Talk:Nineteen Eighty-Four/Archive 11

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Language and thought Vs They live

I disagree. The article on Language and thought doesn't really encompass anything particularly related to Nineteen Eighty-Four, whereas They Live has a controlling power elite who monitor and influence via media the population.

I agree that this is an unsourced comparison - but so is the link between Nineteen Eighty-Four and Language and thought.

Anyway - as per WP:BRD I invite the other editor to discuss it. Chaheel Riens (talk) 08:14, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

First of all the unexplained change to add They live was made this morning by an IP in the first place. And with Chaheel Riens rationale with such vague link we could add almost any movie to the see also section. Language and thought lies much closer to Orwellian topics like newspeak and so on. Shellwood (talk) 08:24, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

That's something of an exaggeration. The Princess Bride (film)? But - I welcome your thoughts (and language) on the subject.

You are absolutely correct that "Language and thought lies much closer to Orwellian topics like newspeak" - which is why it already exists in the Newspeak article. I don't think that in an article which is about the parent topic - Nineteen Eighty-Four - we need to focus too much on what is a sub topic - newspeak, otherwise to paraphrase your own comment we could add almost any (thing) to the see also section.

My comment is not a vague link, and does not open up for a floodgate of dubious entries - the parallels are:

• They Live has a tiny percentage of Elite ruling class who control the media to influence the thoughts and to control the mass population, mostly without the conscious knowledge that it's being done. The population is monitored and influenced by propaganda, both overt and subliminal. They control the police force, and are prepared to kill to maintain the status quo. The film focuses on one mans attempt to fight back by joining the resistance.
• Nineteen Eighty-Four has a tiny percentage of Elite ruling class who control the media to influence the thoughts and to control the mass population, mostly without the conscious knowledge that it's being done. The population is monitored and influenced by propaganda, both overt and subliminal. They control the police force, and are prepared to kill to maintain the status quo. The book focuses on one mans attempt to fight back by joining the resistance.

Chaheel Riens (talk) 08:49, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Your opnions(original research?) are extremely vague and they open up for a very long See also-list. This overanalysis of yours isnt helpful to the readers. Shellwood (talk) 09:01, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

My opinions are quite specific and no less original research than your own opinion to remove They Live and replace with Language and thought. I also posit that by giving an example of how to justify retention of a link this discussion is actually very helpful to other editors who may want to include links, and to readers who are interested in similar themes and scenarios to Nineteen Eighty-Four.

Furthermore, you could try to promote your point of view, rather than just rubbishing mine. Bear in mind that deriding one point of view does not automatically mean that another is valid - so far you've given no reason as to why your changes are better than mine. Chaheel Riens (talk) 12:30, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

This isnt my personal opinion. I wasn't the one who added that link in the first place as I said to you before. I barely point how farfetched and inappropriate it is to replace that link with a link to an action movie with no relation at all to the book, which you in turn try to connect with your analysis above. Shellwood (talk) 13:25, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

If it's not your opinion but that of somebody else, why not back off and let them make the comment? As it is, given your level of input - it seems likely that this is your opinion.

Please clarify why it is a farfetched and inappropriate link, given that I have drawn several parallels between the two.

Also bear in mind that the whole point of See also is to draw the reader to other areas that might be of interest, and those that are not directly related to the parent article - "The links in the "See also" section might be only indirectly related to the topic of the article because one purpose of "See also" links is to enable readers to explore tangentially related topics" MOS:ALSO also says "Editors should provide a brief annotation when a link's relevance is not immediately apparent" - which is not currently present, but I'll add that. I don't think a change such as that goes against WP:BRD. You are quite welcome to use that argument for the inclusion of "Language and thought", but I've already pointed out that this is present in the article where you yourself imply it is more appropriate. Chaheel Riens (talk) 13:42, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Ok, hopefully you will get it this time. You are comparing a dystopian novel with an action movie about aliens invading earth. They have nothing in common and arent even in the same genre. You make brave assumptions about the movie without any sources for your claims. Tell me when do they mention in the movie of what percentage or size the aliens and their human allies are in comparence with the rest of humanity? We can only guess that. You are putting yourself in a very complex situation. Your analysis might do fine in a blog but not in an enyclaopedia. We need to verfiy the content here with some reialable soruces. This movie is an extremely poor example and using it requires a very broad and abstract thinking to find even remotely small similarities, similarities that can also be found in hundreds of other works of fiction, making this movie no special. The relationship between language and thought is something of recurring theme in the works of Orwell and should definitely not be replaced with this vague comparison. Shellwood (talk) 17:03, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Ok, hopefully you will get it this time: "The links in the "See also" section might be only indirectly related to the topic of the article because one purpose of "See also" links is to enable readers to explore tangentially related topics". There does not have to be a categorical connection, a loose comparison is fine. Nowhere in the above do I state or claim that there is any connection between the two subjects, only that comparisons can be drawn.

Incidentally, if you want sources, here's a few that didn't take long to find. Please provide sources to back up your own point of view.

• 5 Reasons Why “They Live” Is The Orwellian “1984” of Cinema
• Fulfilling Orwell’s Prophecy: 15 Futuristic Films You Should See
• They Live

Now, I want to be clear on one thing here: The very tenuous nature of the sources show that any connection is limited, and not worthy of mention in the article. Indeed the sources themselves are not Roger Ebert standard - but they do exist. I make no claim that the two topics should be broached or connections made in the article body. But the point of See also is that tenuous - and vague - connections can have a valid place.

I'm not really against the inclusion of "Language and thought", although I don't think it's particularly relevant to Nineteen Eighty-Four, and that it's better suited to Newspeak - where it already exists. What I'm objecting to, and discussing, is the removal of They Live. What is your opinion on both terms being present in the article? Chaheel Riens (talk) 17:48, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Plot summary in lead section

Greetings, everyone!

I hope you are well. First of all, I'm no expert on George Orwell or 1984, but after finishing the book yesterday and then coming to check out Wikipedia's article, I noticed the entire plot is set down in the lead section. It is a wonderfully written plot outline, but I think it's out of place being in the lead. Many people just read the lead section of an article to get a rough idea of a topic (well, that's what I sometimes or often do), and the complete plot outline there is bound to be a heavy spoiler.

I'm not sure if I'll be able to rewrite it (it's a tough job summing things up), but if I have time, I'll give it some thought to try and summarise the story as fits a lead.

Thanks! GeoffreyA (talk) 12:47, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

The lede is supposed to summarise the entire article, but having read it, you're right and it's way too detailed. References aren't supposed to be used either really, but this one constantly refers to the novel itself. Unless somebody beats me to it - such as yourself, I may also hack & slash later. Chaheel Riens (talk) 16:52, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Oh, by the way, we don't do spoiler warnings so that's not a great concern - see WP:SPOILER. Chaheel Riens (talk) 16:52, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks; I think I'm going to give it a try. GeoffreyA (talk) 08:25, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Here are the older versions of the plot, in the lead, that I managed to dig out from the revision history. I'm not sure if it's the right thing to do, digging these up and setting them down here; but my idea is to look at the older versions and, guided by those, revise the present one.

[October 2017, but even older versions seem alike. I looked up till November 2016 today, so before that, I'm not sure.] The tyranny is ostensibly overseen by Big Brother, the Party leader who enjoys an intense cult of personality, but who may not even exist. The Party "seeks power entirely for its own sake. It is not interested in the good of others; it is interested solely in power." The protagonist of the novel, Winston Smith, is a member of the Outer Party, who works for the Ministry of Truth (or Minitrue in Newspeak), which is responsible for propaganda and historical revisionism. His job is to rewrite past newspaper articles, so that the historical record always supports the party line. The instructions that the workers receive portray the corrections as fixing misquotations and never as what they really are: forgeries and falsifications. A large part of the Ministry also actively destroys all documents that have not been edited and do not contain the revisions; in this way, no proof exists that the government is lying. Smith is a diligent and skillful worker but secretly hates the Party and dreams of rebellion against Big Brother. The heroine of the novel, Julia, is based on Orwell's second wife, Sonia Orwell.

[November 2017] The tyranny is ostensibly overseen by Big Brother, the Party leader who enjoys an intense cult of personality, but who may not even exist. The Party "seeks power entirely for its own sake. It is not interested in the good of others; it is interested solely in power." The protagonist of the novel, Winston Smith, is a member of the Outer Party, who works for the Ministry of Truth, or Minitrue in Newspeak. The Minitrue is responsible for propaganda and historical revisionism. His job is to rewrite past newspaper articles, so that the historical record always supports the Party line. The workers are told they are correcting misquotations, when in actuality, they are writing false information as truth. The Minitrue also destroys all documents that have not been edited ; in this way, there is no proof that the government is lying. Smith is a diligent and skillful worker, but he secretly hates the Party and dreams of rebellion against Big Brother. / The heroine of the novel, Julia, is based on Orwell's second wife, Sonia Orwell.

[November 2017] The tyranny is ostensibly overseen by Big Brother, the Party leader who enjoys an intense cult of personality, but who may not even exist. The Party "seeks power entirely for its own sake. It is not interested in the good of others; it is interested solely in power." The protagonist of the novel, Winston Smith, is a member of the Outer Party, who works for the Ministry of Truth, or Minitrue in Newspeak. The Minitrue is responsible for propaganda and historical revisionism. His job is to rewrite past newspaper articles, so that the historical record always supports the Party line. The workers are told they are correcting misquotations, when in actuality, they are writing false information as truth. The Minitrue also destroys all documents that have not been edited; in this way, there is no proof that the government is lying. Smith is a diligent and skillful worker, but he secretly hates the Party and dreams of rebellion against Big Brother. Smith's love interest and heroine of the novel, Julia, is based on Orwell's second wife, Sonia Orwell. Smith's attempts at self-education and rebellion are ultimately quashed when he is arrested by O'Brien of the Ministry of Love (or Miniluv), which is tasked with arresting and torturing dissidents and is forced into the horror chamber Room 101.

[Present version, May 2018] The tyranny is ostensibly overseen by a mysterious leader known as Big Brother, who enjoys an intense cult of personality. The Party "seeks power entirely for its own sake. It is not interested in the good of others; it is interested solely in power." The protagonist of the novel, Winston Smith, is a member of the Outer Party, who works for the Ministry of Truth, or Minitrue in Newspeak. Minitrue is responsible for propaganda and historical revisionism. Smith's job is to rewrite past newspaper articles, so the historical record always supports the Party's agenda. The workers are told they are correcting misquotations, when they are actually writing false information in the place of fact. Minitrue also destroys all previous editions of revised work. This method ensures there is no proof of government interference. Smith is a diligent and skillful worker, but he secretly hates the Party and dreams of rebellion against Big Brother. Smith begins his acts of rebellion by starting a sexual relationship with Julia, an employee from the Fiction Department at Minitrue. He received a book from O'Brien, a member of the Inner Party and fellow rebel, that details the truth behind the Party's actions. Smith's attempts at self-education and rebellion are ultimately quashed when he is arrested by O'Brien himself. Smith discovers that O'Brien was truly working for the Ministry of Love (Miniluv), the ministry in charge of torturing dissidents. Smith is subjected to many forms of torture and is forced into the horror chamber known only as Room 101. There he is tortured by his worst fear, rats, and is forced to betray Julia. He is released from Miniluv, and Orwell describes his life after his release for the rest of the book. Smith ends the story observing a military update on the telescreen and feeling an intense love for Big Brother.

So there are the outlines from the leads. GeoffreyA (talk) 08:25, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

It's all too much. The lede summary should be no more than a couple of sentences:

Winston Smith is a member of the Outer Party, part of the political organisation that ruthlessly governs England, now known as Airstrip One. The Party is itself ruled by the enigmatic Big Brother. Smith secretly hates and reviles the party, but can see no way of taking action until he meets Julia, a young woman with whom he begins an affair. Together they intend to join the resistance - they believe a local cell is run by O'Brien a prominent member of the Inner Party. Smith documents his sedition via a diary, which is in itself an act of rebellion against the Party.

Something like that. If readers want to know more - there's an entire article below the lede which will tell them everything. Chaheel Riens (talk) 09:08, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Good morning! I actually only saw your comments just now. I've been revising the summary this morning and made some progress. But I think your version is quite good. Excellent summary of 1984 in a few sentences! And you're right: the article's version is too long. I also made sure I removed all mention of O'Brien because those were heavy spoilers. I know Wikipedia doesn't care about spoilers, but still. I read 1984 for the first time this past week and it was a shock to see that O'Brien had tricked Winston. I never guessed it. GeoffreyA (talk) 10:29, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Another thing. The article's version says Winston beginning a relationship with Julia was his first act of rebellion, well, more or less it says that. Wasn't his writing in the diary his first act of rebellion? Also, I think your reading above concerning O'Brien is quite a good one: it doesn't give away too much, and it has the same atmosphere that O'Brien possessed through the earlier parts of the book. You know, the mysterious and admirable leader supposedly associated with the resistance. GeoffreyA (talk) 11:01, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

If we're being really pedantic then the purchase of the diary in the first act of rebellion - but yes, the diary comes before Julia. I know the point you're making, because I think I inadvertently created the ambiguity here. Feel free to change. Chaheel Riens (talk) 11:15, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. My brain is beginning to flag for today. I was looking at the lead section a little while ago, but I give up for now. Your version is quite good (as well as plain and clear), but I'm not sure how to combine it with the present version (or I'm just lazy right now). GeoffreyA (talk) 14:02, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 28 May 2018

 

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Withdrawn. (non-admin closure) In Memoriam A.H.H.^{What, you egg?}. 12:50, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Nineteen Eighty-Four → 1984 – WP:COMMONNAME, and a quick Google search for '1984' brings up only the book; not the year. WP:PRIMARYTOPIC also applies here. Thanks. In Memoriam A.H.H.^{What, you egg?}. 22:41, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose. The book is very notable, but it can't possibly come close to the notability of an entire year. A Google search just for 1984 outright probably means the book, sure, but usage of 1984 in a sentence is going to usually be the year. And while I'm not much for "consistency" arguments, if somehow this was seen as close, the fact that all numbers > 200 and less than 2050 or so are about the year is an additional point against this. SnowFire (talk) 01:28, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose The primary topic of "1984" is the year, not the book which is based on a dystopian future set in that year. We could consider 1984 (book) but I don't think that's any better. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:43, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
• Move to 1984 (novel) - 1984 per WP:COMMONNAME and (novel) per WP:BOOKDAB. To demonstrate common name, here is a Google Ngram showing usage over time. The peaks track closely (matching peaks of popularity of the book), showing that this is an accurate comparison and that the numerical version is more common. Please keep in mind the impact that a move may have on related topics Adaptations of Nineteen Eighty-Four, Nineteen Eighty-Four (1984 film), Nineteen Eighty-Four (UK TV programme), Nineteen Eighty-Four in popular media. -- Netoholic @ 04:13, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose the book is named after the year. (well actually named after 1948) but either way the year is Primary. In ictu oculi (talk) 06:22, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose as per above arguments. Besides, whilst the first couple of pages from a Google search are about the book, to say "only the book" is misleading, and not the case. Chaheel Riens (talk) 07:17, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose In addition to the points raised above, it would interfere with the naming of the year articles, because they would have to go "1983, 1984 (year), 1985, 1986..." Anywikiuser (talk) 08:19, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose per all the above. The PRIMARYTOPIC of 1984 is the year (obviously), which trumps all other references. The first edition of the book was as Nineteen Eighty-Four, and while some editions have been published as 1984, there are still versions published under the Nineteen Eighty-Four title (as well as 1984). My 'quick Google search' of 1984 shows several references to the book, but it's mixed in with many other things; a search for "Nineteen Eighty-Four" shows 95 returns for the book in the first 100 hits. - SchroCat (talk) 10:57, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

---

I have decided to withdraw. Due to the comments made by other editors. And, the fact that the actual year is more notable than the book. Thus, renaming it wouldn't be beneficial. Thank you. In Memoriam A.H.H.^{What, you egg?}. 12:53, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

plot

at the end of the book doesn't winston get shot? that should be in the plot section — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.102.187.139 (talk) 20:09, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

No, he doesn't Bkatcher (talk) 21:13, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

New Section

Hi, I am thinking about adding a new section that addresses 1984's impact on schools and students. This book is commonly included in English curriculums; however, there are different contexts in how this book is taught and how this book is received (including banning the book from schools) Though.ts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Icf17 (talk • contribs) 22:12, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Wait, what, they ban this book at schools? I'd DEFINITELY like to know more about that, have any sources to share?MaximusEditor (talk) 02:49, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Nonexistent character?

In the "Secondary characters" section there's a mention of a character called Syme, who is apparently Winston's colleague at Minitrue. However, I can find no mention of him in my copy or any record that such a character exists; this should be removed. Robin Johnson (talk) 12:30, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Interesting, I did a quick google search that pulled up several conversations on the importance of the character Syme from 1984, I wonder why he isn't in your publication. Could be a notable fact about different types of publication.MaximusEditor (talk) 02:52, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

My edition is ISBN 978-0452262935 and Syme is first introduced in ONE / V / second paragraph. But I'm detecting humor here -- since you are reading the book after he had been vaporized. Full Decent (talk) 02:32, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Sean Hannity, radio personality

Surmised on the air on January 12 2021 that it was published/released in 1984. I propose this here as an example of the warnings contained by Orwell of the rise of ignorance. Wikipietime (talk) 04:25, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Revised map

I have included a new version of the world map showing the super states. It takes into account that Orwell describes "the countries south to" China as part of Eastasia's territory. Since Eastasia's control over Mongolia, Manchuria and Tibet changes constantly, due to the war, these regions in consequence are shown completely as "disputed areas". The same is true for Tajikistan, Kyrgyztan and a part of Kazakhstan since Eastasia has a "less definite western frontier". The other regions of the former Soviet Union are part of Eurasia. It was a Soviet conquest of continental Europe which has led to the formation of Eurasia. The victoria lake is shown as a lake.Gernsback67 (talk) 11:45, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Not bad. It always bothered me about the countries south of China. Bkatcher (talk) 16:17, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

"Neo-Bolshevism" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Neo-Bolshevism. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 July 26#Neo-Bolshevism until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. (t · c) buidhe 03:17, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Copyright section removed

The section on copyright protection was removed as "naval-gazing". Removal by https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Serial_Number_54129. Old version accessible at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nineteen_Eighty-Four&diff=965082811&oldid=965081636. I think this information is very useful and is also particularly timely right now. Full Decent (talk) 02:36, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

This may or may not be navel-gazing, but it's definitely original research. And as is sometimes the case with original research it's wrong. Nineteen Eighty-Four will not enter the public domain in the United States until 2044. Dan Bloch (talk) 03:47, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

@Fulldecent: I consider it to have been navel-gazing as it was clearly intended to be of interest to Wikipedians rather than the general reader, who is unlikely to give a fly as to the novel's copyright status.

It is also, as Dan Bloch notes above, wholly original research.

In any case—and per policy—following its removal, those wishing to restore contested material should seek consensus on the talk page.

And, FYI, if you could learn some of the basic Wikimarkup, your prose would read much more cleanly. All the best! ——Serial 10:08, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

@Danbloch: "Nineteen Eighty-Four will not enter the public domain in the United States until 2044".

• "Copyright Term and the Public Domain in the United States". Cornell University Library Copyright Information Center.
• Arbeiter, M. "14 Things You Might Not Know About Nineteen Eighty-Four". Mental Floss.

The Cornell site is authoritative. Mental Floss is less so, but does mention Nineteen Eighty-Four by name. Dan Bloch (talk) 18:32, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Nineteen Eighty-Four contained very similar content predating the Mental Floss article (may be WP:CIRCULAR). Agreed, the Cornell source can be considered authoritative. Whether Nineteen Eighty-Four had its copyright renewed in the US may still need to be established - which, again, could risk WP:SYNTHESIS.

All this becomes moot if a consensus decides the topic of the work's public-domain status does not meet WP:NOTE, due to a lack of "significant attention from independent sources" exploring the matter. -- 88.96.197.246 (talk) 10:48, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

A source stating the Berne Convention does not apply to Nineteen Eighty-Four would be useful.

To my surprise, I found this too. See Rule of the shorter term#Situation in the United States. ​Dan Bloch (talk) 18:32, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

I think the discussion here is two-fold. Whether my original contribution is WP:SYNTHESIS and, more importantly, whether the topic of the work's public-domain status is WP:NOTE (e.g.: WP:NOTSTATSBOOK). -- 88.96.197.246 (talk) 16:31, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

I think it is an influential work and I find it highly amusing that you removed the copyright section for this very book that is about oppression. It will fall into the public domain next year, and hence be available for most people. It would be a great addition to public domain free education collections all over the world when that happens. The copyright expiration date and/or that it is already in the public domain at certain countries is also mentioned here, I bet you can find it at other places and that it will receive massive news coverage in January:

• https://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/18/technology/companies/18amazon.html
• https://isi.org/modern-age/nineteen-eighty-four-at-70/
• https://www.fadedpage.com/showbook.php?pid=20120511

-bkil (talk) 07:43, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

You can already find reprints of this work (without any royalties to the Orwell Estate) on various popular booksellers. Perhaps an authoritative source on the topic of copyright is the Orwell Foundation. https://www.orwellfoundation.com/the-orwell-foundation/contact/ which states "Copyright in George Orwell’s works that were published in his lifetime ends on 1st January 2021 throughout the world, with the exception of the US and Spain where it continues. Copyright in writings first published after his death, such as letters and diaries, was established from the date of first publication." Full Decent (talk) 13:56, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

FYI I am personally very interested in the copyright status because I have just published Nineteen Eighty-Five, which rewrites the original book into modern language (Big Brother -> The Cloud, Newspeak -> Hashtags, etc.) Was not sure if other people thought the topic is Wikiworthy so wanted to discuss on Talk first. Full Decent (talk) 15:48, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

I've done research into copyright expiration in the past, when I was considering republishing a few out-of-print books. The copyright lawyers told me that it's very complicated, especially for international copyrights, and you can't depend on a simple layman reading of the law. You can often get contadictory advice from lawyers, depending on whether the lawyer usually represents copyright owners or people who are doing the copying.

I would not be confident I had the right answer unless I had a legal opinion about a specific work from a copyright lawyer who represented copyright owners, and a legal opinion about the specific work from a copyright lawyer who represented the other side, and they both agreed. (And lawyers tell me that you can't really be sure until it's been decided in court.) Look at the "Happy Birthday" case. There were lawyers who claimed that their client owned the copyright.

I've also noticed that librarians tend to be over-cautious.

Is anybody here a copyright lawyer? Nbauman (talk) 21:12, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Small technical wording error surrounding proles being allowed gin

I would like to add that the first paragraph of the section titled "Poverty and inequality" falsely implies that the proles are allowed to drink any gin. ("...proles consume synthetic foodstuffs and poor-quality "luxuries" such as oily gin..."). I saw this and realised it was a mistake because in chapter eight of 1984, it says that the proles were supposed not to drink gin, though in practice they could get hold of it easily enough. I didn't edit the article directly because I wasn't sure it needed to be edited, but decided to put it here that I noticed the mistake so that a more experienced editor could write it in much better than I could. 2601:601:D081:4180:8D77:7FC1:3AD2:4F91 (talk) 23:51, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Claude Rozenhof and the quote at f/n 30

I'd like to raise the question of the truth or un-truth of the quote at f/n 30. I can't seem to find any internet reference to Claude Rozenhof or Garziela de Los Rios, or an Academic Workshop on Propaganda and Counter-Propaganda. That may not mean anything (especially given all of about 15 minutes of searching), but the last sentence of the quotation rings a sour note in my head. Is there any chance of double-checking this quote or its provenance?

---

The only results google shows for the name Claude Rozenhof or the title of the workshop originate in this here article. The quote was added in February 2021 by an unregistered user who edited a few articles in the February of 2021 and got a vanadalism warning. The quote isn't verifiable and should be deleted. Certainty of Victory (talk) 03:31, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

A happier ending description

I find that the ending described in the entry's plot section is grimmer than the actual book's.

Winston decides to follow Julia and she agrees to talk to him, despite the surprise and their other (routine) plans, During the conversation she says: " ‘And after that [betrayal under torture], you don’t feel the same towards the other person any longer.’ " But this is a feeling that is overcome very frequently. It is a kind of disappointment, over which people can get. You discover something bad and you learn to deal with it. In particular, it is clear that neither of them feels proud of betraying; they give excuses for having betrayed; they regret it.

They do not exactly reveal they "no longer possess mutual affections", and the way it is written in the entry makes one think that that is for the rest of their lives.

Also, even if Winston loves Big Brother he can still love Julia again -same for Julia. If he did not mean to find love again, why would he have sought her ? There are traits one cannot change, except through death, and some except through injury to the brain -eg. "lobotomy".

Most importantly they agree: " ‘We must meet again,’ he said. ‘Yes,’ she said, ‘we must meet again.’ "

Then Winston follows her as she walks towards the Tube. He only renounces to seek the warmth of the Chestnut Tree Cafe. In no way does it mean that they will not think about seeing each other, and do it, in the future. Signs are that a spark is still there, despite routine. They can be deterred to be with each other by fear of being tortured again, but that is not what the narrator says, or the characters. They both want to "meet again", at that time and Winston is not narrated to change his mind although he forgets it for long.

It is not clear how long he keeps living with the same routine until he learns of the victory over Eurasia in Africa -and the novel ends. It lookes like several months, not years. Of course he is deeply addicted to alcohol, but it is not clear either he will never get out of his routine.

This issue may have been discussed already, if so please give me a reference.

I don't know if you could just tweak the entry a little; I hope you won't be mad I suggest making a small, questionable, change -I don't know how strict the rules on the discussion page, sorry if I broke them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Plm203 (talk • contribs) 04:42, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Map incorrect? Opinions?

First of all, the actual text:

With the absorption of Europe by Russia and of the British Empire by the United States, two of the three existing powers, Eurasia and Oceania, were already effectively in being. The third, Eastasia, only emerged as a distinct unit after another decade of confused fighting. The frontiers between the three superstates are in some places arbitrary, and in others they fluctuate according to the fortunes of war, but in general they follow geographical lines. Eurasia comprises the whole of the northern part of the European and Asiatic land-mass, from Portugal to the Bering Strait. Oceania comprises the Americas, the Atlantic islands including the British Isles, Australasia, and the southern portion of Africa. Eastasia, smaller than the others and with a less definite western frontier, comprises China and the countries to the south of it, the Japanese islands and a large but fluctuating portion of Manchuria, Mongolia, and Tibet. (...2 pages...) Between the frontiers of the super-states, and not permanently in the possession of any of them, there lies a rough quadrilateral with its corners at Tangier, Brazzaville, Darwin, and Hong Kong, containing within it about a fifth of the population of the earth. (...15 lines...) Whichever power controls equatorial Africa, or the countries of the Middle East, or Southern India, or the Indonesian Archipelago, disposes also of the bodies of scores of hundreds of millions of ill-paid and hard-working coolies. (...10 lines...) The frontiers of Eurasia flow back and forth between the basin of the Congo and the northern shore of the Mediterranean; the islands of the Indian Ocean and the Pacific are constantly being captured and recaptured by Oceania or by Eastasia; in Mongolia the dividing line between Eurasia and Eastasia is never stable; round the Pole all three powers lay claim to enormous territories which in fact are largely uninhabited and unexplored: but the balance of power always remains roughly even, and the territory which forms the heartland of each super-state always remains inviolate.

— Emmanuel Goldstein, Chapter III - War is Peace, in "The Theory and Practice of Oligarchical Collectivism", unknown publishing date

Map as shown in the article, caption there is "Map Depicting the Three Superstates of Nineteen Eighty-Four, with the 'disputed area' in light yellow"

• at the very least the border running through New Guinea is unmotivated by the book. Wikipedia and all other sources I could find all define Australasia as including the island of New Guinea. There is nothing in the book (I could find, please correct me) that motivates this border. The text strongly suggests that all of New Guinea is part of Oceania.

The 6 Geographical Regions of the Republic of China (Mainland Era) in 1946.

• the other big problem I see is that this map takes the "rough quadrilateral" too seriously, and thus completely forgets that Eastasia "comprises China and the countries to the south of it". We also have to keep in mind that Orwell is writing during the Chinese Civil War, thus it is quite plausible that his definition of China does not correspond to our modern one. It might very well not include Qinghai and Xinjiang, and it most definitely does not include Mongolia, Tibet and Manchuria, as Eastasia only controls "a large but fluctuating portion" of these. If I am correct, and "China" means
  North China
  ,
  Central China
  , and
  South China
  , as shown to the side, then "countries to the south of it" clearly refers to Indochina, i.e. Cambodia, Laos, and Vietnam, and possibly even Myanmar, Thailand, and Malaysia, though the latter are probably within the disputed area.
• a more general problem with the presentation is that the text makes clear multiple times that the borders are not fixed, but the map gives the clear impression they are.

I would like to hear others opinion. I will make a new (and hopefully better) map, but would appreciate the input of other editors. Cheers! --Lommes (talk) 17:04, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

I have some more questions/ideas:

• i know is a little bit silly question, but the "rough quadrilateral", do we know how it is created? our current map shows just four 'straight' lines connecting the four places. However, we have to keep in mind these lines change with map projection, and we have no real idea what map projection Orwell had in his workspace. I'd say Mercator is a good guess for 1947, but it is just a guess. What we can be sure is that Orwell didn't use a Robinson projection, like our current map, as that was only devised 16 years after the book was written. Finally, the 'true' quadrilateral between these cities uses Great Circles, and - very counterintuitive - the Great circle from Hongkong to Tanger runs through Florence, Italy, that is it runs much further north than our current map shows. I think this last option is the least likely, as it conflicts with other parts of the description, but we have to keep in mind that our Robinson-projection-straight-lines are most definitely not what Orwell intended.
• "round the pole all three powers lay claim to enormous territories" According to Territorial_claims_in_Antarctica all current claims to land in Antarctica was already in place in 1943, and thus at the time of writing the book. I think this might give us license to just take current territorial claims and map them to their respective Superpower (Argentina, Chile, and Australia > Oceania, Norway and France > Eurasia). This leaves us with the problem that "all three powers" are mentioned, but China, Japan, Korea, Mongolia, Vietnam, et al. have no claimed territory in the Antarctic, neither in 1947 nor today. One could be very smart about it, and give Marie Byrd Land to Eastasia, but this seems very much an invention. I don't see anything in the text or the historical context which could give us any clue which "enormous territories" Eastasia claims.

So, now I wait and hope for other opinions. Cheers! --Lommes (talk) 15:45, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

I think it's best to ignore the "rough quadrilateral" for most of the borders. The text makes clear that territories south of Hong Kong belong to Eastasia, which contradicts the quadrilateral no matter what map projection you use. I think it would be more logical to use real geopolitical borders. It may be useful for gauging just how far Oceania's control extends into Indonesia, but other than that I interpret it to be very rough. As for Antarctica, I think it makes sense to just give each part to whoever's north of it. So Marie Byrd land would go to Oceania, and the western half of Australia's claim to Eastasia. To make the borders seem less definite, you could blur or smooth them. I think some significant buffer zone in Manchuria and Mongolia would definitely help in that regard. Here's a rough sketch of what I'm talking about: https://imgur.com/a/niyyzS7 Justin Kunimune (talk) 13:16, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

@Justinkunimune, thanks so much. I very much agree on ignoring the "quadrilateral". I am not so sure as to your solution for Antarctica. It just seems too much our own interpretation, there is too little basis in the book. Also thanks for your sketch. I have done some work myself over the last two days, this is where I am at, at the moment: https://imgur.com/a/u3cw8pr (is an SVG file i am working in, but is not ready to be uploaded, needs much cleanup, the file contains reference maps and the like). Thanks again. --Lommes (talk) 13:37, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

When Orwell says "round the pole all three powers lay claim to enormous territories" is probably talking about the North Pole, as explained here: "It is for the possession of these thickly-populated regions, and of the northern ice-cap, that the three powers are constantly struggling". Antarctica is controlled by Oceania, as implied here: "In the vast laboratories of the Ministry of Peace, and in the experimental stations hidden in the Brazilian forests, or in the Australian desert, or on lost islands of the Antarctic, the teams of experts are indefatigably at work". --Tenebra Blu (talk) 14:56, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Asimov's review of Nineteen Eighty-Four

I've removed this section, as I think it may warrant more opinions. Having read it in entirety (and it's a biggie - 5500 words,) I'm pretty sure that Asimov is not really reviewing the book, but having a pop at Orwell himself through the book:

Isaac Asimov called 1984 “dreadfully dull, didactic, repetitious, and all but motionless,” full of “British upper-class contempt” for the proletariat, packed with “distorted nostalgia,” “technophobic,” and “laughable.”

What are others' thoughts?

Chaheel Riens (talk) 13:11, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

While I find his reasoning weak and his conclusions worthy of challenge, the fact remains that this is one of the longest, most readable criticisms by an actual SF writer and critic, and definitely belongs here. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:18, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Comparisons to modern society

Can the comparisons to modern society, mentioned within a single paragraph in the header, be moved to a new sub-topic? Many are comparing the current https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disinformation_Governance_Board to 1984's "Ministry of Truth". Many other parallels are worthy of additional discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IdahoMtnMan (talk • contribs) 14:43, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

NewSpeak is also frequently compared to University of Stanford for their newspeak-like redifinition of words (don't say "brave" anymore and stuff) 2A01:598:9988:5DBC:F8C3:8C7D:9317:1CA3 (talk) 22:29, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

I think it's funny that someone recently wrote a blurb on the article about the government, and Wikipedia itself, changing the definition of "recession" and that edit was removed by someone. LMAO you can't make this stuff up. If you're arguing the definition wasn't changed, well, you're ignorant to history and economics. A mention of the changing of the definition of "vaccine" in 2020 is also apt, as is the definition of "woman" recently. You definitely know the changes are legit when you cannot question them and are demonized or censored for doing so. LOL smfh.Clamum (talk) 08:11, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• 1984first.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 07:08, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 April 2023

"Orwell had toured Austria in May 1944" should be May 1945, couldn't check original source but logically can't be 1944 and https://orwellsociety.com/reporting-from-the-ruins/ confirms May '45. 170.55.23.174 (talk) 07:21, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

 Done Actualcpscm (talk) 09:42, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Claude Rozenhof

I have searched for this name and can't find it anywhere except this Wikipedia article and other references to the same exact quote. Is this a real source? 130.44.175.166 (talk) 21:11, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

This is really strange, but I have to agree with 130.44.175.166. There's no evidence of the author or the source's existence, so this isn't WP:VERIFIABLE. Dan Bloch (talk) 22:38, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Removed. Dan Bloch (talk) 02:04, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

The quote was added by an IP editor here. At broadly the same time they also added similar bulk quotes to Robert Heinlin's article here and A Time to Kill (Grisham novel) here. The Sanchez quote was removed here by an editor expressing the exact same concerns as on this page, and I've just now removed the Heinlin block. The IP in question has not been active since these additions (Feb 2021) so I see no need to warn them over what seem to be intentional hoaxes. Good spot by IP 130.44 - thanks. Chaheel Riens (talk) 08:25, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Questionable YouTube clip

I'm surprised about User:Drbogdan's addition of and external link to a YouTube clip which is much more than an "Updated Summary". It's a tendentious piece of pamphleteering, bordering on conspiracy theory, that uses the book as a hook for its ideas. Admittedly, there is a fair bit of summation in the clip, but it doesn't take 50 minutes to summarize the novel – it's in large part the personal musings of a crusader. I suggest to remove that clip from this article. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 14:12, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

@Michael Bednarek: (and others) -  Done - Thank You for your comments - and suggestion - yes - *entirely* agree - the video (ie, "USA (2023) – Updated Summary of 1984 (video; 50:03)") could be better, and has been removed from the external link section - Thanks again for your comments and all - and - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 14:40, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Me and the Big Guy

• This is a parody of 1984 that should be in the infobox on the bottom of the page.
• https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0192299/plotsummary/

Kenixkil (talk) 19:19, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Linking the pen name

In the first paragraph of the page I linked the pen name to the author's page instead of linking his real name. I chose this course of action because the same is done in the The Adventures of Tintin. Should his real name be linked instead? Sangsangaplaz (talk) 15:16, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Misunderstanding

I think the description of the book on here and in popular culture isn't accurate and I can hopefully prove this with the book as my source. The government in the book isn't some all-powerful regime but instead a dying regime that became addicted to surveillance and repression of its own members to the point where the people who could've saved it were instead turned against it. The evidence for this is the description of chocolate and cigarettes which are both portrayed as being cheapened or reduced compared to previous times. A totalitarian government wouldn't be cutting the supplies of those 2 things unless it had to since chocolate and cigarettes are one of the few remaining creature comforts available to the working class. This means that the regime is failing. Another thing to keep in mind is that the repression was mainly targeted at party members and not the 'proles' who were generally left alone. This means that the intent of the book is not to warn the working class of the dangers of totalitarian governments but rather to tell people who would support totalitarianism that such a system will end up collapsing as it fails to function and ends up turning on the few honest people who could've saved it. The only thing the government was good at was catching disloyal government employees and it relied on this ability so much that it ended up getting rid of the people who could've saved it. I think people are misunderstanding the target audience. 2604:2D80:6305:600:587E:9E83:FCFC:9CC3 (talk) 02:13, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

"I can hopefully prove this with the book as my source." You can not. Wikipedia articles require reliable third-party sources, not primary sources. Dimadick (talk) 09:23, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Because, you know, critical thinking is to be discouraged. You are permitted to select one of the officially approved viewpoints, nothing original. Remember: Big Brother is watching! 2600:1010:B18F:F05E:0:28:EE60:5C01 (talk) 07:14, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

even so, this user is correct.

It is weird that there is only one mention of the appendix in the whole article, especially considering that the context of Orwell refusing to publish the book without it shows that it is critical to understanding the text.

You can trivially find references to this, and the widespread misunderstanding of this book's themes is a well trodden topic of discussion among scholars... to the extent that those who want to push their own agendas with the book's themes often implicitly deny its existence.

Does this example of the discussion meet citation criteria around here: https://cupblog.org/2013/07/01/laura-frost-you-probably-didnt-read-the-most-telling-part-of-orwells-1984%E2%80%B3-the-appendix/ ? 122.199.11.113 (talk) 22:40, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

Themes

I think section "Themes" must go back. Why has it been deleted?

2.138.55.128 (talk) 16:16, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

Requested move 16 May 2025

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: withdrawn per SNOW Mast303 (talk) 15:07, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

---

Nineteen Eighty-Four → 1984 (book)1984 (book) – Almost always referred to as 1984; very rarely spelled out. Mast303 (talk) 23:36, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose: It shouldn’t be named just the numerical version. It was written on the cover. Also, could you provide a source to where you found this information at? 🐝 B33net 🐝 03:36, 17 May 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose: I fully agree with the above. Bduke (talk) 03:55, 17 May 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose - the book is called "Nineteen Eighty-Four". "1984" is an also-known-as, but we would need to see sources and evidence that this is the more popular common name over the original published title. Chaheel Riens (talk) 07:42, 17 May 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose: As per the original book cover, and my Penguin version. Proposer has not replied to the request for a reliable source to support their claim of "Almost always referred to as 1984; very rarely spelled out" - Arjayay (talk) 09:58, 17 May 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose per the rationale of all above. A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 11:51, 17 May 2025 (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.

AI-generated text

Hello. Just to let everyone know, this article has unfortunately been riddled with AI-generated text and possibly AI-translated foreign-language text by User:Wh67890, who has since been blocked indefinitely. If anyone would like to revert or search for any of this that would be most welcome. Keeper of Albion (talk) 22:06, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

Where do you see that User:Wh67790's edits were AI-generated? They may well have been but I can't find a discussion of this. Dan Bloch (talk) 00:36, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

See here and here. Inspecting their edit history and user and talk pages makes it clear they were not proficient in English, which their indefinite block notice notes. Large portions of the added text in those edits are clearly AI-generated and possibly AI-translated. I don’t know whether any of it is plagiarised.

Note how the sections "Contemporary Critical Perspectives", "Newspeak and Doublethink" and "Contemporary Reassessments and Philosophical Frameworks" (excessive capitalisation also showing the editor was not familiar with MOS) either waffle without conveying anything meaningful or are obvious and already covered within the article. These fluent paragraphs were not produced unaided by somebody who has been blocked for their lack of proficiency in English.

I deleted "Contemporary Critical Perspectives" in its entirety because I spotted immediately that it was irrelevant AI drivel with an activist Palestine-related photograph and caption. The other sections are still there. Keeper of Albion (talk) 09:52, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

I blew it up. It's not fair to expect other editors to have to deal with this. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 10:30, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

These two articles also seems to be written by AI, because @Wh67890 made those article. If he was culprit in all those writings and citations mentioned above then probably he is also the reason why these articles exists–as AI written. Looking at his editing history and "talk page" as well as his "user page" it seems he was married to chatGPT, and used it as his companion in all those advocacy. Although I will wait but if no action taken, I would have to delete them with my own hand. [Singular matrix] and Conductivity cell 2409:40E3:2010:C3AF:752F:38CD:3D6E:3CF1 (talk) 10:03, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

Reversion

@SchroCat, you should not have reverted to your own version without discussion on the talk page. @Eddie891, who boldly blew up the page after a user inserted paragraphs of AI-generated text (which you can read about above), thanked me for my edit reintroducing Oxford spelling. The novel uses Oxford spelling and I see no reason why the article shouldn’t. Others are free to give their opinions. Keeper of Albion (talk) 16:36, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

For a start, it's you who should not have reverted. See WP:BRD for guidelines on not just reverting back to your preferred version but using the talk page. Your revert also reverted a lot of other edits: you need to be much more careful with reverting. This article has had a 'Use British English' since at least January 2023, and it's staggeringly poor form to change language variant without at least a discussion first (ArbCom have had multiple hearings in the past about editors changing the language variant or edit warring over it). As I said in my edit summary, it's not possible to have two language tags in place, rather obviously, and a discussion is the better way to get consensus before making such a contentious change. Do you have any sources that state the original printing was in Oxford English, by the way? (It doesn’t make any difference: there’s no requirement, or even any logic, in insisting that the article has to follow the same variant as the original work). - SchroCat (talk) 16:56, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

The first-edition text is available entirely free online and at select libraries because the British copyright expired in 2021.

Your new edit was bold and was reverted, but you apparently saw it fit to edit war without going to the talk page.

Here is the last edit ever made to the article before the spelling was changed en masse and an ENGVAR tag was placed on it without discussion here. Oxford spelling predominates in the former, and still had a presence less than twenty days ago. I introduced Oxford spelling and my edit stood for seventeen days without bothering twelve other editors. Articles relating to Tolkien and his works use Oxford spelling as he did, and I see no reason why this article shouldn’t be moved to it. Keeper of Albion (talk) 17:44, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

I asked for a source, not for your wp:OR

You made a bold edit in adding the tag (the "B" of BRD); I reverted it (the "R" of BRD); you then reverted (the "E" of edit-warring you indulged in, some distance away from BRD). I'm sorry you can't see the rather obvious series of events here.

I'm delighted you've saved me the job of searching back to find the first application of the tag: June 2011 was fourteen years ago, so there's a good edit consensus that rather trumps your addition of the tag only four days ago. - SchroCat (talk) 18:06, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

Let’s keep it as it is for now, then. Other editors are welcome to give their opinions.

You should drop the passive-aggressiveness. Keeper of Albion (talk) 18:34, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

You should learn not to edit war and then try and blame the other person for it. - SchroCat (talk) 18:44, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

Not going to involve myself further, but my ‘thanks’ was more of an apology that your edit got caught up in my mass roll back of the AI-slop than an endorsement either way of the content. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 18:22, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for doing it. I wasn’t sure whether it was worth my reverting others’ edits. Keeper of Albion (talk) 18:26, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

I don't care which English variant the article uses, but I do care about following process. SchroCat was right that editors can't just change the EngVar without discussion (per MOS:RETAIN). But now that we're discussing it, I do find the fact that Special:Diff/432298576 unilaterally changed the article from Oxford to non-Oxford (in 2011) a reasonable argument for changing it back now. Dan Bloch (talk) 19:14, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

After fourteen years? I would fully support it if it was within a few months, or even up to a year, but after fourteen years, I think the edit consensus is so strong that it would need a new consensus. - SchroCat (talk) 19:55, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

Fair enough. Dan Bloch (talk) 01:00, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

Time Frame

Early in the article it says that the time frame in which the novel takes place is unclear; I mean the title of the book is 1984. 2605:6DC0:E000:1BCB:2805:627F:F42A:FBAC (talk) 11:11, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

You clearly have not read the book, or even the first sentence of the Plot section of this article. Yue🌙 19:59, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

That’s rude 109.144.220.3 (talk) 11:23, 22 July 2025 (UTC)