This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

"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)

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)

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. // Fra nkB 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)

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)

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 The Tales of 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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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, E riel honan 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)

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).

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)

The response I would give as to why is, perhaps it has become a term used outside of AH? If it has entered the mainstream to indicate not necessarily an AH, but rather just a significant development, it should be separate. (Example: "I had planned to go to X college, and would have, but the scholarship to Y caused a significant point of divergence.")

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)

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)

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)

Rationale:

The word "alternate" has two distinct meanings. The Compact OED defines it thus:

alternate [...]

adjective /awltrnt/

 1 every other. 
 2 (of two things) each following and succeeded by the other in a regular pattern. 
 3 chiefly N. Amer. another term for ALTERNATIVE.

The word "alternative" has only closely related meanings that all apply to this subject. Therefore, the phrase "alternate history" is only correct for American English; in UK English, the phrase "alternative history" is preferred. "Alternative history," however, is perfectly acceptable in both variants of the language.

Wikipedia's guideline in the situation of diverging variants of English ( WP:MOS#National_varieties_of_English) is to "[select] one that does not have multiple variant spellings if there are synonyms that are otherwise equally suitable and reasonable." It is clearly in the spirit of this suggestion to move to the more internationally acceptable title. JulesH 15:58, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

If you look through the archives, you'll see that this was perviously discussed. Whatever is correct grammatically, the genre is called "Alternate History." Shsilver 16:26, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I've heard people calling it by both names. However, the simple fact of the matter is that in British English, the phrase "alternate history" is nonsense, whereas "alternative history" is meaningful in both British and US English. Wikipedia's guidelines in such cases is to use the more widely acceptable form. JulesH 15:54, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Setting aside that there is already an entry for Alternative history on Wikipedia, and setting aside any credentials I might have on the topic (in spite of recent arguments made on the Teresa Nielsen Hayden thread), I'll note that I have seen a variety of British publications use the phrase "alternate history" when referring to the genre. For example: Odyssey Issue 7, 1998, p.50: "Entries must be on the theme of Alternate History, and must be less than 7,500 words long." Odyssey was published by Partizan Press of London, UK, so the argument that "alternate history" is nonsense in British usage is demonstrably incorrect. Shsilver 19:31, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Additionally, in Brave New Words: The Oxford Dictionary of Science Fiction (Oxford University Press, 2007), the entry for "Alternative History" (p.5) reads: "n 1. ALTERNATE HISTORY 1." followed by examples beginning in 1977. The entry for "Alternate History" (p.4) reads: "n 1. a timeline that is different from that of our own world, usually extrapolated from the change of a single event; the genre of fiction set in such a time." followed by examples dating back to 1954. Shsilver 12:43, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

"Alternate" means going from one to the other and back; clearly the correct word here is "alternative". Confusing the two words is a common error, not just in the US, but an encyclopedia should strive to say what is correct rather than repeat the most popular errors or misconceptions. Patrick Neylan 14:32, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Wrong. An encyclopedia should reflect the way the world is. Shsilver 15:28, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I believe there should be at least a brief description on the idea of alternate 'beings' as well. Alternate beings can be completely fiction or a fiction based on a real person.

Jack Vance dealt with this in "Rumfiddle", where one of the characters "collects" alternate world versions of history's most evil people and raises them to be normal. Also there's the alternate Hitler in The Iron Dream who emigrates to America and becomes a science fiction writer with sado-masochist fantasies. And there's the alternate Allen Ginsburg in a Jack Barnes paratime novel who leads an anti-Nazi resistance cell in Berkeley and escapes to Vietnam to inspire with his great patriotic poetry the fight of Generals Patton and Giap and the multinational anti-Nazi army holding out in SE Asia and Tibet (I'm not making this up). If someone adds this theme it should be in a section of its own; this article has too many things in the wrong place already.-- Dking 02:33, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

It originally was:

"Another alternate timeline game is Freedom Fighters. In the games reality, the USSR is the first nation to create a nuclear weapon, leading to a communist Europe, expansion into Central and South America, and finally outright invasion of the US. The main focus of the game is about one mans joining the guerrilla resistance and aiding in the fight against the soviets, eventually pushing them out of New York."

It was so terribly written that I just had to cut it.

This section definitely merits a rewrite. It is very terrible written.

I agree, time periods should be more clearly definde, eg post-WWII etc. Also, there should be mentions of AH's in other media, such as Command and Conquer: red alert being an AH where Einstein invented time travel and made Hitler disppear. (see article). - Redmess 10:49, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

"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)

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)

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. // Fra nkB 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)

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)

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 The Tales of 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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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, E riel honan 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)

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).

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)

The response I would give as to why is, perhaps it has become a term used outside of AH? If it has entered the mainstream to indicate not necessarily an AH, but rather just a significant development, it should be separate. (Example: "I had planned to go to X college, and would have, but the scholarship to Y caused a significant point of divergence.")

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)

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)

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)

Rationale:

The word "alternate" has two distinct meanings. The Compact OED defines it thus:

alternate [...]

adjective /awltrnt/

 1 every other. 
 2 (of two things) each following and succeeded by the other in a regular pattern. 
 3 chiefly N. Amer. another term for ALTERNATIVE.

The word "alternative" has only closely related meanings that all apply to this subject. Therefore, the phrase "alternate history" is only correct for American English; in UK English, the phrase "alternative history" is preferred. "Alternative history," however, is perfectly acceptable in both variants of the language.

Wikipedia's guideline in the situation of diverging variants of English ( WP:MOS#National_varieties_of_English) is to "[select] one that does not have multiple variant spellings if there are synonyms that are otherwise equally suitable and reasonable." It is clearly in the spirit of this suggestion to move to the more internationally acceptable title. JulesH 15:58, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

If you look through the archives, you'll see that this was perviously discussed. Whatever is correct grammatically, the genre is called "Alternate History." Shsilver 16:26, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I've heard people calling it by both names. However, the simple fact of the matter is that in British English, the phrase "alternate history" is nonsense, whereas "alternative history" is meaningful in both British and US English. Wikipedia's guidelines in such cases is to use the more widely acceptable form. JulesH 15:54, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Setting aside that there is already an entry for Alternative history on Wikipedia, and setting aside any credentials I might have on the topic (in spite of recent arguments made on the Teresa Nielsen Hayden thread), I'll note that I have seen a variety of British publications use the phrase "alternate history" when referring to the genre. For example: Odyssey Issue 7, 1998, p.50: "Entries must be on the theme of Alternate History, and must be less than 7,500 words long." Odyssey was published by Partizan Press of London, UK, so the argument that "alternate history" is nonsense in British usage is demonstrably incorrect. Shsilver 19:31, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Additionally, in Brave New Words: The Oxford Dictionary of Science Fiction (Oxford University Press, 2007), the entry for "Alternative History" (p.5) reads: "n 1. ALTERNATE HISTORY 1." followed by examples beginning in 1977. The entry for "Alternate History" (p.4) reads: "n 1. a timeline that is different from that of our own world, usually extrapolated from the change of a single event; the genre of fiction set in such a time." followed by examples dating back to 1954. Shsilver 12:43, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

"Alternate" means going from one to the other and back; clearly the correct word here is "alternative". Confusing the two words is a common error, not just in the US, but an encyclopedia should strive to say what is correct rather than repeat the most popular errors or misconceptions. Patrick Neylan 14:32, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Wrong. An encyclopedia should reflect the way the world is. Shsilver 15:28, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I believe there should be at least a brief description on the idea of alternate 'beings' as well. Alternate beings can be completely fiction or a fiction based on a real person.

Jack Vance dealt with this in "Rumfiddle", where one of the characters "collects" alternate world versions of history's most evil people and raises them to be normal. Also there's the alternate Hitler in The Iron Dream who emigrates to America and becomes a science fiction writer with sado-masochist fantasies. And there's the alternate Allen Ginsburg in a Jack Barnes paratime novel who leads an anti-Nazi resistance cell in Berkeley and escapes to Vietnam to inspire with his great patriotic poetry the fight of Generals Patton and Giap and the multinational anti-Nazi army holding out in SE Asia and Tibet (I'm not making this up). If someone adds this theme it should be in a section of its own; this article has too many things in the wrong place already.-- Dking 02:33, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

It originally was:

"Another alternate timeline game is Freedom Fighters. In the games reality, the USSR is the first nation to create a nuclear weapon, leading to a communist Europe, expansion into Central and South America, and finally outright invasion of the US. The main focus of the game is about one mans joining the guerrilla resistance and aiding in the fight against the soviets, eventually pushing them out of New York."

It was so terribly written that I just had to cut it.

This section definitely merits a rewrite. It is very terrible written.

I agree, time periods should be more clearly definde, eg post-WWII etc. Also, there should be mentions of AH's in other media, such as Command and Conquer: red alert being an AH where Einstein invented time travel and made Hitler disppear. (see article). - Redmess 10:49, 25 June 2007 (UTC)