I thought Biff jumped from 2015 to 1955, not 1985...? Young Biff had the Almanac in his pocket at the High School dance and the tower he built was already in place in 1985.
- This is an old unsigned comment. I would like to add for posterity that this has been fixed already. This guy tried to fix this information while the article was young and edits were happening super fast, so his edit got reversed as someone tried to add his edit over someone else's. It has since been fixed for good.126.96.36.199 04:50, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
Collusion with a time traveler would bring a few things into focus. 188.8.131.52 15:24, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
- You inspire one house painter to change careers & suddenly everyone blames you for everything.
- ProphetZarquon (talk) 16:23, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
184.108.40.206 15:39, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
Do we keep the “cheat at sports betting” wording? I don’t know if this is cheating. 220.127.116.11 17:22, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
- Cheating is generally heald to be using something unavailable to anyone else in the normal course of play to gain an advantage. I'd say using the almanac towards those ends definitely applies. Mjm87 (talk) 19:07, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
If anyone questions the fact that newspapers in real life did attempt to assert that the rise of Trump was inevitable, various newspaper articles may easily be found as proof with a Google Search for [Donald Trump inevitable], preferably restricted to results before 2017, so as to remove results about things he did later. I don't know how best to incorporate such results as a source in the article, as the number of citations could easily be made too big, and also I don't know if anyone cares. 18.104.22.168 17:30, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
I am from Europe, and I do not understand the issue. If event X happens while you predicted Y, isn't researching and hypothising a good way to find out why, possibly learning new things in the process? Saying you don't want to debate the issue is like hating politics. 22.214.171.124 18:27, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
- Many people who understand politics hate it. On behalf of my fellow continenteans, I apologize for 126.96.36.199, who apparently believes that politics overlaps with political science. 188.8.131.52 18:51, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
- Note that Hillbilly Elegy could not have been intended to explain the Trump election, having been written before it. However, it was interpreted this way. I have attempted to make this clear in the explanation.184.108.40.206 18:53, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
- I understand the animosity toward far fetched explanations. It doesn't take election fraud or particularly unique societal circumstances for a Republican to win after two consecutive Democrat terms. Both candidates had horrible turnouts and the Republican candidate won. The more interesting question is about Trump winning the primaries and to understand this phenomenon one must dig deep and will find a reasonable yet complicated and boring chain of events inside the Republican party. Mitt Romney failed with lots of votes because Obama was incredibly popular and got even more in a climate when Democrats were reasonably afraid that they might lose the election. Trump pulled off the exact opposite of Romney.
If I'm not mistaken, Biff is based off of Donald Trump, so the Donald Trump analogy may be more likely than not. I can't quite recall where I read this, but there are quite a few similarities between the two. 220.127.116.11 19:14, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
- Added 18.104.22.168 19:24, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
Why does this article go out of its way to avoid mentioning Hillary Clinton by name?22.214.171.124 20:25, 28 January 2019 (UTC)KingLeary
- Beats me. Fixed it. 126.96.36.199 04:47, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
XKCD on XKCD: "The word 'thinkpiece' sounds like a word made up by someone who didn't know about the word 'brain'." 188.8.131.52 01:00, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
The explanation should include info on what a "counterfactual" is. 184.108.40.206 04:49, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
- Done 220.127.116.11 12:33, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
So I guess we're just construing this as a polarized editorial now. Appropriate context or no.
18.104.22.168 01:50, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
Isn't the title text making a reference to Orwell?
Back to the Future is such a nice movie trilogy. If anyone is discouraged by the discussions over possible relations to Donald Trump, don't be. Those relations are pretty dim and do not worsen enjoyment of the movies, neither for Democrats nor for Republicans. I recommend that everyone here who hasn't watched these movies watch all three. They are a lot of fun. 22.214.171.124 04:58, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
Wow, all this Trump stuff feels like a real stretch... 126.96.36.199 21:00, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
- Nah21:42, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
- It's pretty obvious to me, personally, that this is an analogy to the idea that if Trump rose to power via means nobody was aware of at the time, the book would seem a little humorous. I guess that seems like a huge stretch to some and obvious to others. The references to the roughly-two views on this in the article feel painful to read, controversial, and like the issues aren't really honestly and fairly laid out. I wish there were some way to really give respect to both views. Even if many disagree with Randall, I think for many it is clear this is the subject of the comic. 188.8.131.52
Note there is a (joke?) conspiracy theory that Trump is a time traveler, using technology provided by his uncle John Trump...
184.108.40.206 23:06, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
- That would explain why he was able to do so well in the electoral college despite losing the popular vote. He knew which states would be close, so he could focus his efforts on narrowly winning those instead of narrowing losing them, and not worry about states like CA that would have such wide margins of victory that campaigning wouldn't affect who won them.220.127.116.11 07:06, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
- I think if Trump were a time traveller, he should be much richer, because he would have bet on sports, or invested in big companies while they were small. Instead, he invested in real estate, which was not a good option if he knew about the housing crisis beforehand. The only way I can think of to attribute his life choices to time travel meddling is: if the general public knew that time travel exists, this is the best way not to draw suspicion. 18.104.22.168 13:06, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
- Or to provide reasonable doubt for a super-secret Temporal Court that recognizes the right to presumed innocence. I think I would enjoy reading that story.--22.214.171.124 21:58, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
Note that Biff Tannen was explicitly modeled on Donald Trump (reference). -- Resuna (talk) 14:14, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
The Trump stuff in this comic is completely irrelevant - Kynde had a thing for making as many articles about Trump as he could, even when there is no connection. (For example, this page used to link to his Sad comics page, which I have since disconnected from every article it was linked in). The Relationship to political events subheading - added by a well-meaning contributor who I'm sure just wanted to preserve the page's content and make it easier to follow - is unnecessary, since this comic clearly has no relationship to political events as read. People who say that it does, are trying to forge a connection that does not exist. Biff Tannen being modeled on Trump is an interesting piece of trivia, to be sure, but it is not relevant to the explanation of this comic. Hawthorn (talk) 13:04, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
In the two instances where the article considered alternative reasons for a feature of the comic, I have turned these reasons into a list, as this makes it easier to understand and cuts down on the repetitive "Alternatively" and such. 126.96.36.199 04:15, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
I have changed instances of "the universe where BiffCo exists" to "the 1985A Back to the Future timeline", or simply "1985A" for short. This is for three reasons:
- To keep the article cleaner.
- To keep future misreaders of the article from either:
- cutting down on the words because they seem unnecessary
- adding a comma between "universe" and "where", which would ruin the construct.
- To be consistent with the terminology used by Doc Brown himself.
I have established this wording at the beginning of the article.
188.8.131.52 04:19, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
I have added subheadings. If you don't like subheadings then remove them. This wiki has no style guide. I think they help distinguish the structure of the document. The guy who removed the part about counterfactuals can now more easily skip that part, and we can now more easily talk about specific parts of the article here in the talk page.
Also I know that this is the third topic I have added in a row and that the button says "use sparingly", but these are major changes to the article, and therefore I expect someone to come by and complain and make a huge thread out of it.184.108.40.206 05:28, 30 January 2019 (UTC)