Talk:2 + 2 = 5

Self-evident truth
The 'self-evident truth' section needs some serious rewriting. The sentences are far too fragmented, and the writing sometimes delves into psychology. It might be worth rewriting this article, or deleting it completely. HandyAndy1.36 (talk) 05:25, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The whole section should be deleted, as none of it has anything to do with Orwell's novel, and serves only to redirect attention away from the Article's topic. One example of this stupidity is the assertion the 2 + 2 cannot ever equal 4, because in nature you never find 2 of anything that are exactly alike.  Denying the validity of the number 2 (and all other numbers) has nothing to do with Orwell's novel, This garbage quality language in this high-profile Article is not an accident, or an oversight.
 * 166.251.106.93 (talk) 22:32, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
 * The novel is not the topic of this article, the equation is. Paradoctor (talk) 23:41, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
 * It SHOULD be about Orwell's novel, and nothing else. Nothing else is as noteworthy as Orwell's novel. All these other facts are extraneous data that serve to do nothing but distract from Orwell, his novel, and the sociological/political points he makes. Missing in the Lede is the answer to the question WHY would a totalitarian state force it's subjects/slaves to believe and parrot something that is obviously false. This Article is not accidentally "tone deaf".  It doesn't miss Orwell's primary point as an accident.  Totalitarian States use speech control as mind control, and we can see a clear illustration of that mind control here in this Article.  No one comes here to read this irrelevant crap.  They come here because they have what Morpheus called "a splinter in the mind".  Stop feeding the masses this retarded and irrelevent garbage, and tell the truth for once.
 * 166.146.121.66 (talk) 21:03, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
 * The term predates Orwell's use of it by centuries. Orwell himself discussed it years before he wrote Nineteen Eighty-Four. You're welcome to propose a merger, if you deem that a productive use of your time. Paradoctor (talk) 22:49, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Contemporary Controversy
Contemporary Controvery

On June 8, 2020, James Lindsay posted a series of satirical 'Woke Minis' on Twitter stating, "2+2=4: A perspective in white, Western mathematics that marginalizes other possible values." — a PH.D student, Brittany Marshall responded with, "Nope the idea of 2 + 2 equaling 4 is cultural and because of western imperialism/colonization, we think of it as the only way of knowing".

ESMath Teacher Shraddha Shirude posted a challenge — "This is one of my favourite things to happen upon. Help me respond to all those haters who said my ethnic studies framework claimed 2+2=5... how can we turn this into a true statement?"

In 2020, James Lindsay and Helen Pluckrose wrote a book, 'Cynical Theories' addressing what they describe as a contemporary 'War on Math' — "knowledge is a social construct; science and reason are tools of oppression; all human interactions are sites of oppressive power play; and language is dangerous'" The bizarre tricks that critical theorists use to try to make 2+2 come out to 5 underline a lack of acceptance of the need for rigorous thinking". (Yes, There Really is a War on Math in Our Schools, Denyse O'Leary, Mind Maters, February 16, 2021) https://mindmatters.ai/2021/02/yes-there-really-is-a-war-on-math-in-our-schools/

Cathy Young, MathGate, or the Battle of Two Plus Two - The culture wars come to math and reach a new low, August 16, 2020 https://medium.com/arc-digital/mathgate-or-the-battle-of-two-plus-two-ed4af5f32933
 * You need third-party reliable sources to establish the notiability of this exchange. Medium and mindmatters do not qualify. OhNo itsJamie Talk 20:28, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Ambox warning pn.svg Do not remove talk page comments from other editors. OhNo itsJamie Talk 20:32, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I think the taking of satire seriously, by the very same person that wrote the satire, is rather alarming. Also (it used to be in the article) there are numerous examples where a some authorities statement of "2+2=4 does not imply X" is changed into "2+2=4 implies not X" by those people who see "woke" everywhere and are willing to make an equally-large incorrect logic statement without even realizing the horrible irony.Spitzak (talk) 15:48, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

There is no reference to chickens to support this quote at citation [27] - Former mathematician Kareem Carr has said "when somebody says '2+2=5', I will always ask them for more details rather than dismissing them as an idiot because maybe they are talking about [male and female] chickens and turns out that is how chickens work!".[27] 174.104.233.126 (talk) 21:41, 21 December 2022 (UTC)


 * I have changed the quotation, in accordance with the source. D.Lazard (talk) 18:29, 22 February 2023 (UTC)


 * As it stands, the Carr quotation seems out of place. The article is mostly about 2 + 2 = 5 as a cultural catchphrase, where its incorrectness is assumed to be self-evident, and then suddenly there's a quotation from a "former [?] mathematician" implying that it could be true, but without any context on the particular Twitter debate to which he was responding. The reference to "a rant about the decline of Western civilization" is rendered meaningless. Adda&#39;r Yw (talk) 20:52, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
 * In addition the truly scary part of this is that the mathematicion did not say "2+2=4 is not true". They said "'2+2=4 is true' is unrelated to the truth of this other statement". The statement "they said '2+2=4 is not true'" is a logical fallacy and it is galling that people will be so ignorant that they will print that as the "truth". Spitzak (talk) 15:51, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

about 39 years after, (hopefully not foughty).
I hope that doesn't seem presumptuous of me (to deny your version) the need for 1 + 1 is perhaps only necessary to explicate by the insistance that Orwell is important (which I don't deny, but also don't support greatly with regards to the article if the emphasis were changed to some other focus, for example the pre-exisiting usage of the phrase/estalishment for use by Orwell which is obvious in the article contents.  Simpul skitsofreeneea (talk) 10:39, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Original research in the lead
Since you apparently missed my edit comment asking for sources, let me be as clear as possible: Per WP:CHALLENGE, the following claims you made are challenged by me, and require citation to a reliable source: Note that.
 * 1) "2+2=5" ... "the simplest and easiest logical error that is possible"
 * 2) "2 + 2 = 4 is almost the most obvious mathematically determined truth"
 * 3) "the most obvious being 1 + 1 = 2"
 * 4) "The fact of falseness is determined by the existing established reality of the linguistic signifier 4 indicating the true quantity not the signifier 5."

Furthermore, WP:LEAD states that "Apart from basic facts, significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article." Which is the case with the above claims. Paradoctor (talk) 12:32, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
 * The lead paragraph before the recent changes seems better in that it appropriately focuses on the main use of the term, its well-known connection with Orwell's book. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:17, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Like life some things are more enjoyable than others, and if life were what we wanted it to be enjoyment could happen all the time, but the necessities of our circumstances here means the rules show the intro has to represent the contents of the article not the most important parts. I would say sorry I or someone else can't put it back to before; perhaps it is possible to make the intro include more Orwell, I don't know: it's just that when I read the article Orwell isn't the subject but the intro was mostly (but the political use of 2 + 2 = 5 is how Orwell knew about the use of the phrase). We have to keep in mind that reality decides what is the contents not our preferred version, or an expression of critical evaluation of the reality, as Orwell is. Perhaps there is a hidden reality in the pre-Orwellian use of 2 + 2 = 5 which Orwell is obscuring, as he represents a type of hero in our times, but perhaps he was a hidden spy and no-one knows (and if we look into history we will see a truer version of the problem of doublespeak or brainwashing political coercions (if you agree that the phrase means that to you, that is). That people know it well from Orwell doesn't matter as much as the subject is all the things. To focus on one thing if the others exist distorts the reality. Orwell helped people to see 2 + 2 = 5 as a bad reality, which empowers people, but the presumed bad people are humans also, how they got to be bad at all, for example, is a suject also: is just my opinion, since not responding to your suggestion isn't possible. If you can think of a contrary argument that is convincing that would suffice to consider your position, but preference isn't a proof of need. I would need to know a reason to concur. Simpul skitsofreeneea (talk) 09:28, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
 * If it were that Orwell were the verdict (in our favour) and the history of 2 + 2 = 5 were the evidence of the crimes against us, the verdict cannot be proven without the evidence, irrespective or how despicable the evidence could be for mental process; we shouldn't shy away from looking at the dark history. Simpul skitsofreeneea (talk) 09:41, 21 December 2023 (UTC)