Talk:The Man in the High Castle

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former good article nominee The Man in the High Castle was a Language and literature good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
April 27, 2007 Good article nominee Not listed
Archives: 1

Cleanup needed[edit]

  • Lead - really poorly done. It doesn't give the reader any real information about the story.
  • Plot summary - this covers only the alternative history and none of the plot. Not acceptable.
  • Characters - should be merged into the plot summary, for the most part
  • Storylines - that's the purpose of the plot summary
  • Story-within-the-story - completely unsourced
  • The I Ching as literary device - relevant, but completely unsourced
  • Themes - relevant, but unsourced
  • Inspirations - usually covered in a background and/or development section
  • Reception - sparse, requiring expansion
  • Sequel - unsourced quotes

This is a really sad state of affairs. How is it, that after 848 edits by 503 editors over 13 years, we are left with this article? I'm willing to help out, but there's got to be a way to improve the quality of our articles so that this doesn't happen again. Viriditas (talk) 03:29, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

The problem is that articles such as this attract well-meaning fans of the work that want to write about it to relive and analyse it, rather than write an encyclopedia article of use to someone who hasn't necessarily read the book. I've started going through and chopping the egrariously unsourced OR, remove unnecessary details and merge some of the smaller sections. Ashmoo (talk) 12:11, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Map[edit]

This map has been the source of much discussion, and is no longer in the article. I'm preserving it here for interest's sake ... it's actually useful to readers of the novel wanting to keep track of the world's geopolitical situation, though the Original Research angle makes it a problematic inclusion in a Wikipedia article.

The political world in the novel.

70.54.140.52 (talk) 20:18, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

The map was again returned to here, for the reasons of WP:OR indicated by the other, separate editor in October 2014. Note, I am a regular scientific editor here, with login, and not the same IP editor above (but am on the road). Please, don't return this map without a verifiable citation as to its origin. Unlike Amazon and Netflix, Wikipedia has not yet begun to create original content! Cheers, discuss here. Le Prof. 71.239.87.100 (talk) 19:16, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Would it be sufficient to cite the pages from the book? Int 80h (talk) 03:20, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Unsourced BLP-type statement moved here[edit]

The following fact-rich statement:

  • This has been adapted by Frank Spotnitz and is being produced for Amazon by Ridley Scott, David Zucker and Jordan Sheehan for Scott Free, Stewart Mackinnon and Christian Baute for Headline Pictures, and Isa Hackett and Kalen Egan for Electric Shepherd.[citation needed]

is full of BLP references, and could be from a source that has first hand information (not allowed) or is taking it from a source without attribution, negating verifiability (also not allowed). Because it raises BLP concerns, as well as plagiarism or OR concerns, it is moved here. If verifiable, it should be easily sourced (preferably by its original contributing editor). Le Prof 71.239.87.100 (talk) 19:08, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

See ongoing map discussion above.[edit]

Map moved here again, for reasons stated by original editor. Two editors now concur on WP:OR violation (until a reference can be provided to indicate otherwise). I will elevate this as necessary, to prevent the reappearance of original research, on principle, and to avoid the policy-violating precedent that it engenders. See above regarding my status here. Le Prof. 71.239.87.100 (talk) 19:19, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

There's a "wrong" version in the Article again, where someone crudely painted a Mediterranean Sea into it. I don't see how this would benefit anyone. Since the map is explained in detail in the book, I don't quite see problems making a depiction here, as it is basically just a visualization of the data already available. In any event, the map currently (2016-01-05) on the article page is not only WP:OR but also incorrect. Int 80h (talk) 03:19, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Unsourced section removed[edit]

I've removed the section below from the article. It is completely without citation and appears to be an evaluation (read: Original Research) of the author's "errors" in the story. As we aren't citable, out it goes. It cannot return until we can cite someone speaking in terms of the story who points out these supposed "mistakes".

Goofs
The premise of the novel may contain several gaffes on Dick's part. First, the point of divergence is that Zangara assassinated Roosevelt. In our timeline, the attempt happened on February 15, 1933, before Roosevelt's term as President began. In the story, Roosevelt is said to have been President for a year. Either the divergining Zangara postponed his plans by a year, or the author simply made a mistake.
The idea that the Axis could subjugate a large part of North America is questionable too. Although US propaganda of the 1940s often portrayed the Axis' plan as literal world domination, there is no evidence that Japan ever sought to conquer and occupy California, in light of the resources necessary to govern an unwilling population. Japan's stated goal was to dominate the Pacific Ocean as its sphere of influence. The conquest notion famously got started from an out-of-context remark by Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto who was attempting to persuade his handlers to leave the USA alone. Likewise, it is now known that the Third Reich's goal was to dominate Europe and avoid entanglements with the United States, a much larger, stronger nation. The level of technology that the story's Axis develop in such a short time is far beyond the capacity of anything in the mid 20th century, suggesting that Dick got his idea of Axis capabilities purely from the "bogeymen" portrayals within US propaganda.

- Jack Sebastian (talk) 05:00, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

I've also removed virtually all of the See Also and Further Reading sections, for the same reasons listed above. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 18:42, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
Re the Further Reading list: I can see that a number of entries can be safely omitted but the ones with a direct reference to the book in the title (such as Campbell, Laura E. 1992. "Dickian Time in The Man in the High Castle", Extrapolation, 33: 3, pp. 190–201), even though the article isn't cited in the main article, would warrant an entry in any Further Reading list. I've always taken the "Further Reading" concept as allowing the wiki reader to explore further afield if they so wish. Just a thought, and I'm happy to drop the point if this has been discussed and decided upon elsewhere. Perry Middlemiss (talk) 22:26, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
I agree, and have restored Further Reading, but not See Also, nor the rightly-removed WP:OR goofs section mentioned above. We no more need a separate source to tell us that a work with "The Man in the High Castle" in its title is about "The Man in the High Castle" than we would need a source to tell us that the sources cited in the article are about what they are being used for. That way lies an endless abyss of meta, and several of these are ipso facto archetypal WP:SCHOLARSHIP and serve as reliable sources in their own right. That said, the encyclopedic references in there could do with more explicit mentions of the relevant sections, such as an entry for Philip K. Dick or "The Man in the High Castle" in The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction, which is currently ambiguous as to its relationship to the article. —Geoff Capp (talk) 21:00, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
Upon reflection with the comments here, I would not oppose those further reading bits that were removed earlier, so long as the material is directly (and I wish to stress that) related to the material. It would be even better if the material were used as reference for the article, so it could be directly incorporated into the article. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 19:28, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
If I had direct access to those sources (and in some cases comprehension of Italian beyond that provided by translation engines), I'm sure a way could be found to fold most of them in as references. I think it would be a good idea to have that as an article goal over time: as people track them down, additional material and corroboration can be incorporated, and the relevant sources can be moved from Further Reading into References as appropriate. As an interim measure, so that potential sources not entirely lost, I will put the section back (standardizing the formats a little more, though citation templates would be preferable IMHO), and move the questionable entries to this subsection of the talk page—that will leave the information available to editors who want to see if there's useful material there without cluttering the article itself, providing better conformance to the expected editorial standards and policies. —Geoff Capp (talk) 04:17, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
And here's a diff of the article showing the changes from the last version of Further Reading. —Geoff Capp (talk) 04:19, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Moved from Further Reading pending verification of relevance[edit]

Geoff Capp (talk) 04:17, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

'Longer'?[edit]

In the intro it states that the version of World War II in this story is 'longer', and then gives its start and end as 1939 to 1945...which is the exact same length as the real War. The word 'longer' here should either be clarified or removed.Trilobright (talk) 20:40, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Hitler's speech in episode 6 of season 1 mentions 1947 as the ending year.Tarrasq (talk) 20:05, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Edit[edit]

Removed comment claiming that GB dropped nuclear bombs on US army bases in The Grasshopper Lies Heavy. No character in TMITHC states this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.92.67.130 (talk) 14:05, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on The Man in the High Castle. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:44, 2 January 2016 (UTC)


Wegener[edit]

The article states that "and oddly there are no German military or naval - as opposed to SS - personnel depicted anywhere in the first season"; though I seem to remember that Wegener was addressed with a military rank (, not with the SS rank. If I remember correctly, both Oberst and Colonel were used, I would need to verify. His uniform in the last two episodes would also point that he is in the military.