Talk:Settling Accounts

Czarist Russia

"Turtledove never explains why Russia is still Tsarist, since in real life the Russian Revolution was in large part caused by its being defeated in World War I, which also happened here."

A possible reason for this would be that in this timeline, the Germans felt no need to send Lenin in a sealed railway car back to St. Petersburg (the war on the Western front would have been considerably eased without American involvement on the Anglo-French side.)

Added the part about guerilla warfare in Ireland; re-arranged the bit about a lack of explanation for the continued existence of a Tsarist Russia.

Actually, he does; Stalin did attempt an overthrow, but the Tzarist faction won when Stalin and the upper communist leadership died. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 12.215.227.97 (talk) 05:48, 18 February 2007 (UTC).

What happened to the republicanists (White Revolution) and Trotskists then? It would have been preferable to have split the Russian Empire in three, with the communists controlling Central Russia, the Czar controlling the Russian Far East, and the republicanists controlling European Russia. (And then the Empire fracturing due to local nationalist movements, and the conquest of Siberia by Japan) 70.51.8.242 03:30, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

• Lenin probably shot Rasputin so that his prophecy came true.

Deseret

The Mormon rebels do not use the Utah flag, they apparently use a honeybee flag with the words "DESERET" on it. Is this flag historical, because if it is then it should replace the Utah flag on the war summary. Don Quixtote (talk) 08:19, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

World map is rather speculative

The world map showen in this article is rather speculative. In Africa, Germany snatched the Congo from the Belgians, but otherwise everything looks just like in our timeline. That's IMO rather unlikely (Germany might have claimed more territory from Britain and France to connect all her colonies) and Turtledove doesn't give any details. The Baltic states, Georgia, several Caucasus nations, Romania and Albania are all independent and members of the Central Powers. Not mentioned in the books AFAIK. The territory of Poland and the Ukraine is unknown too. All South American states except Uruguay, Argentia and Chile are shown as neutral powers. Not mentioned in the books AFAIK. Siam is a Japanese ally. China is at war with Japan. Also not mentioned AFAIK. I know, in Turtledoves books, stuff that's not explained usually happens like in our timeline, but IMO, the map is still highly speculative and should be replaced by a list of nations/flags instead. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.76.3.135 (talk) 13:32, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

NOT A MILITARY CONFLICT

Please for the LOVE OF GOD do NOT use the military conflict infobox for this article.

Because it is not a military conflict.

I'm working on a collaborative research project that examining aggregate military conflict Wikipedia over the course of human history. We're trying to see what we can learn both about the history of human conflict, and the way conflict is preserved and remembered on knowledge databases like Wikipedia.

I've already had to remove nonsense data due to the irresponsible and erroneous use of the military infobox on Lord of the Rings and Star Wars Wikipedia pages. I rewired our parser to remove Star Trek pages when we saw a sore thumb outlier battle with over a TRILLION casualties that ended up being some fictional "Dominion War."

This one was particularly tricky because it uses real world entities AND links to them in the infobox. We're looking at huge patterns in huge amounts of data but I just happened to notice that the German Empire and the Ottoman Empire were indicated as military active in 1941 and I knew that was wrong. I cracked open the layers of processed data and realized that this fictional alternate history book was caught by our widely cast net.

Because some writer uses the military conflict infobox. But this is not a military conflict. It's a work of fiction. Vqmalic (talk) 03:33, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

I've reverted the change. There's no reason to remove that information from all readers just to make one person's data mining easier. And it IS a military conflict, just a fictional one. Jackmcbarn (talk) 14:07, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi Vqmalic. By some bizarre coincidence, I happened to be reading about this series of alternate-history novels by way of research on James Longstreet. I was muttering to myself about some of the 'liberties' and 'flights of fancy' I thought the author had taken, decided to look at the Talk page... and found your comments about the 'Dominion War' page. Having spent the best part of three months back in 2011 trying to transform that very page from a fictional history account into a more encyclopaedic entry about the real-world writing of that story arc, I can only apologise that I never considered also removing the military conflict infobox. However, since it already resided there, and nobody ever left any feedback suggesting it shouldn't be there, I had no idea that I should remove it. Thus are the pitfalls of a user-curated wiki. I'm sure if you simply went to edit it out yourself, this would be acceptable, if you explain the reason. I would happily support you! However, please be aware that editors have spent their own time and passion contributing to even what might appear trivial pages and subjects. They are not doing it to antagonise anybody on purpose. Good luck with your project. Ethdhelwen (talk) 21:52, 5 August 2017 (UTC)