Talk:Nineteen Eighty-Four/Archive 8

"Nineteen Eighty-four" or "1984"?
I believe the correct title of the book is "1984." It is very difficult to persuade copy editors and proofreaders to begin a sentence with a number that is not spelled out, and I believe this is why "Nineteen Eighty-four" often appears. But I believe I have read that Orwell himself was emphatic that the title should correctly be written as "1984." I cannot cite a source for this however. 96.232.28.15 (talk) 04:38, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I have never seen a copy of the book available with the title as "1984", infact, I'm rather sure the original presses were titled as "Nineteen Eighty-Four" too.. 80.6.152.186 (talk) 02:04, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

The title of the book is 'Nineteen Eighty-Four'. It has never been '1984'. The graphic-design on the cover of the first and original print edition is what explains the confusion. In that edition, '1984' does not appear on the title page alongside 'Nineteen Eighty-Four'. Numerous television and film adaptions titled '1984' - notably the production of that year starring John Hurt - have also contributed to the widespread belief that the novel is entitled in numerals. The opening sentence of this article is therefore incorrect: "Nineteen Eighty-Four (also 1984)" wrongly suggests that '1984' is an official alternative title for the book. Orwell's wishes notwithstanding, it is a historical fact that the novel was published with one title only. New Canadian (talk) 20:07, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

A Comic Adaptation of 1984
I would like to also add that under adpatations, you should also add Ted Rall's Comic "2024". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.67.203.142 (talk) 08:04, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Map Innacurate
Jus would like to point out the map shows Northern India and Pakistan, upto Iraq part of EastAsia, although I distintcly remember that in the book, the Oceanians were fighting the Eurasians at the Malabar Coast. Also, most of that area is disputed territory anyway. Orwells mentioning of that comes after Indian Independence and Chinese communist takeover, indicating that Britain was trying to re-capture its Empire. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yjvyas (talk • contribs) 09:35, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Nineteen Fourty-Nine
Although this is a typical start of an article about a book, phrase Nineteen Eighty-Four (1949) still looks odd.

77.122.214.181 (talk) 19:07, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I think that's because Orwell probably did most of the work on the book during 1948 (though publication occurred in 1949) and so the shift of '48' to '84' was meant as a pun similar to 'war is peace,' 'freedom is slavery' and the like. People should be able to tell which is the title and which the publication year in "Nineteen Eighty-Four )1949)" without much trouble. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.69.137.21 (talk) 01:16, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Oceania's currency is the Dollar?
In the article it says 'Oceania is a metamorphosed future British Empire that geographically includes the United States, and whose currency is the dollar.' but I'm pretty certain the book says the main currency is the 'dollarpound'. Could someone check this for me? the line needs editing if I'm right about this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.11.97.150 (talk) 13:21, 10 October 2008 (UTC)


 * In the part where Winston buys the coral paperweight, Mr. Charrington states "...if it so happened that you wanted to buy it, that'd cost you four dollars. I can remember when a thing like that would have fetched eight pounds, and eight pounds was- well, I can't work it out, but it was a lot of money..." I think we can say that the currency is the dollar. --Kroova (talk) 02:12, 26 October 2008 (UTC)


 * the store owner also talks about way back when they used to use pounds, so i would assume that the pound has been phased out. 70.66.248.41 (talk) 22:50, 7 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Orwell makes a general assumption that England's traditional units of measurement have been replaced by the metric system. To an Englishman accustomed to the old pounds-shillings-pence system, dollars would probably look like a metric measurement of money.CharlesTheBold (talk) 01:43, 20 October 2009 (UTC)


 * External link to the full text, the opening passages. Says Winston bought the diary in which he wrote his journal for $2.50. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 10:13, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Possibility of change
In my oppinion this part of the article should be deleted, its all personal assumption.

"'It should be noted that the Appendix to the novel, regarding Newspeak, refers to Ingsoc and Oceania strictly in the past tense, this may imply that the Party will eventually be overthrown at some future point.'"

These articles should be based on facts, not logical guesses.Sirkad 00:40, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. I think that the author is stating, in the body of the article, the larger consensus of opinion, and then is wisely adding, at the end, the caveat that some interpreters who read the novel attach weight to the Appendix's being in the past tense. How you read the article depends on *what weight* you give the Appendix. (The Appendix is a fact, but different interpreters pay differing amounts of attention to it; it is good that the article includes the possibility that paying attention to the Appendix is something that some people do.) ("Logical guesses" and "original research" are of course issues here; and I may be biased because I am in the process of publishing an article where I take the Appendix to "imply that the Party" has been overthrown at some future point.) Jmwturner (talk) 06:15, 30 November 2007 (UTC)jumwturner


 * It's an appendix, not an epilogue, you do know the difference don't you? Still, enough people seem to have made that guess in reliable sources for it to be mentioned. Robin Johnson (talk) 08:29, 1 December 2007 (UTC)


 * A more fundamental criticism might be that tense - past or present does not always imply actuality. Authors often use past tense to refer to things in a different level, for instance talking about the 'writing' of 1984. Rereading the appendix it does seem rather a subtle use, and since it is outside the scope of the book itself it is ultimately written from the perspective of the time. In other words it is looking into the future looking back into the past, a common place for science fiction authors or futurologists. As one such it does not seem to imply to me which way 1984's history goes, in fact if Ingsoc survives(ed) more than a few years after 1984 then Newspeak will be complete anyway. (which really seems to be the whole point of the book anyway, a particular irony given today's world.) Lucien86 (talk) 03:51, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Orwell doesn't use the phrase "Eternal War"
I've changed the title of the Military Conflict infobox to "Perpetual War", because Orwell uses "perpetual" in this context. --Jtir (talk) 21:40, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * "... perpetually working, fighting, triumphing, persecuting ..."
 * "... perpetual peace ..."
 * And the term matches the Further information: link in the adjacent text. --Jtir (talk) 21:42, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Review?
Would someone possibly review this article again? It seems as thought it may be up to a higher status (was there a previous one?). --&Mu;79_&Scaron;p&euro;&ccedil;&iacute;&aacute;&int;&iacute;&scaron;&dagger; tell me about it 02:35, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

sources re censorship of 1984 (novel)
I removed two sources concerning censorship — one was a dead link, and the other was unreliable and irrelevant. Now, the remaining source doesn't support the claim, so I have tagged it with failed verification. Here is a start at restoring some sourcing on this subject: The author cites these books: This source, from We (novel), mentions 1984 as being banned in the USSR until 1988.
 * A Censorship History - 1984
 * Karolides, Nicholas J., and Lee Burress. Celebrating Censored Books. Racine, Wis: Wisconsin Council of Teachers of English, 1985. (WorldCat)
 * Nelson, Jack, and Gene Roberts. The Censors and the Schools. Boston: Little, Brown, 1963. (WorldCat)

--Jtir (talk) 17:11, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I narrowed and clarified the lead on the subject ("challenged" is not the same as "banned"). So far the sources only support claims about the US and the USSR. The reason for 1984 being banned in the USSR is not at all sourced. The FL case is weakly sourced, because the author of the site does not give his sources for his discussion of it, but since he does cite sources earlier, I regard him as fairly reliable. The FL case must have been covered in news articles, which would be ideal sources for this topic. --Jtir (talk) 21:34, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

The whole sentence, "Like most dystopias, Nineteen Eighty-Four has been, throughout its history, either banned or legally challenged as intellectually dangerous to the public" needs to be removed or edited IMO. First, it's not accurate to say that 1984 has been banned or challenged throughout it's history. Secondly, the claim that most dystopias have been, is both unsupportable and irrelevant to this article. R0nin Two (talk) 19:42, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Unknown Sentence Fragment?
It would appear that the following is a sentence fragment:

"Later, when approached by Inner Party member O'Brien, he believes that contact with The Brotherhood, opponents of the Party."

I'm not sure what the editor was trying to say and it would seem this line should be adjusted. Adiamas (talk) 18:37, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

History given - even Goldstein's book - not for certain *the* history
It seems to me that, since Winston Smith was given Goldstein's "book" as a trick, by a person who was actually with the Party, that it should possibly be mentioned that it is not certain that even Goldstein's book is an accurate history of the world. For all we know, in the world of 1984, Airstrip One could be the only totalitarian country, a la North Korea, and they could be telling every one of their citizens a lie. Granted, Orwell probably said somewhere that it was supposed to be world domination... Then again, as I say, that's mostly speculation, anyway, so perhaps that's not reallysomething to go into at length, but a sentence of text stating that might be best, I think, if only because the Party might easily be lying to Winston.


 * I agree... All these maps illustrating the course of the war, listing the combatants, etc. are relatively inconsequential. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.105.235.180 (talk) 23:12, 7 March 2008 (UTC)


 * It certainly seems to imply it, it would be totally logical that Oceania would be the only dictatorship. They wouldn't say anything positive about their enemies whatever, and if they were politically very similar wouldn't there be far less reason for the war?. Another possibility is that the whole war is in fact fake and is only there to help control the people and distract them from the real problems. The Soviet regimes certainly did things like that, a lot believe that terrorism serves the same function for us today. In fact it is an implied part of Newspeak that truth is only what the party says and that 'real' truth is irrelevant. An idea that certainly British politicians still follow even today. (I suddenly seem to find a lot of humor in what seems such a grim doomladen book, and a joke you can only really understand if you understand British politics.)  Lucien86 (talk) 04:24, 17 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Not to mention O'Brien claims he co-wrote 'the book', which strangely evades being mentioned in this article. ('You have read it?' 'I wrote it. That is to say, I collaborated in writing it. No book is produced individually, as you know.' (Part III, chapter II, page 274) BUT: The book is banned, even if co-written by an inner party member. Why would the party edit the foreign affair section of the book, and then leave in the notion that the only way Ocenia would fall is by a prole rebellion, which is most likely to be considered a very serious thought crime? (Same page as before, O'Brian confirms Winston's suspicion that that is in fact the final conclusion of the book) Needless to say, that's some very unlikely and headless editing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.150.226.225 (talk) 03:17, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

how do we ecen know that a world exists beyond England, we know that somewhere along the line nukes where dropped, for all we know, Lond is the last city on earth, and everything else is a lie, to protect the poeple from fear/anarchy.71.61.80.119 (talk) 15:08, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with .119. Goldstein is a character made up by The Party. O'Brien collaborated on The Book, as he said he did. .119 is correct in that there is no reason that the world needs to exist outside of Oceania. This was not evident to me the first time I read 1984. Goldstein's book -- and Goldstein -- are propaganda created by The Party. Sliceofmiami (talk) 04:29, 24 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Unless someone comes up with a compelling argument as to why to not share this on the Goldstein Character bullet, I will be adding information about the book being written by The Party and that Goldstein is a character created by The Party for the purposes of propaganda again. Sliceofmiami (talk) 04:32, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

It is Presumably 1984
am i right by saying that Winston presumes it is 1984? or was he actually definite on saying it was 1984? 03.23.2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Orwell Bradburyreader (talk • contribs) 23:59, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

On page 10 of my copy of 1984 it states "To mark the paper was the decisive act. in small clumsy letters he wrote: April 4th, 1984. He sat back. A sense of complete helplessness had decended upon him. To begin with, he did not know with any certainty that this was 1984. It must be around that date, since he was fairly sure that his age was thirty-nine, and he believed that he was born in 1944 or 1945; but it was never possible nowadays to pin down any date within a year or two." The year is stated to be 'approximately' 1984, but it is irrelevent to the story, since in 2024, the world could resemble the world in "1984." Rusober (talk) 02:41, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * "in 2024, the world could resemble the world in '1984.'" Uh, would explain that assertion, please?  --Jason Palpatine (talk) 08:01, 26 October 2008 (UTC)


 * okay, pardon the bad formatting, (I think) he means that orwell's "prediction" for the lack of a better word may actually be coming true. i don't disagree with txting, but as you can see it is starting to resemble newspeak in a way. there are may other examples of this type of thing but i don't have any at the top of my head. if you think about it orwell is creepily accurate in his future visions. not exactly, but close enough.

Julia's Last Name
I have attempted to find the last name of Julia, one of the main characters, and i have not had much success thus far, if anyone knows the last name, it would be informative.Rusober (talk) 02:43, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi Rusober! I doubt that you will ever find her last name. After reading the book myself, I am currently writing an 8-page report about it, have not discovered a last name. I am pretty sure that there was no last name mentioned. Take care Maarten,dutch (talk) 19:06, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

The result was no merge. Catchpole (talk) 11:11, 8 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Julia's last name is never given in the novel. --Jason Palpatine (talk) 08:02, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Merge Suggestion
Hey folks, the [WInston Smith]] article was raised in a debate reagrding ficiton and deltion and, on taking a look, I was surprised at how truly poor the article is. It reads like a blend of HS student essay & Cliff Notes. I have done a search through some of the scholarly literature. Here's the link but you will need a JSTOR account or the like to read the individual articles, many of which are quite interesting. I note however, that most of the discussion focuses on Winston Smith more or less in passing, so I wonder if it would not be better to merge the character page into this main article, and then marshal some of the academic literature into an informative package on him that notes the main themes and leitmotifs. If the character section gets too long, we can then spin it back to its own, properly sourced and referenced page. Thoughts? Eusebeus (talk) 16:49, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose I see no reason to merge the Winston Smith article (or any other article in Category:Nineteen Eighty-Four characters) into the Nineteen Eighty-Four article. If a reader searches for Winston Smith, they want to read about Winston Smith. If a reader searches for Winston Smith but wants to learn about the novel 1984, there are plenty of links in the Winston Smith article to Nineteen Eighty-Four. If a reader searches for Emmanuel Goldstein, they want to read about Emmanuel Goldstein (or possibly Eric Gordon Corley). Why should someone on dialup have to load the entire Nineteen Eighty-Four article if they just want to read about Winston Smith? --Pixelface (talk) 02:50, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * And the Nineteen Eighty-Four article is already big enough as it is. The articles Winston Smith, Julia, Big Brother, O'Brien, and Emmanuel Goldstein are all too long to merge. They're already spunout. --Pixelface (talk) 02:55, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge to a "List of Characters in Nineteen Eighty-Four" since main article is too long The only character that should get an article based on what I see and what I'd expect would be Big Brother; all the others basically reiterate the plot 5 or 6 times over. --M ASEM  14:51, 27 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose. One could easily write a proper character analysis on Winston Smith. Plenty of sources. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 01:36, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Don't merge I just sifted through google books and found some good stuff. Wrad (talk) 02:15, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose - no reason to merge - however there is plenty of reasons to improve. I you have these references the best way to "save" the article is to add them and also while you are at it if you can provide more "real world critical comment, review and analysis. :: Kevinalewis  : (Talk Page) /(Desk)  11:13, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose - again no reason to merge, as the nominator has indicated, there is a wealth of scholarly literature about this central character to a highly significant novel. Expand in situ. Benea (talk) 13:57, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Illegal journal?
I'm reading this book for my British Lit class, and, although a subtle difference, I would say it is a difference anyway. According to the "Plot" subsection: "...Victory-brand gin. He is discontented, and keeps an illegal journal of dissenting, negative thoughts ..." According to the book's text: "The thing that he was about to do was to open a diary. This was not illegal (nothing was illegal, since there were no longer any laws), but if detected it was reasonably certain that it would be punished by death, or at least by twenty-five years in a forced-labour camp." (In my edition, it is page 6, Signet Classics, ISBN: 0-451-52493-4) Should the page be edited to reflect this, or is it not major enough? Tails0600 (talk) 22:44, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
 * It seems to me that Orwell is being typically ironic here. "Nothing was illegal," and yet a man could be put to death for keeping a journal.  I took it as a mockery of the "free" societies of the west who tightly control the flow of information.   67.84.71.28 (talk) 10:28, 17 May 2008 (UTC)TremorMilo (sorry not logged in)

The journal was 'illegal.' The thought police were a body of people that upheld the strict law set by the 'never seen' big brother... The whole concept of 'thought crime' alone suggests there is social norms that must be acted upon and faliure to do so would result in punishment. The negative thoughts were against the society in which Winston lived in, and hence commiting them to paper would have been a thought crime. Also, the punishment by death is to much of a shallow insight, the punishment of anything was 'room 101'... An example of how all human fear can be exploited into conformity. The death of the person would come when they conformed to the ideals of 'Big Brother' were upheld, so they weren't killed for thought crime they were killed upon understanding. The journal was also illegal on the basis that it was brought in a 'parole' area and it is also a symbol of the past. "He who controls the past controls the future, he who controls the future controls the past." (A very bad paraphrase there, please do excuse.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Femalegeek (talk • contribs) 17:18, 21 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Alright, thanks for the explanation, it struck me as odd while reading the book, so I didn't know if it was or wasn't legal. I appreciate the explanation! :) Tails0600 (talk) 02:54, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

A real howler
...the main alcoholic beverage — Victory Gin — is industrial-grade... How can gin be industrial-grade? Is there some gin-lubricated machinery I'm not aware of? --Glengarry (talk) 19:36, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

That is just figurative language used to describe te fact that it is of poor quality and would be the equivalant of any industrial-grade gin. MattW93 (talk) 21:47, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually it is literal language dealing with the manufacture of this gin -- it is "synthetic gin," thereby created by industry instead of purely distilled. Search google for synthetic gin for more understanding. Marksatterfield (talk) 18:13, 4 October 2009 (UTC)marksatterfield

Nuclear War
If there was a nuclear war between Eurasia and Oceania, why wasn't London destroyed in the fighting? I think Eurasia planned to occupy Airstrip One after the war, but were unable to take it from the formerly American troops stationed there. MattW93 (talk) 21:50, 3 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Not necessarily a contradiction. Hiroshima still exists, why couldn't they have rebuilt London - or at least, kept using it as a city?
 * You've also got to remember that no one completely understood the scope and power of nuclear armament yet - to many people, it was just a really big bomb, not a doomsday machine that could end humanity. Orwell probably assumed that even in Britain was nuked a few times, life would go on.  (Nukes at the time would still have been relatively weak compared to those we have today, and there wouldn't have been all that many, so he could be right). 147.9.177.22 (talk) 05:10, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

According to the book Colchester was destroyed in a nuclear blast, so at least one atom bomb was dropped on Britain-TashkentFox —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.17.219.182 (talk) 10:25, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Real-life Controversies
I cut this, it seemed odd to point to one incident when others exist: Controversy In 1981, Jackson County, Florida challenged the novel on the grounds that it contained pro-communist material and sexual references. , 68.50.106.66 02:45, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Ironic, I'd say. The Baptist preacher was a walking billboard for why people should read the book. 147.9.177.22 (talk) 05:10, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Confusing sentence
(psst! Just realised comments should go at the bottom... d'oh! I've moved my comment to the right place. Don't tell anyone, I think I got away with it!) She&#39;sGotSpies (talk) 18:29, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Hiya, forgive any indiscretions but I am new to this!

Just changed some wording that seemed to suggest the novel itself was a dystopia rather than a representation of a dystopia. Don't think that paragraph is perfect but thought I'd try and make it a little less awkward. Utterly confused about the first sentence though; "George Orwell, who had "encapsulate[d] the thesis at the heart of his novel" in 1944." No idea what that is referring to? Also, as it is a quote should it not have a citation of some sort?

At the bottom of that paragraph it also remarks that We is considered to be its primary influence and yet in that article it quotes Orwell as stating pretty definitively that We influenced Nineteen Eighty-Four. Don't know if this should be changed to reflect this.

Thanks! She&#39;sGotSpies (talk) 23:21, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Question
Is "Living standards" a character? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.247.27.77 (talk) 22:24, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Proposal for merge
The "Thought police" article should be merged into Nineteen Eighty-Four. I do not believe that it is notable enough to be a stand-alone. Prowikipedians (talk) 05:17, 14 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I disagree, I think that the dissemination of "thought police" in popular culture and collective knowledge as well as the concept of it warrants an individual article. If the article isn't good enough, it should be expanded, but I think that it itself is definitely 'notable' enough. Kuralyov (talk) 03:22, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Also disagree; a few of the other 1984 stubs could be merged, though. · AndonicO  Engage. 13:29, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I disagree as well. Just like thoughtcrime, I think it's notable enough. --Alexc3 (talk)
 * An alternate suggestion, split the topic. Put the Orwell reference with Nineteen Eighty Four, and place the popular cultural idea of "Thought Police" here.  I hope that our own "Thought Police" don't remove my edit...  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.154.218.186 (talk) 16:01, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

The Last Man in Europe
Under the title heading it states that the original title was "The Last Man In Europe", and then states that his reasoning is unknown. To begin with, the sentence is unclear, so I don't know what exactly the author is referring to. However, if it is referring to "The Last Man in Europe", does it not harken to O'Brien's statement to Winston in the Ministry of Love, "If you are a man, Winston, you are the last man." This is just my take on it, but I think a lot of people would agree that the original title would have been a reference to that line. Or am I mistaken? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Writergeek7 (talk • contribs) 21:19, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your suggestion. When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the  link at the top. The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes — they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills.  New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). Stifle (talk) 19:52, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Webcomic of 1984
I found out about this http://1984comic.com/

Since this is a straight-up derivative of 1984, can it be linked from the EL section, or should I find references that it is talked about in newspapers first before linking to it? WhisperToMe (talk) 05:08, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

As a manual
Can we get a section noting the books use as a manual by the UK and US governments? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.231.137.138 (talk) 14:04, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your suggestion. When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the  link at the top. The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes — they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills.  New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). Stifle (talk) 11:18, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Merger
I propose Room 101 be merged here as it is and cannot be much more than a couple of paragraphs. Stifle (talk) 11:17, 9 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Don't merge. I think its fine as it is.92.1.85.210 (talk) 18:52, 19 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Don't merge. It's fine as a daughter article and has sufficient well-referenced social impact in itself. Merging it with this article would make an already long article unecessarily long. Let's make full use of Wikipedia's great wikilinks to make reading screens easier.--Technopat (talk) 21:10, 19 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Don't merge. It has enough meaning as itself to not be merged. --Kroova (talk) 02:20, 26 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Don't merge for the reasons stated above. Kuralyov (talk) 05:27, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Proposal failed. There is clearly no consensus for such a merger. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:49, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

World War I
In the Influences section I’d added a reference to the World War I satire 1920: Dips into the Near Future. Someone immediately torpedoed it, perhaps for good reason. Here's an improved addition, which follows a mention of WWII:

The world of 1984 also parallels, or parodies, life during the First World War as well as the Second. Just how oppressive the British government became during the earlier war can be judged from a satire of the time which Eric Blair may even have read while at Eton, 1920: Dips into the Near Future, published in 1917. (footnote) Though Orwell may never have read it, it shares some themes with 1984, parallels which ultimately come from the common experience of both authors if not from one reading the other. 1920 exaggerates actual government oppression during World War I, and if not a literary influence on Orwell, it still reveals what undoubtedly was an influence on him in the real world. (footnote) Onlinetexts (talk) 07:47, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I undid this addition after discovering that someone previously had removed the reference (footnotes) section. Will add it again when this is fixed. Onlinetexts (talk) 09:50, 26 October 2008 (UTC)