Or, maybe the stuff about the many-worlds interpretation and whether all possible histories exist should be moved from the "introducing the paratime patrol" section into this section, where they'd be a little less of a digression? Hypnosifl 11:12, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Alternate future

Just letting the editors of this article know that there is a discussion on Talk:Alternate future about the encyclopedicness of that article that I think editors of alternate history fiction might be interested in participating in. —Lowellian (reply) 20:12, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New Link Removal

The link for the active Othertimelines messageboard has been deleted, it is clearly a legitimate alternate history site, and one of the larger forums on the web, I will resubmit it, and hope there is not additional vandalism. 217.84.164.160 01:49, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] this article is too long

[edit] Yahooo group link

Why do we need *[http://groups.yahoo.com/group/alternate-history Alternate History mailing list] in the article what does that provide and does it meet policy? Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 14:36, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

My take is that it belongs in the article as much as any of the other interactive links. If it were being used as a citation rather than for further information, I would agree that it doesn't meet standards, but it isn't being referenced as RS, so your bot is wrong to reference that. There is no reference to discussion groups in EL, which your bot claims it violates, so that is not true, It isn't SPAM, so your bot is wrong there as well. Of the four policies your bot references, the only one which might be applicable is NOT, but, as I commented, if it applies to this link, it should apply to all of the interactive links listed on the page.
What it does do is provide a pointer to a forum for further discussion of the topic which people who are interested enough in the topic to look it up might want to follow up on. Shsilver 21:29, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../a/l/t/Talk%7EAlternate_history_35cd.html"