Talk:Nineteen Eighty-Four

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Nineteen Eighty-Four. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110616203058/http://www.cipc.co.za/Copyright_files/Copyright_Act.pdf to http://www.cipc.co.za/Copyright_files/Copyright_Act.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080611034558/http://www.newseum.org/berlinwall/commissar_vanishes/vanishes.htm to http://www.newseum.org/berlinwall/commissar_vanishes/vanishes.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:49, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Overall Mistake.

Wikipedia being mentioned as number two search result is 1984 itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.230.17.215 (talk) 23:37, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Works set in one period but commenting on another

Is there a collective noun or literary category which covers works like Miller's The Crucible and Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-four which are set in one historical period but clearly or are generally understood to provide a commentary or challenge to another historical period, especially the writer's contemporary period? - BobKilcoyne (talk) 03:17, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Could the name "Newspeak" used by Orwell have been a passing comment on the United States' magazine "Newsweek"? Is this farfetched? Obvious? Neither?

There is nothing of value in this section. It is not about improving this article, but instead about satisfying some sort of curiosity by Alfred Nemours. Nothing here can be used to improve the article. Please take your forum discussions off Wikipedia. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 04:47, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I have a question about the novel, and given that I know next-to-nothing about either the novel or Orwell (only having read this novel, Animal Farm, and a few essays written by Orwell), I wanted to pose it in case someone could speak with authority on the topic. If the question can be answered with certainty, such an answer even passingly referred to or footnoted in the body of main article would represent a substantive improvement to the article itself.

Could the name "Newspeak" used by Orwell have been a passing comment on the United States' magazine "Newsweek"?

Orwell is known for his criticism of media censorship not only in Russia, but also in England.

The sinister fact about literary censorship in England is that it is largely voluntary.

Unpopular ideas can be silenced, and inconvenient facts kept dark, without the need for any official ban. Anyone who has lived long in a foreign country will know of instances of sensational items of news — things which on their own merits would get the big headlines-being kept right out of the British press, not because the Government intervened but because of a general tacit agreement that ‘it wouldn’t do’ to mention that particular fact. So far as the daily newspapers go, this is easy to understand. The British press is extremely centralised, and most of it is owned by wealthy men who have every motive to be dishonest on certain important topics. But the same kind of veiled censorship also operates in books and periodicals, as well as in plays, films and radio. ("freedom of the Press," Preface to Animal Farm)

The above comment came four years before the publication of 1984. And Newsweek had been in circulation for sixteen years at the time of 1984's publication, and met the criteria mentioned above in the [period] (wealthy ownership, having been owned by stockholders that included the Cheney silk family and the son of Andrew Mellon, and centralisation, having already been subject to at least one widely-publicized merger before the publication of 1984).

"Politics and the English language" also concerns criticism of explicitly Anglophone political language from the relevant period--from which Orwell samples "jackboot, Achilles' heel, hotbed, melting pot, acid test, veritable inferno" among examples of "verbal refuse" that are "designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind..."--when Newsweek was a widely-known and large-scale political publication presumably reporting on some of the events that Orwell recalls.

In our time, political speech and writing are largely the defence of the indefensible. Things like the continuance of British rule in India, the Russian purges and deportations, the dropping of the atom bombs on Japan, can indeed be defended, but only by arguments which are too brutal for most people to face, and which do not square with the professed aims of the political parties. Thus political language has to consist largely of euphemism, question-begging and sheer cloudy vagueness. Defenceless villages are bombarded from the air, the inhabitants driven out into the countryside, the cattle machine-gunned, the huts set on fire with incendiary bullets: this is called pacification. Millions of peasants are robbed of their farms and sent trudging along the roads with no more than they can carry: this is called transfer of population or rectification of frontiers. People are imprisoned for years without trial, or shot in the back of the neck or sent to die of scurvy in Arctic lumber camps: this is called elimination of unreliable elements. Such phraseology is needed if one wants to name things without calling up mental pictures of them.

Is it possible that the name given to Oceania's language in 1984, "Newspeak," was among other things a passing comment from Orwell on a specific English political magazine of his time?

(Is there anything in the Orwell canon (interviews, essays, diaries, published accounts of friends, etc., including those attributed to Eric Arthur Blair and any other known names) to either confirm or refute his the likelihood of this possibility? Or even to confirm or refute his familiarity with American press? Were the early activities of Newsweek's London bureau limited to information gathering, or was there also large-scale publication (if not readership) of Newsweek in either London or elsewhere that would have been seen by Orwell or his readers? The WP entry for one of the appendices to Homage to Catalonia cites Orwell's discussion of a Daily Worker account, indicates a familiarity with another New York publication.)

Perhaps the suggestion is far-fetched. Perhaps I've never seen the suggestion because it is so obvious and explicit that it never need restating. Perhaps neither. I simply have no idea, and I'm asking in case someone with some familiarity with the topic might be able to say something with authority about it. Again, to repeat, this question is not posed with discussion of the book or its content in mind. It is posed since if it can be answered with certainty, passing mention or footnote of such an answer in the main article would represent a substantive improvement to the article itself. Alfred Nemours (talk) 00:08, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Unless it's been discussed in reliable, third-party sources, then no, it can't be added here, regardless of how "obvious" or "explicit" it appears to you. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 23:37, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Obviously. That's why the matter was raised in the form of a question, rather than in the form of an answer. Incidentally, as far as my own view is concerned (though this is obviously irrelevant except to correct the insinuation and loading of the question by the comment directly above)--to those who read before simply disappearing blocks of text, I maintained that I was unclear whether the possibility is "far-fetched" or so "obvious" that it does not require mention, or neither. Thank you for your many generous and careful contributions to WP elsewhere, particularly in the area of your Japan-related tourism. All this best, and take care Alfred Nemours (talk) 00:08, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

In the future, I recommend doing research ahead of time to find out the answers to your questions about whether something should be included in an article. If you find multiple reliable sources discussing whatever it is, then feel free to either add it to the article yourself or bring it up on the talk page. I recommend, however, that you try to keep your comments as succinct and clear as possible. Waxing philosophical is good for a philiosophy paper, but is not helpful here as it only serves to obfuscate the real purpose behind your comments. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 00:16, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Not being an Orwell scholar or specialist (and with all due respect to the bloke, without an interest in becoming either), I had neither a good answer nor prospects of finding one. The question was posed in WP talk in hopes of drawing on the intelligence of the wider community. And attached to a couple of sentences putting down the (near-negligible) bit I knew. I don't know what anyone else reading this thinks, but I think the weakest aspect of WP is empty guesswork posing as fact that comprises the bulk of way too many articles where the writing reflects an obvious cluelessness to anyone with the least familiarity with the topic at hand. And I think it really detracts from the reputation of WP, which contains a lot of valuable entries that do nothing of the kind. (One of the things I like about your entries on Japan-related travels is the clear familiarity with what is being discussed--even if, at worst, for the sake of a guide that aids tourists or other travelers. But that's real information and added-value.) Thanks again for writing; All the best, and take care, Alfred Nemours (talk) 02:10, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

• Newspeak= new speak. I think I just solved the mystery. ‡ Єl Cid, Єl Caɱ̩peador ^ᐁT₳LKᐃ 00:57, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes! So are the lying euphemisms of New Speak in the novel a passing comment by Eric Arthur Blair on an widely-known English-language public affairs magazine with a rhyming name? I really can't tell if this is unlikely, or too obvious to a contemporary reader to even have to mention. Maybe not much of a mystery, but I don't know. So I ask. Alfred Nemours (talk) 02:10, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Please try to encourage discussion on improvements (to this article, like others), rather than discourage it.

At the time of this writing, discussion pursuant to the question of the meaning of a word in the novel has been closed, with an appended note explaining that the discussion contained "nothing of value," and according to the same opinion apparently must have posed no prospect for containing anything of value. There is some irony in having to respond to this in an entry devoted to 1984. Nonetheless, let me say that I respectfully disagree. This was no "forum discussion" as stated. No discussion was taken into the article. "Newspeak" is a term used in the novel that contains its own WP entry. A reliable answer on point (either footnoted or via passing mention, as noted) that adds anything substantive to the article's description of this term would only add to the quality of the article. As explicitly noted, discussion was pursued throughout with such an improvement in mind.

I see no reason for discouraging follow-up on this topic.

Please try to encourage discussion on improvements (to this article, and to others), rather than discourage it. All the best, Alfred Nemours (talk) 10:56, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Alfred, discussions on Wikipedia about improving articles are unlike discussions in other forums; here, a discussion about a topic is essentially useless unless it makes reference to sources that can be used to cite any new material. That's why the discussion has no value here. All editors here get used to the idea that they cannot usefully bring ideas to the talk page; they can only bring sources, and sourced ideas. Nothing else can be used in the article. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:37, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Articles on WP about improving articles are indeed useful to the extent that they can draw on sources to improve articles with new material. This is why the question given in the WP talk discussion topic drew on two sources, "Literary Censorship in England" and "Politics and the English Language," to raise a question about a 1984. The help topic was clear, further, that such a question was raised given that even passing mention or footnote of such an answer in the main article could represent a substantive improvement to the main article itself. Please consult the sources and sourced ideas, here and elsewhere, before claiming contrary to fact that they do not exist. Alfred Nemours (talk) 16:42, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Mike Christie nailed it. None of your discussions (here, or the "attack" questions you posted on two dozen plus talk pages) are directly addressing a real issue with the articles themselves. You seem stuck on some weird interpretation of one word or another, but you have no reliable sources to share that back up your preferred definition. In no case have you actually presented anything which is useful to improving the articles in question. As Mike stated, unless you do so, your discussion is not about improving the articles, but rather an irrelevant discussion. Discussion that has nothing to do with improving the articles is not welcome or encouraged on article talk pages. There are plenty of other places online where you can discuss word meanings and other nuances that seem to be your thing. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 14:40, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Though this issue is about a specific discussion, rather than about me or "[my] discussions," let me take a moment to respond to the empty (and gratuitous) charge posed here. Questions raised elsewhere about entries in which an act of violence are repeatedly and thoughtlessly referred to with the word "attack" are simply commonsensical to anyone with even basic familiarity with international law, the history of propaganda campaigns used to justify organized state-run campaigns of violence, and the wider context at issue, and with any concerns or scruples about taking care not to substitute propagandistic justifications for state-violence for careful documentation about a given event; or to any sharing concerns about the WP commitment to disinterestedness (often called neutrality) or WP value of (guarding against) recentism. Moving from your gratuitous, hyperbolic charges against me to your hyperbolic charges against this WP talk discussion topic (let me add in passing that it's not often that I hear of charges leveled against raising topics or questions anywhere, let alone on 1984), two sources were presented and quoted in detail that gave rise to the question concerned. "Literary censorship in England" and, in particular, "Politics and the English Language" are direct statements by Orwell/Blair indicating that Stalinist Russia was not his only concern when it came to propaganda and that there are specifically Anglophone targets he had in mind, even if he nowhere named them. This is why I linked the WP article on Newsweek to mention that that publication existed for sixteen years at the time of Orwell's writing, and fit two specific criteria for censorship that Orwell mentioned (wealthy ownership and centralisation). Newsweek apparently had a London office even by the early 1940s, though it remains unknown to me at the present time whether this office was maintained only for information gathering or also for publication (the relevant point being Newsweek's London sales, whether or not an Orwell/Blair writing 1984 in the 1940s would have routinely seen Newsweek on local newsstands or would otherwise have been familiar with the magazine). However uninteresting this topic may be to you (it is not more than of passing interest to me), its brief pursuit has always been guided by documentation and fact, and its further pursuit can only be given by documentation and fact. Let me suggest that your time would be better spent making contributions to WP entries and topics that interest you, rather than trolling either this topic (repeatedly asking whether it has the right to be raised, pretending that the documentation that animates the question either does not exist or has not been cited) or my other interests at large. All the best, Alfred Nemours (talk) 16:42, 12 July 2017 (UTC)