Talk:The Man in the High Castle

Cleanup needed

• 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

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)

Quick question: why is the Mediterranean covered by country shading? Shouldn't the seas be visible, as it is everywhere else?--Gen. Quon (Talk)

IIRC, in the novel and the TV series the Atlantropa project has drained the Mediterranean. --Shimbo (talk) 11:27, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Unsourced BLP-type statement moved here

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.

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.

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

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

• Clute, John; Nicholls, Peter (1995). The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction. New York: St. Martin's Press. p. 1386. ISBN 0-312-13486-X.
• Clute, John; Nicholls, Peter (1995). The Multimedia Encyclopedia of Science Fiction (CD-ROM). Danbury, CT: Grolier. ISBN 0-7172-3999-3.
• Jakubowski, Maxim; Edwards, Malcolm (1983). The Complete Book of Science Fiction and Fantasy Lists. St Albans, Herts, UK: Granada Publishing Ltd. p. 350. ISBN 0-586-05678-5.
• Nicholls, Peter (1979). The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction. St Albans, Herts, UK: Granada Publishing Ltd. p. 672. ISBN 0-586-05380-8.
• Pringle, David (1990). The Ultimate Guide to Science Fiction. London: Grafton Books Ltd. p. 407. ISBN 0-246-13635-9.
• Tuck, Donald H. (1974). The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction and Fantasy. Chicago: Advent. p. 136. ISBN 0-911682-20-1.

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

'Longer'?

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

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

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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100115010708/http://blackstoneaudio.com/audiobook.cfm?id=4699 to http://www.blackstoneaudio.com/audiobook.cfm?id=4699

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• 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.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:44, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Wegener

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.

The reason there are no SS ranks in the novel is because, in this version of history, the SA got the upper hand of the SS, there was no Night of the Long Knives; as a result, the German High Command was mostly staffed by professional soldiers, as opposed to ideologues, and so would not have made basic tactical errors like invading Russia during the winter.

Nuttyskin (talk) 22:50, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 May 2019

Remove page protection please 69.65.90.61 (talk) 16:05, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. – Þjarkur (talk) 16:10, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 May 2019

Baynes and Tagomi finally meet their Japanese contact as the Nazi secret police, the Sicherheitsdienst (SD), close in to arrest Baynes, who is revealed to be a Nazi defector named Rudolf Wegener. Wegener warns his contact, a famed Japanese general, of Operation Dandelion, an upcoming Goebbels-approved plan for the Nazis to launch a surprise attack on the Japanese Home Islands, in order to obliterate them in one swift stroke and rule the rest of the former United States. As Frink is elsewhere exposed as a Jew and arrested, Wegener and Tagomi are confronted by two SD agents, both of whom Tagomi shoots dead with an antique American pistol. Back in Colorado, Joe abruptly changes his appearance and mannerisms before the trip to the High Castle, leading Juliana to deduce that he intends to murder Abendsen. Joe confirms this, revealing himself to be an undercover Swiss Nazi assassin. Juliana mortally wounds Joe and drives off to warn Abendsen of the threat to his life. 69.65.90.61 (talk) 11:45, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. NiciVampireHeart 15:40, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Removed map as exremely speculative & OR

I raised this on the talk page of the file itself, where it got no response, so I have removed the map and moved the discussion here.

In particular, I don't accept the very large Rock Mountain States shown here. It isn't logical and doesn't seem consistent with PKD's vision.

The map creator's explanation at www.high-castle-world-map.com doesn't really help much either: "The role of the Rocky Mountain States is that of a buffer state between territories which are controlled by Nazi Germany and Japan. It could not fulfil this role if Germany would be able to send troops through the territory of the allied CSA all the way west to the PSA border. Therefore Texas and the more western states must belong to the RMS to keep both sides apart from each other." On the contrary: as a buffer, the RMS is clearly a minimal concession by the nuclear-armed Nazis to the Japanese, using only mountain/desert areas less viable for crop-growing etc. Real world Nazi practice in Europe also suggests that they would impose a RMS without great regard for the traditional national or state borders. Hence it might even be restricted to Arizona, Utah, Idaho, Western Montana and the Canadian Rockies (Eastern BC). Even if the Nazis gave the quasi-puppet CSA by giving it Texas, the CSA still doesn't border the PSA or "threaten" the Japanese.

Grant | Talk 14:21, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

The author of the map has taken the reason for the most eastern extent of the RMS directly from the novel and provided the quote. On page 145 of the Google Books version Freiherr Hugo Reiss reads in ″The Grasshopper Lies Heavy″. And then it says: ″Where was this published? Herr Reiss inspected the cover of the book. Omaha, Nebraska. Last outpost of the former plutocratic U. S. publishing industry, once located in downtown New York and supported by Jewish and communist gold... Maybe this Abendsen is a Jew. (...) Actual name probably Abendstein. (...) Beyond doubt, we ought to send somebody across into the R.M.S. to pay Herr Abendstein a visit.″ From this section, we can see, that in PKD's vision Nebraska belongs to the RMS.

A few lines later on, Reiss is reconsiders the possibility of a raid against the publisher of ″The Grasshopper Lies Heavy″. He thinks: ″Maybe it's foolish. The book after all is in print. Too late now. And that's Japanese-dominated territory. ...the little yellow men would rise a terrific fuss.″ This tells us that Japan has a stronger influence in the RMS. It "dominates" the territory. The extent of it may be due rather to Japanese than to German decisions.

Your quote from "High-Castle-World-Map.com" is dealing with the borders of the "South", the re-established CSA, not the RMS. When the novel tells us, that the RMS do contain the still existent Nebraska, how far should the outline of the CSA go beyond that maximum eastern outreach into the west? If the Japanese are "dominating" the RMS, why should they accept that a German puppet state will diminish the distance to German controlled territory?

Granted that the novel itself is the best possible source and does contain an explanation for the borders of the RMS, do you agree to the map being inserted into the article again? Gernsback67 (talk) 18:05, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

There has been no response. I don't see how the notion that "the RMS is clearly a minimal concession by the nuclear-armed Nazis to the Japanese" can be proven by any quote from the novel. That "real world Nazi practice in Europe also suggests that they would impose a RMS without great regard for the traditional national or state borders" is something, an editor knows who is mainly interested in military history rather than literature. PKD however was no military historian. He has mentioned many states in his novel which are part of PSA or RMS as a whole. The quotes above are clearly showing that Nebraska is a part of the RMS. There is no reason why they should not be extended as much as this in the north and south of Nebraska. To remove the map on these grounds was not justified. Consequently I have put it back again. Gernsback67 (talk) 17:39, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 November 2019

the map shown is a fan map and is not canon to the book. it shows inconsistencies with the book such as the Confederates States of America which is never mentioned in the book and most likely does not exist in that universe. 173.64.119.242 (talk) 20:47, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

 Not done. No request made. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 02:37, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Although to follow up, I looked at the map in question, and it was really inappropriate, so I've simply removed it. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 02:51, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

The world map has been removed under the assumption that a CSA-style Nazi controlled puppet regime in the South of the former USA has not been mentioned in the novel and the map therefore would be "non-canon". This however does not correspond to the facts. The existence of such a fourth state next to the PSA, RMS and remaining USA has been mentioned in the novel very early, on page 18 of the Google books edition. There Frank Frink is thinking about where he should move to in order to find a new work. And he thinks:

"What about the South? Ugh Not that. As a white man he would have plenty of space, in fact more that he had here in the PSA. But... he did not want that kind of place.

And worse, the South had a cat's cradle of ties, economic, ideological, and God knew what, with the Reich. And Frank Frink was a jew."

From this passage, we can see, that "The South" does exist and is under strong German influence. It cannot mistaken for the remaining USA, which have New York as its capital or for the RMS, which are under Japanese oversigt (see section 12 for this). "The South" of course is only a colloquial name. In his novel "Flow My Tears, the Policeman Said" Philipp K. Dick dipicted a scenario which was beginning after a "Second Civil War": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flow_My_Tears,_the_Policeman_Said. From this you can see that the question how the civil war history might affect the U.S. society of his time was not alien to him. When you know that "The South" is a racist, anti-semitic regime which collaborates with the Nazis and must be placed to the East of the RMS buffer state, what official name would you give to this entity and what former U.S. states would you include on a map of it? Would you include Illinois? Would you leave out Virginia? It is obvious what PKD wanted to imply. The Nazis were able to wield control over a vast area without establishing an own occupation system by relying on the racist tradition of the Confederacy. The CSA were re-established as a collaborative puppet regime. This is why the name Confederate States of America is included into the legend of the map. The colloquial name from the novel "The South" was added for those who have not only dealt superficially with the novel and might recognize it. The passage in the novel is short and was overlooked by almost everybody. Wikipedia has overlooked it until only recently. Nevertheless the existence of "The South" in the novel is a fact. The notion, that there is only a trinity of a Japanese, a German and a neutal territory, was always wrong. It became much more popular due to the tv show. It is however nothing else but a common belief. To counter a false common belief with provable facts in my view is what Wikipedia is about. A graphical dipiction would help much to show directly and obviously that the world of the novel is not the world of the tv show.

Naming the map a "fan map" is a misunderstanding, I think. Thousands of Wikipedia contributors are creating maps every day based on information they have collected from reliable sources. This map is no exception. It has been designed especially for Wikipedia. The reliable source with regard to the question discussed here of course is the novel. To publish the map on an own website parallel to the upload on Wikipedia simply was a method of the author to offer additional information about the creation of the map, so any editor and any reader of Wikipedia could clarify open questions. On the website this could be done in a wider extent than possible on this talk page. The author of the map has explained this on the website meanwhile: http://www.high-castle-world-map.com/Site/purpose.htm. If user 173.64.119.242 had informed himself about the new CSA there, he would have found the citation quoted above and the request for deletion of the map would never have come about. Now that the map has been included on Wikipedia pages in 17 other languages, the author is hoping that editors of this pages might inform themselves on the website if necessary. This would be helpful because he himself is unable to communicate with them on their talk pages in their respective languages or alphabets.

Given that "The South" is absolutely "canon" and the map was made for Wikipedia and no "fan map" what other aspects do you regard as "inappropriate"? Ore else, do you agree to include the map again? Gernsback67 (talk) 18:43, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

@Gernsback67: (Please indent your replies. See WP:THREAD for more info. You can also WP:PING registered users when you want to get their attention in a discussion, rather than using talk page messages, as I'm doing here.) Please see WP:TLDR also; this is way longer than I really care to read through. What I'll say in response to what appears to be your main point is that creation of maps to give a visualization of statistics is fine (provided those statistics are well-sourced, of course). But in my opinion, creating a map of the fictional world of a novel which requires careful analysis of the work falls squarely within WP:OR, and so is not kosher. An argument can also be made that a map like this is excessive detail that's not needed for this article. For these reasons, I think the article should remain without the map. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 19:46, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Gernsback67. The map is fine. It's not OR, it's a copyright-free version of maps in sources which are themselves based on information in the novel. Lots of articles have similar maps Fatherland (novel) for example. I find it very hard to accept that it's "too much detail" for what is an important, and indeed genre-defining, novel. --Shimbo (talk) 00:44, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for the input. I am positive that, within a few days, I can offer a map which only shows the situation in the former contigous USA. This map will be concentrated on the main setting of the novel and thus more suitable. The political geography of the territory will be the same like in the world map. I am confident that issues like the size of the Rocky Mountain States and the existence of the "South" have been discussed on this talk page sufficiently and that this new map will not be deleted with regard to any of these issues. Gernsback67 (talk) 18:34, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Addition of a map of the former USA

I have added a map which is focused on the setting of the novel, the former USA territory. Please check the novel in case of any questions about the accuracy. In the Google Books edition you can find the respective passages about the PSA and "the South" on page 18, the RMS on pages 42 and 145 and the USA on page 82.Gernsback67 (talk) 17:06, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Bring the Jubilee

Bring the Jubilee is set in the 19th century only in the sense that much of it takes place when the narrator is able to visit it via time travel, where his interference with the actual course of events actually was the cause of the divergence of the world of the novel and our own real one. It is actually set in its universe's version of then-contemporary early 1950s. This should probably somehow be addressed – as the implication that the novel which Dick said inspired this one was set in the 19th century is not completely correct and involves a convention not employed in The Man in the High Castle, where no one is presented as having traveled through time nor are its alternative facts brought about as a result of time travel. 72.105.79.12 (talk) 02:26, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

@72.105.79.12: I have made the smallest possible edit, which will not expand the passage too much. It is now stating that the novel is set "mainly" in the 20th century. Details can be looked in the article about Bring the Jubilee. Gernsback67 (talk) 19:05, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

OCLC

OCLC given is of a "book club" edition which is almost definitely not the first edition. I am not sure about identification number policy in English Wikipedia, or even if there is one. But if you are supposed to provide ISBN, OCLC, etc., for the first edition, 12870577 is wrong and probably should be removed. --Nomad (talk) 17:35, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 February 2020

Background In the novel's alternate history, US President Franklin D. Roosevelt was assassinated by Giuseppe Zangara in 1934 leading to the continuation of the Great Depression and US isolationism during the opening of World War II. Adolf Hitler led Nazi Germany to conquer Eastern Europe and parts of the Soviet Union, but the allies were able to push back Nazi Germany. Meanwhile, Imperial Japan successfully occupied Eastern Asia and parts of Oceania. Imperial Italy conquered northern parts of Africa. As Japan invaded the US West Coast, Germany invaded the American South on the U.S East Coast with the exception of the border states from the American Civil War. By 1947, the US and the remaining Allies surrendered to the Axis, ending the war.

By the 1960s, Imperial Japan and Nazi Germany are the world's competing superpowers, with Japan establishing the "Pacific States of America" (P.S.A.) from the former Western United States and the remaining Rocky Mountain States being a neutral buffer zone between the P.S.A. and the Nazi-occupied American South, and the remaining United States in the North and Mid-Western States. The buffer zone is also part of the remaining United States. In the East, there is a country in the American South below the Civil War Border States. "Nazi America" is a puppet regime in the American South, which respects all races equally, including Jews and African-Americans, but collaborates with the Nazi Government and has Richmond, Virginia as it's capital. In the North, Mid-Western, and the Rocky Mountain States, the United States of America still exists and has Washington D.C as their capitol. The official flag of the United States is the Stars and Stripes.

Hitler, though still alive, is incapacitated from advanced syphilis, and Martin Bormann has become Chancellor of Germany, with Goebbels, Heydrich, Göring, Seyss-Inquar, and other Nazi leaders soon vying to take his place. The Nazis have drained parts of the Mediterranean to make room for farmland, developed and used the hydrogen bomb, and designed rockets for extremely fast travel across the world as well as space, having colonized the Moon, Venus, and Mars. The novel is set mostly in San Francisco. Here, Chinese residents first appear in the novel as second-class citizens. The secondary setting of the novel is the Rocky Mountains States, namely the cities of Cañon City, Denver and Cheyenne. TheNewYorker1776 (talk) 16:05, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

 Not done. You just seem to have copied an pasted a section of the article here; it's not clear what changes you want to make. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 03:58, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Using of Word Order in writing

Not being a native english speaker and having read the book, it occurred to me that the used Word_order changes in the P.S.A-Sections. Thus leading to Japanese speaking and thinking subject–object–verb instead of subject–verb–object. This has a general influence on the described P.S.A. culture as even the American inhabitants of the P.S.A. speak subject–object–verb with the Japanese. Is this observation correct and worth a mentioning in the article? Sofafernsehfan (talk) 09:26, 15 August 2020 (UTC) (For Details: User https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benutzer:Sofafernsehfan of wikipedia in german language.)

Wrong discriptions in Background-section

I have reverted a series of edits which were inserting discriptions into the Background-section that were not in line with the content of the novel. By searching with the appropriate words in the e-book version of the novel I have found out that the following places, regions and countries are not mentioned only once: Hong Kong, Israel (or Palestine), Alaska, British Honduras, Jamaica, the Caribbean as a whole, Ghana, Nigeria, Pakistan, Ireland. The novel describes the Nazi conquest of the European part of the Soviet Union. The outreach of Nazi Germany to the east thus is not limited to Austria, Poland and Czechia. The novel does not clarify whether Mussolini’s New Roman Empire is a „republic“ or whether the head of state is still a king from the House of Savoy. The novel does not mention the status of the U.K., France or India and thus is not describing them as fully or partially „independent“. The novel describes that most of Africa is under German control – no African country has gained independence. The idea that „for unexplained reasons“ „most countries in the world are independent“ is completely opposed to the discription in one dialogue of the novel in which it is told that after the war Nazi Germany, Italy and Japan have devided the world among them. In such a world hardly any country could regard itself as „independent“.

When explaining the territory of the Pacific States of America, the text of the novel does not include Alaska or Hawaii in it, not as states, not as territories, not in any other way. It does not mention any resistance movement within the Rocky Mountain States. In the novel the discription of the German-controlled puppet state in the American south is very brief. The only passage, which is dealing with it, can be found on this page in the section „Semi-protected edit request on 29 November 2019“. It does not specify how many former U.S. states are included in the territory of „the South“ and does not name Tampa as its capital. In the novel Washington D. C. is not mentioned only once, not as capital of the remaining USA, not in any other way. While the word „capital“ is not used in this context, it is very clear from many descriptions that New York is the centre of Nazi activities in the remaining USA. To ignore D.C. completely in fact is a literary device, Philipp K. Dick is using effectively to create in eerie atmosphere. The reader is left alone with his/her speculations about the fate of the city in a world where it does not seem to play any role any longer and in which Nazi Germany possesses nuclear weapons.

I have also deleted a link to a world map, mainly because the map does not show the Rocky Mountain States. The map of the former contiguous USA is restored. It is focused on the setting of the novel. Gernsback67 (talk) 15:58, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. I've noticed a string of edits that appear to be unsupported by the text. The latest being that Israel exists in the world of TMITHC, which seems highly unlikely, though I've not specifically checked the text. As these edits are all coming from the same IP, and the user's comments don't seem constructive, I think concerns about the user's behaviour need escalating. --Shimbo (talk) 12:03, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

I guess it is okay to have a look at this. However in this case finally it was possible to convince the user of the facts. Gernsback67 (talk) 17:15, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Incorrect information in the Plot Summary section

Plot summary says that Tagomi flies to Germany to rescue Fink. This is incorrect. Hunted down the edit; 22:24, 4 February 2021. Would change it myself, but I have at least two messages saying my IP has been vandalizing, no idea why. If someone would fix it I would appreciate it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.35.116.104 (talk)

Just finished reading the book and I concur with the comment above. Frink is arrested but never leaves San Francisco. Tagomi frees Frink by refusing to sign extradition paperwork presented to him by the German Consul in SF. Tagomi and Frink never travel to Germany. 162.72.4.203 (talk) 20:10, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

One more map removed

I have removed one more map, as reproduced here, supposed to describe the geopolitical world of the book. It is even much more precise than a former one already removed (see discussion above). Needless to say, the book doesn’t contain one tenth of what this minutely precise map shows. And the legend provided, « a plausible world map of the novel », doesn’t change the fact that it is almost entirely speculative. --Sapphorain (talk) 20:46, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

RfC result

(In relation to the last section of the talk page, and to the RfC mentioned below, I move here this discussion seemingly leading nowhere. --Sapphorain (talk) 22:05, 9 May 2022 (UTC))

So the RfC was recently closed, and it was decided that there was a consensus against including the map in the article, I don't agree with this result, but there isn't really anything I can do about it:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Hypothetical_Axis_victory_in_World_War_II#RfC_on_map_in_lead

I was thinking though, if it was possible to at least include the map in the article of the novel itself, because it is better than the current one there, what do you think about it? -- 2804:248:f6f7:5f00:1cac:cc04:f5df:4191 (talk) 07:49, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

The world map is on the contrary much worse than the current one, and can certainly not be included in the article of the novel itself (nor anywhere else). It is one the worst examples of original research one can think of, as it is including parts of the world the novel doesn’t even mention. I am so far OK to tolerate the current map, which of course is also original research, because it includes only a region described in the novel. But I am very well aware other contributors will not be as accomodating, and will not object if this map is removed also. No map at all would be fine with me.--Sapphorain (talk) 21:31, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

I disagree, it does have its flaws, but it is likely a good representation of the world of the novel, I do think it should be included there. -- 2804:248:f69d:6700:1043:ddcf:d650:df0f (talk) 22:39, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Your assertion « It is likely a good representation » is the whole point: who says so? You? The lambda Commons contributor who drew the map? This is of no value according to wikipedia standards. Can you provide a reliable and admissible source confirming your point of view? --Sapphorain (talk) 07:16, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

The map contains things that are mentioned in the novel and also fills in blanks, both with historical events and plans. -- 2804:248:f69d:6700:1043:ddcf:d650:df0f (talk) 08:26, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

It's the "fills in blanks" that is not acceptable. Once again: under what authority? No matter how you phrase it, what you wish to allow is original research, which Wikipedia explicitly excludes.--Sapphorain (talk) 09:10, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

It is also based on historical events and plans though, you should at least check the archived site, yet for some reason though you claimed the explanations didn't appear. -- 2804:248:f69d:6700:d0c9:5e74:b53d:1fb (talk) 21:36, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

I think I am getting tired of this. This is leading nowhere. If you are able to cite a reliable, published source that directly support this file, as is required by WP:OR, then please do so. Otherwise please stop arguing. --Sapphorain (talk) 07:21, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Frankly I'm tired of this too, the sources are on the map site, both for the novel as well as historical events and plans, you should at least check it out. There is no reason why the map shouldn't be on the article of the novel. -- 2804:248:f69d:6700:b8b8:cb5:d047:8a63 (talk) 21:36, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

If the sources you mention exist, you should be able to provide them, right here. After all, in a wikipedia article you cannot replace a source by the bare assertion that it exists on the archived version of a blog. This is leading nowhere, I am moving this discussion to the appropriate talk page --Sapphorain (talk) 22:05, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Ok, well first the map's depiction of the Pacific States of America as well as an independent Southern state and Japanese-occupied Hawaii is based on page 18 of the novel:

[1]

The depiction of a Japanese-controlled Brazil is based on page 20, which describes the Japanese burning forests in Brazil:

[2]

Sweden being neutral is based on page 27:

[3]

The division of Africa is based on some German real life plans:

That is also true for the territories Turkey has in the map and for the division of Switzerland:

Finland's territory was based on some plans for a Greater Finland, which did have support during the War:

[4]

Those are some of the sources, there are more, the map site links to other Wikipedia articles, so I had to post some of the sources used for the information on these article, I couldn't do it with all of them of course and there were also pages of the book which I couldn't access. If this doesn't make the map admissible though, then OK, I'm not really interested in continuing this any further. -- 2804:248:f69d:6700:b8b8:cb5:d047:8a63 (talk) 23:58, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

This is exactly what is called original research and is not allowed by wikipedia standards: combining material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source, and also « filling blanks » as you mentioned it yourself. Please do read WP:OR and WP:SYN before uselessly going on arguing.--Sapphorain (talk) 08:45, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

This is alternate history though, and well I'm not sure how WP:SYN applies to this particular case, but anyway I'm not going to waste my time with you. -- 2804:248:f657:a900:901a:40cd:8acc:9345 (talk) 20:03, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

I have not read the book; if I understand the discussions on this page, there is no map in the book itself, correct? If that's the case, then let the words of the book do the speaking. A self-made map is not helpful. Without a map extant within the pages of the book, nor one created by a reliable source (i.e. from a newspaper, journal, reliable-source website, or other supported source - definitely not individual wikipedia editor interpretations) then no imagined map belongs in the article. This is simply the overriding policy of Wikipedia, and we have to stick to it. Anastrophe (talk) 21:01, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

References

2023-3-19: 1206 hrs EDT: The Truth link in the article has been edited to reference a flat earth propaganda blub which reads "The truth is, the earth is flat and stationary/non-moving. Why are the world's oceans perfectly horizontal and FLAT? ..." This obviously needs to be reverted to whatever the actual link is supposed to be for Man in the High Castle/Truth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:14D:4501:920:E1E0:7DD3:DAFF:BF6A (talk) 16:07, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

The map of former contiguous USA is speculative

It is not quite appropriate to just say that the borders drawn in this map are "approximate". They are in fact very speculative. In particular those of "the South" are backed by nothing in the book

I gathered below the significant information the book provides regarding the borders of the four states drawn in this map.

PSA: This is the most correct part of the map, consisting of «  California, Oregon, Washington and part of Nevada » (Chapter 1). The «  part of Nevada » is however not further described in the book.

RMS: One can infer from comments in Chapters 3, 6 and 9 that Colorado, Wyoming, Utah and the Eastern part of Nevada (still without more precision) are parts of RMS. Nebraska is probably also part of RMS, Omaha being mentioned as « the last outpost of the former plutocratic U.S. publishing industry » (Chapter 8). But this map also includes a number of other states (Idaho, Montana, the Dakotas, Kansas, Oklahoma, Arizona, New Mexico and Texas) which are never even mentioned in the book.

U.S.: The book only mentions that Philadelphia, Boston (Chapter 3), New York and Baltimore (Chapter 6) are within its borders.

The South: The state is mentioned (Chapters 1 and 2), but the book doesn’t mention specifically any part of it. Its borders on the map are pure speculation. Sapphorain (talk) 07:00, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

"The South" is implied to be the Confederacy, so I don't see the issue with the borders. 2804:248:FB0D:F300:897A:936E:2EC4:20F2 (talk) 21:35, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

It is your personal interpretation. The Confederacy is not mentioned in the book. --Sapphorain (talk) 23:18, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

... And besides, that is a very strange and absurd argument, as in the map "The South" doesn't include Texas, which was in the Confederacy, and on the other hand includes Missouri, Kentucky and West Virginia, which were not. --Sapphorain (talk) 23:35, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

It's obvious "the South" is the Confederacy, what other state could it be? The CSA claimed Missouri and Kentucky as their territory, and West Virginia was, well, a former part of Virginia.

As for Texas, the Germans and the Japanese presumably would want an equal distance between their territories, so I don't think it is absurd or strange. 2804:248:FB7D:D900:107C:798E:C709:7652 (talk) 02:08, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Your argument here is exactly what is called original research and is not allowed by wikipedia standards: combining material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source. --Sapphorain (talk) 08:12, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

It would make zero sense in this context for a state to be called "the South" if it wasn't the Confederacy.

I'm starting to think you're just using "original research" as an excuse to remove and disrupt content. 2804:248:FB7D:D900:FC41:EFC8:48D:6C81 (talk) 09:27, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

This statement is very peremptory, and again is your own personal opinion. Which I very much doubt is universally shared. But this is not the issue. The fact is that the Confederacy is never mentioned in the book. The fact is that reaching a personal and unpublished conclusion from several sources is called original research and is not allowed by wikipedia. To point out such an illegitimate conclusion can hardly be qualified as « disrupting content ».--Sapphorain (talk) 11:43, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

"The South" is obviously the Confederacy, and I'm not the only one who shares this opinion. Sometimes things are quite obvious even if not explicitly stated.

If you don't want to disrupt content you shouldn't add unnecessary warnings. 2804:248:FB7D:D900:B402:DB9C:F967:BC66 (talk) 06:14, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Not being the only one to share an opinion is hardly an encyclopedic argument. Wikipedia is not a discussion forum. This is leading nowhere and I am stopping right here this sterile discussion. --Sapphorain (talk) 08:15, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

I finally removed the map altogether, as it goes against the Wikipedia:No original research policy in several ways. It is much more precise than what the book describes, it « fills the blanks » by a combination of other sources and personal opinion, it is not enclosed in any edition of the novel, and it was never published in any other reliable source. --Sapphorain (talk) 07:22, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

I agree that the recently deleted map is original research. @Sapphorain is correct, and the IP user should WP:DROPTHESTICK.

However, I would be in favour of including this map: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Man_in_the_High_Castle_(TV_series)#/media/File:Man_High_Castle_(TV_Series)_map.svg as that is not original research, being based on the opening credits of the TV series.

I know the map is from the TV series, not the novel, but it's representative enough to be useful, IMO. Including it might also bring the (decade long!) campaign to introduce a map to a close. Shimbo (talk) 13:56, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

I don’t know the TV series, but this map shows to me it is only extremely loosely inspired by Dick’s novel. The PSA is called « Japanese Pacific States », and includes parts of Idaho, Utah, Arizona and New Mexico, which it doesn’t in the novel, the whole state of Nevada and not only part of it as in the novel, and only parts of Oregon and Washington, which are clearly described in the novel as being entirely in the PSA (chapter 1).

The RSA is called « Neutral zone » and has apparently not the status of a state. It doesn’t contain the eastern part of Nevada, nor the whole states of Utah and Wyoming, as it does in the novel (chapter 3).

In this map there is only one big region eastwards, labelled «  Greater Nazi Reich », again a denomination that never appears in the book. Much worse, it contains the whole state of Nebraska, despite the fact that « The grasshopper lies heavy » was published in Omaha, within the Rocky Mountain States of the novel (chapter 8). In the novel however, the U.S. and « The South », although puppet states of the Reich, are mentioned as two distinct states with distinct policies (chapter 1). There is slavery in The South, but not in the U.S.

So I am strongly opposed to the inclusion of this map as an illustration for the novel. As the map I suppressed, it doesn’t even deserve to be called an approximation of the situation described in the novel (and is even worse in this respect).

... Besides, this map is (of course) already included in the page on the TV series, whose world it faithfully describes. So what would be the point of including it also here, despite the fact that it doesn't describe the world of the novel correctly ? --Sapphorain (talk) 16:12, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Your points about the accuracy of the map compared to the (scant) evidence in the novel are not wrong. I don't think it matters though. Captioning it as being from the TV series, not the novel, and so only broadly indicative would solve that problem.

The point of including the map from the TV series would be to bring this ridiculous decade-long saga to an end. But apparently feelings are running too high, and opinions have become too deeply entrenched, for that.

I'm not getting drawn in to any kind of pettifogging dispute, so I'll just check in in another decade and see how you're getting on, I guess. Shimbo (talk) 19:54, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

I think approximation is a good way to describe it, many of its contents are in the novel, so I don't think it is original research, despite possible inaccuracies.

With that being said, I don't think the show map is appropriate for the article either, there are many differences between the novel and the show. 2804:248:FBD7:2E00:4428:3A7F:DCBB:AA5 (talk) 02:05, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Background

Left « Greater Germanic Reich », never mentioned in the book, as a piped link for « the Reich », as used in the book. Similarly left « Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere », not mentioned in the book, as a piped link for «  Co-Prosperity Pacific Alliance », as in the book. Added «  and still compete for the control of South America in 1962 », which corresponds to what is mentioned in the book (but maybe needs rephrasing). Suppressed «  expanded its colonial empire with occupations of eastern Asia and Oceania », those events not being mentioned anywhere in the book. Suppressed the mention that the U.S. « is ruled by a Nazi military governor «  : no such governor is ever mentioned in the book. Replaced « Canada » by « part of Canada », as at least Nova Scotia is part of the Reich. Sapphorain (talk) 15:56, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

A simple observation

While I was rewatching the TV series yesterday I thought to myself that "Hawthorne Abendsen" is a peculiar name and wondered why the author might have chosen it. Then it hit me. Hawthorne Abendsen has the reverse initials of Adolph Hitler. Does anyone know if this is this a coincidence? Does it have any deeper meaning? Has anyone else noticed similar stuff? Neilrieck (talk) 13:59, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

I am rather skeptical, to say the least. If this is not a coincidence it has certainly nothing to do with the peculiarity of the name « Hawthorne Abendsen ». « Henry Adams » would have done the job quite as well. With this type of speculations Hugo Reiss, the good nazi, becomes the reverse of Reinhard Heydrich, the bad one… And, but of course: the first name of Reiss is a clear hint that Dick was expecting a Hugo award for this book. --Sapphorain (talk) 21:49, 29 October 2023 (UTC)