Talk:Nineteen Eighty-Four/Archive 9

Removed common misconception
Orwell himself insisted time and time again that his novel was ..."NOT intended as an attack on Socialism or on the British Labour Party (of which I am a supporter...") The Collected Essays, Journalism and Letters of George Orwell Vol. 4 - 158. It was aimed at all totalitarianisms, of which he specified Communism and Fascism. --Technopat (talk) 11:06, 16 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Hate to point it out but the fat cigar smoking hat wearing big brother was probably modeled on Winston Churchill. I would love to put it in but the reference is lost in the distant past - but Orwell may have disliked Churchill intensely. At one level the whole book can be seen as a thinly veiled and vicious attack on world war two Britain - capital city London, name Airstrip One (formerly England), four monolithic ministries etc. BTW Orwell and Churchill were probably pretty much on opposite sides politically, liberal vs. conservative. Lucien86 (talk) 11:27, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

This section looks like a good example of "doublethink": where Orwell wrote socialism one should not read socialism.

Unsigned, that's your own obvious misunderstanding. Doublethink means to hold two mutually exclusive ideas simultaneously, not to infer differences in the meaning of words as they are employed. What you have done is to accept the propaganda of the Ingsoc government to be always using terminology faithfully, which is rather unfortunate and not particularly in keeping with the book's message. Urpunkt (talk) 20:35, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Julia and Winston do NOT meet in the Chestnut Tree Cafe
The meeting between Julia and Winston at the Chestnut Tree Cafe occurs in the movie version, not the book. Here's what the book says about the meeting:

"He had seen her; he had even spoken to her. There was no danger in it. He knew as though instinctively that they now took almost no interest in his doings. He could have arranged to meet her a second time if either of them had wanted to. It was by chance that they had met. It was in the Park, on a vile, biting day in March, when the earth was like iron and all the grass seemed dead and there was not a bud anywhere except a few crocuses which had pushed themselves up to be dismembered by the wind."


 * The above citation is from the last chapter. The possible confusion may arise because (in the book) Winston was sitting in the CTC when that chance meeting came to mind. --Technopat (talk) 18:27, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

In addition, the text of the article states that Winston helped Julia up after she fell in the street. Actually this occurred in a hallway at the Ministry for which they both worked. It's a minor thing, but it (along with a few other things) makes one wonder if the person who wrote this article ever actually read the book. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.18.15.5 (talk) 18:53, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Jews and 1984
What is the reason for such a long paragraph (compared with the lenght of the voice) about the Jews and the Sionism ? The book does not talk about that topics (except the few lines citated), and in general it is TOTALLY irrilevant.Using the same criteria we should have a paragraph upon indians, tamils, germans and elephants.Or a paragraph about the jews situation in every book voice. Corrado Corrado —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.145.137.129 (talk) 21:50, 15 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Most things that are adequately referenced by reliable sources and NPOV can be included - if it ain't referenced, and potentially polemic, out it goes.--Technopat (talk) 08:22, 29 January 2009 (UTC)


 * What do you expect from a bunch of Wikinazis (Satire here). If you expected the stuff on this site to be even close to anything true, you can only blame yourself for your stupidity. Sorry, but that is how it is. Wikipedia can by definition not work,and never will. This can be easily physically proven based on reality being relative, trough the rules of general relativity & co.

Similar works?
Am beginning to get concerned about the "Similar works" section of the article i.e. I foresee the day when that particular section is longer than the rest of the article. It's difficult enough to keep Wikipedia articles free of POV, but with folks adding songs & books etc. that are supposedly "similar"...

Your POV says that similar works can't be longer than the article about the work.--Willdw79 (talk) 23:38, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

At the very least, any item included thereunder must be referenced. I shall wait for a reasonable period, i.e. until I finish me cuppa, for feedback and consensus on this one and shall then proceed to be bold and remove said section. Duly referenced items can then be returned at leisure. --Technopat (talk) 08:18, 29 January 2009 (UTC)


 * As a stop-gap, have added reference template (so no-one can say they wasn't told... :) --Technopat (talk) 09:14, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Tea break over 'n' back on me 'ead. Being bold - removed "similar works"
As per the above suggestion, have removed the following "similar works" until someone is prepared to take the time to reference such "similarity": Similar works

Derivative concepts and works
 * 2112, a song by Rush
 * "Anthem", a novel by Ayn Rand
 * Animal Farm, another novel by George Orwell
 * Big Brother Awards
 * Blind Faith, a novel by Ben Elton
 * Brave New World, a novel by Aldous Huxley
 * Brazil, a film by Terry Gilliam starring Jonathan Pryce
 * Diamond Dogs, an album by musician David Bowie
 * Equilibrium, a science fiction film starring Christian Bale
 * Fahrenheit 451, a novel by Ray Bradbury
 * Kallocain, a novel by Karin Boye.
 * One, a novel by David Karp
 * The Protomen, an album by the group The Protomen
 * THX 1138, a film by George Lucas starring Robert Duvall
 * V for Vendetta, a graphic novel by Alan Moore and David Lloyd
 * We, a novel by Yevgeny Zamyatin
 * Little Brother, a novel by Chris Doctorow
 * 1984, a television commercial for the Apple Macintosh
 * 1984, an album by Rick Wakeman
 * 1985, a novel by Anthony Burgess
 * Chain of Command, an episode of Star Trek: The Next Generation
 * Nineteen-Forty-Eightish, a song by Roy Harper and Jimmy Page dedicated to 1984
 * Undenk
 * The Unreals, a novel by Donald Jeffries
 * Diamond Dogs, a concept album by David Bowie, which features songs with such titles as 'We Are The Dead', '1984' and 'Big Brother'

Among other non-encyclopedic considerations and issues the setion has, the fact that an album contains a song with such-and-such title doesn't mean it is "similar" to Orwell's book. Loosely influenced by, possibly, but if so, reference it. --Technopat (talk) 15:50, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * If this alludes specifically to David Bowie's Diamond Dogs, it's fairly common knowledge that this album was conceived as a musical version of the novel and was to be called "1984", but the Orwell Estate objected, forcing a retitling. References could doubtless be dug up to confirm this. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 13:14, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Completely agree with this deletion. This section should never have appeared - works inspired by of "Allusions from other works" might be better - but as you say always supported by referencing. :: Kevinalewis  : (Talk Page) /(Desk)  16:15, 27 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I have reverted since many of these similarities are obvious. I have cited some cases with which I was not familiar and it wasn't difficult.  If you wish to challenge any particular entries, please use  tags rather than removing the entire section. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:59, 27 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your responses. The section has had a great big "unreferenced" template on it for a month and nobody has made the slightest effort to add an inline citation to any "particular" entry, so imagine how effective a "fact" tag would be? As I pointed out earlier, the fact that one particular case is referenced would (probably, but not necessarily) justify its inclusion in the article but it's the section itself that is POV... Colonel Warden, we could of course enter into an edit war by me reverting your last revert 'cos of its uncited entries, but let it pass. --Technopat (talk) 18:15, 27 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Have re-pasted the refimprovesect template - not only is it easier than adding the more than twenty separate fact tags that the section needs, but it might just serve to deter future editors from adding unreferenced "obvious" similarities. Can we get some meaningful discussion on this issue? --Technopat (talk) 10:38, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Half Life 2 deserves a spot in Similar Works.
I really think the video game Half Life 2 by Valve deserves mention in this article. The storyline is extremely similar to that of 1984 in that the main character is a relatively unimportant person on a quest to free humanity from an oppressive government. The inclusion of the Combine is necessary for gameplay and to establish the setting, but other than that, everything is quite similar. Please do not disagree because of a bias against the medium HL2 is delivered in. Video games are just as capable of telling a compelling story or giving a stern warning as novels are.
 * You forgot to sign that comment. I entirely agree with this, there are rather large similarities between 1984 and Half Life 2. Most notably, the thought policing enforced by the Combine. 80.6.152.186 (talk) 02:11, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * There are some remote similarities in that both take place in a totalitarian setting, but the similarities end there. The storylines are completely different and have almost nothing in common, and there's nothing Freeman and Smith have in common (they're practically complete opposites). Considering the Eastern-European setting of the game, the totalitarian theme was probably more influenced by its Soviet history than this book. Sbw01f (talk) 03:46, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Half-Life 2 is now under Adaptive or Derivative works, which doesn't really make sense. It's certainly similar, likely inspired by, but isn't adaptive or derivative. EAi (talk) 22:02, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

The Theme of Reality
Hi, I added the section about the nature of reality under the themes category because it was such an important part of the book. Orwell talks about the nature of reality and our perception of it again and again. Although I didn't reference any philosophers in particular, I think I did a fair job of drawing the evidence for the piece from real, indisputable (as far as we can tell ;]) life and therefore I do not think it can be considered purely POV. Further, I have not made any assertions which the author himself has not made. If anyone more familiar with wiki editing than I feels they can do better or thinks my work violates some rule in an unforgivable manner, than I would compel them to edit or rewrite the section (as opposed to doing away with it completely) since it is such a vital component of the book. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.245.216.94 (talk) 03:42, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

It is unfortunate that your edit seems to have been removed because Winston's struggle of realism and antirealism of knowledge and existence is one of the central theme of the novel. Stampit (talk) 02:59, 20 July 2009 (UTC)


 * 130.245.216.94's essay is still available in the article's history, and could theoretically be restored to the article. The problem with it is that it represents original research and "Wikipedia does not publish original research or original thought. This includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position." before restoring it it would be necessary to find and cite one or more reliable sources that basically say the same thing.Kiore (talk) 06:43, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

handy new source
http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2009/may/10/1984-george-orwell. Gwen Gale (talk) 10:41, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Cyperpunk-ish.
When I was reading the book I got a cyperpunk..ish feel. Are there any sources supporting it? --AaThinker (talk) 09:36, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Pair of Books?
"Nineteen Eighty-Four has been translated into more than 65 languages by 1989, more than any other pair of books by a single author."

This is confusing as it implies that this novel is a pair of books also. Kevdav63 (talk) 11:32, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

ISBN?
Well Amazon has these listed for the ISBN. While they did not start using them until after the book was printed should we not use the later appended ISBN?

ISBN-10: 0452284236 ISBN-13: 978-0452284234 22:58, 13 June 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kanji (talk • contribs)


 * Certainly not; an ISBN is assigned to a particular edition, and in the case of a classic work like this has no encyclopedic value in discussing the work as a whole. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  15:11, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

metaphoric bullet?
At the end the long-waited-for bullet is entering his brain. I think it is a real bullet and he has been executed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Real Cu Chullain (talk • contribs) 09:00, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I think the ending is written to be deliberately ambiguous and it is not fully clear whether it is a real bullet or not. I personally don't think it is a real bullet. Geoffie1 (talk) 08:15, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

During the torturing O'Brien said he would eventually be executed and the bullet entering his brain would resolve the story with execution. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oldtimerocker (talk • contribs) 02:07, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

The last chapter is set in the Chestnut Tree Cafe. In the next to last paragraph Winston enters a "blissful dream" in which he's "back in the Ministry of Love" where "the long-hoped-for bullet was entering his brain." In the last paragraph he's back in the cafe shedding "gin-scented tears." The bullet is a fantasy serving to illustrate the completeness of his conversion.Strippy6 (talk) 02:14, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Amazon's withdrawal of the Kindle version
An (apparently unauthorized) electronic version of the book was sold by Amazon. It was then pulled, with refunds issued to purchasers. The current source is a column in the NY Times. Have other news sources reported on the issue? This is likely deserving of a paragraph in the Copyright section. —C.Fred (talk) 19:38, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

should it be noted that Amazon's actions contradict Kindle's Terms of Use and License Agreement? Or would that be POV? PErhaps reference link to it? http://www.amazon.com/gp/help/customer/display.html?nodeId=200144530

64.90.25.121 (talk) 08:19, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

The text "Despite this exaggerated reporting, Amazon did not "remotely delete" or "reach into Kindles", as copies of 1984 in non-DRM formats (i.e., editions published in countries where the novel is in the public domain and therefore not provided through Amazon) were left untouched by the process." seems odd. Is this a statement by Amazon with missing citation? The motivation on why it was not a deletion doesn't make sense (there was no deletion because some editions were not deleted) and the surrounding text still calls it deletion. It looks like opinion that isn't attributed to anyone. 213.243.163.221 (talk) 16:51, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I read this too and thought it was a joke - it sounds rather orwelian! Just because copies of 1984 that weren't on Kindles weren't deleted by Amazon (duh), it doesn't mean they didn't remotely delete them from Kindles... I'll cut it down. EAi (talk) 21:59, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Why can I read nothing about it in the article? Is 1984 already here?--78.49.132.132 (talk) 03:21, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Copyright Status
The article states the book will be released into the public domain in the US in 2044 and Europe in 2020. The 2020 date makes some sense, being the authors death plus 70 years, but the 2044 date seems somewhat strange... is that 100 years after publication? I think a citation is needed on this fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.101.221.106 (talk) 10:50, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Futurology
Not really sure that this section is adding anything to the overall article. It is purely speculative and very vague about what in particular nineteen eighty-four has fortold. The opinions put forward also seem to require a presupposed view of the world and its governments. Geoffie1 (talk) 21:07, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

95 years from publication date I believe.

http://www.copyright.cornell.edu/resources/publicdomain.cfm 64.90.25.121 (talk) 08:24, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

What does this mean?
The first sentence in the section "Plot":

"Ministry of Truth bureaucrat Winston Smith is the protagonist; although unitary, the story is three-fold."

The word "unitary" doesn't mean anything to me, and when I look it up the normal meaning doesn't fit in. Also, the first clause and the second clause don't have much to do with each other. (I'd normally go ahead and try to rewrite something like this myself, but I'm too mystified as to what the intention is.) --RenniePet (talk) 16:15, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Categories?
What's with all the libertarianism categories for this article? The book doesn't preach anything about the superiority of the ultra-free market nor does it preach that big government is inherently bad. In fact as far as I recall, Orwell was more of a socialist himself. Why do I get the feeling these categories were added during the hype surrounding Ron Paul back a year or two ago? Sbw01f (talk) 03:57, 17 August 2009 (UTC) In fact this article itself notes that the book isn't an attack on Socialism and that he is one. I'm just going to remove the categories. Sbw01f (talk) 04:05, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Firstly, read the libertarianism article. Libertarianism is a diverse and non-specific term, that differs in economic ideologies, and in no way indicates specific unwavering belief in a free-market. Take the libertarian socialism of the Orwell inspired Noam Chomsky for example. The book is in the scope of libertarianism, as it used by libertarian movements wordwide as an attack against the corrosion civil and individual liberties by the state, regardless of economic policy. Jakeb (talk) 15:22, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

1984 referenced in Muse song?
I believe that the song, The United States of Eurasia by Muse is a reference to the novel 1984. Does anybody agree with this? The lyrics truly seem to be relevant to the novel. (74.7.73.9 (talk) 23:29, 18 September 2009 (UTC))
 * There are literally hundreds of songs, books, videos, films, etc. that reference 1984; it would be pointless to list them all. Whether your theory is true or not, it would not be appropriate to insert into the article. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  00:26, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I gather the song "1984" by Oingo Boingo shouldn't be added for the same reason? ;) --bzero.livejournal.com (talk) 07:11, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Most of the newest Muse album "The Resistance" is based on 1984. The song "Resistance" mentions Thought Police! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.245.170.115 (talk) 22:04, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Torture
Too much air time is given to "torture" in this document (14 references to the word "torture" itself in the wiki). The book has nothing to do with torture. Marksatterfield (talk) 20:37, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I realize that that comment is a little old, but a large amount of Nineteen Eighty-Four is devoted to Winston Smith's interrogation/torture in the Ministry of Love, during which he undergoes significant psychological damage, leading up to Room 101. LittleBrother1 (talk) 00:28, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Gibberish
The sentence 'In the essay “Why I Write” (1946), Orwell described himself as a Democratic Socialist, and that their political agenda carried far different implications than would be expected today.[14]' is ungrammatical and makes no sense. Orwell died before 1950; how could he possibly know "what would be expected today"? It sounds like some writer trying to spin Orwell's original quote because he doesn't like what Orwell originally said. Plus the word "that" just hangs there with no connection to the previous part of the sentence. CharlesTheBold (talk) 01:43, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Removed; may have been a no true Scotsman assertion that Orwell didn't know what real socialists were like (ha!). -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  03:35, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Sapir–Whorf hypothesis
The Sapir-Whorf hypothesis has no connection with Nineteen Eighty-Four; that's why I removed it. Orwell does not mention it, and the essay "The Principles of Newspeak" has no relation to it. It's about the manipulation of language for ideological purposes. That this is similar to the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis in any way is simply a matter of opinion, and I don't think that an article about Orwell's novel is improved by links that imply it has some connection to obscure theories in linguistics. The biggest problem with including it is that an innocent reader looking at the article would think that Orwell thought there was some connection, which he didn't. Gigi-Ko! (talk) 20:00, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The appendix specifically asks the question of how can one think a thought if there is no word for it? This is the very idea behind the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis.  The appendix does discuss political applications as you say.  But it discusses political applications of the hypothesis put forth by Sapir and Whorf, even if there was no name for it at the time because it had not been considered in the relatively new field of linguistic study.  A reader who follows the link included in the Wikipedia page can see that the hypothesis severely post-dates the book's publication, and that their work could not have been an influence on Orwell.  In summation, the study of whether or not language affects thought is certainly relevant to an appendix that discusses whether or not it is possible to affect thought using language. Timmie.merc (talk) 02:57, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but that's nonsense. The Sapir-Whorf hypothesis isn't the idea that "how can one think a thought if there is no word for it?", and the appendix doesn't discuss it. You might just as well argue for a link to the Esperanto article, because Esperanto is a deliberately constructed language, like Newspeak. Let's keep obscure linguistic theories and trivia out of the article and focus on the novel, please. Gigi-Ko! (talk) 19:25, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * For one, I'd hardly call it obscure. Anyone who's ever read about or taken a class on linguistics is certainly familiar with the hypothesis.  But more importantly, your claim that the hypothesis is unrelated is just absurd.  For example, the second hit for "sapir-whorf hypothesis" on Google: http://www.mnsu.edu/emuseum/cultural/language/whorf.html or the entry on encyclopedia.com (http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1O88-SapirWhorfhypothesis.html).  By your own concession, the Newspeak appendix outlines a method of influencing thought through language, and this is exactly what the hypothesis covers.  This has nothing to do with being a constructed language and everything to do with Newspeak's goal of influencing thought.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Timmie.merc (talk • contribs) 06:01, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry again. That really doesn't make the least sense. Newspeak is about the ideological manipulation of language. Sapir-Whorf is about how all thought is shaped by language. You might argue that they are somehow similar, but they are not the same thing, just as Newspeak and Esperanto are not the same thing, even though they have something in common. The arguments given in the sources you mention also don't really make sense. Gigi-Ko! (talk) 06:08, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The encyclopedia.com article states that, "The most famous commonly cited examples in social science are probably those of the Hanunoo, who have 92 names for rice, each conveying a different reality, and the Eskimo, who have over a hundred words for snow. Such fine differentiation permits these cultures to see important facets of their culture more clearly" but it doesn't mention that the supposed fact that the Eskimo "have over a hundred words for snow" is complete nonsense. Do you really want to use that as a source? Gigi-Ko! (talk) 06:11, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * As per our discussion at User:Timmie.merc I'm going to edit the article to include the link, with a citation to http://www.mnsu.edu/emuseum/cultural/language/whorf.html 02:08, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

It was discussed in QI and yes, Eskimos do NOT have 100 words for snow, but they do have many different words for position nouns such as behind, in front, on top of etc. (And the Albanians apparently have many descriptive nouns that they use to describe Eyebrows.)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.167.5.135 (talk) 11:40, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Proposed correction
The first para of Section 'Story', Subsection 'Background' currently includes the sentence:
 * "The social class system is three-fold: (I) the upper-class Inner Party, (II) the middle-class Outer Party, and (III) the lower-class Proles, the governors, administrators, and workers."

I'm currently re-reading the novel, and my understanding is that the 'governers and administrators' are members of class (II), the Outer Party. I propose to edit accordingly (along possibly with some other amendments) in a few days' time after I've finished the novel (and my reading circle have discussed it), but in the meantime does anyone think I'm in error on this point? 87.81.230.195 (talk) 13:30, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I do not think it is accurate to describe outer party members as governors. They are directed in almost all of their thoughts and actions. If we want one word descriptions for the three roles a person can fill in society I think these three are fine. I think the comma after Proles is a bit confusing. Perhaps a rewrite involving a colon or semicolon and "respectively" phrasing. When I first read the sentence I thought "governors, administrators, and workers" all referred to Proles. 69.57.206.81 (talk) 05:35, 5 May 2011 (UTC)Teckman

a passing reference to Oranges and Lemons
As the book contains a passing reference to the poem/nursery rhyme Oranges and Lemons (with which American readers of the novel are probably unfamiliar) I think the article should also have at least a passing reference, too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cogburnd02 (talk • contribs) 15:15, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Disputed part of Africa
The maps and the text contradict each other:
 * The maps show North/Central/East/West Africa as disputed.
 * The text says South Africa is disputed, and North Africa is in Eurasia.

As I don't have my copy of the book at hand, I'm not sure which is correct. Lionel Elie Mamane (talk) 08:45, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Quotations from the book
I think it would be a good idea to add quotes from the book to the article. Should I add a new section and some quotations? Mohehab (talk) 10:53, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
 * No, that's not part of our standards for book articles; take a look at Wikiquote, an entirely different Wikimedia project for that kind of thing. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  20:28, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Radio Adaptations
There was a 1949 adaptation of the novel, starring David Niven as Winston Smith, made as part of the “NBC University Theatre” series. Given that it was the first adaptation, made within a year of the book coming out, and it is cited in the article on Winston Smith, it surely deserves a place in the list of dramatizations. Jock123 (talk) 11:23, 23 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Good catch. There's a "Radio" section down under "Adaptations".  Drop it in there with a link to the source?  Millahnna (mouse)  talk  23:21, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Digit reversal - citation needed?
"Orwell reversed the order of the digits '48' in the numeral of the year numbered '1948', during which year he was writing the novel, to obtain the '84' in the '1984' title." Do we need a citation for this? The edition of the book I'm reading right now (Penguin, first published 1987 with the Note on the Text added in 1989) claims in a preliminary Note on the Text that the novel was originally set in 1980, but that due to the long time between Orwell's initial draft and publication, the date was revised first to 1982 and then to 1984. However, it cites no evidence for this. Whichever theory is true, a citation would be useful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TrueAnonyman (talk • contribs) 22:20, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

"Adaptations and derived works" section
The "Adaptations and derived works" section looks to me to be getting, shall we say, overly-expansive. Many of the items in the section are listed without a citation and without any explanation of what they have to do with 1984. So for example, under Literature, we have "1985," in which the reference is obvious, but also "Downtown Owl, by Chuck Klosterman," which has no source and no (evident) connection to 1984. The "Cinema" section is even worse, with no obvious connections for any of its listed items.

I would propose a cleaning-out of the Adaptations/derivations section, removing all works which are both unreferenced and have no clear connection to the novel, and doing a sweep of remaining items for notability of their connections (for example, a song whose total connection to 1984 is mentioning the book in its lyrics is, I would argue, not worthy of the space it takes up in this article). In the future, it would probably be best to also explicitly describe the connection of every item in the section (for example, is 1985 a parody? a sequel? an homage? One can get this information from that item's article, sure, but best practice would be to summarize why it's in the 1984 article in the 1984 article), but that's less pressing and not something I'm well-enough versed in to do myself.

If there are no objections to this, I will probably start cleaning it out tonight. keɪɑtɪk flʌfi (talk) 15:39, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Spoiler?
Should we have "eventually leading to his arrest, torture, and conversion." in the first paragraph of the article? That's a fairly big spoiler that should really left to the plot section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.49.3.165 (talk) 15:30, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

1948 vs.1984
The article cites a source that says Orwell derived the title by inverting the year "1948". Do you know if it was ever published with that title, or placed in print, in any form whatsoever? Ol&#39;Campy (talk) 18:47, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Title 1984
It was Orwell's wish that the title should be written 1984, not in the more literate form. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.158.81.129 (talk) 15:07, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
 * -- Orange Mike &#x007C;  Talk  15:11, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

sources for literary motifs
I agree with the removal of the Insoc logo comment for two reasons. 1) The logo of the East German communist party dated from 1949, and the book was written a year earlier. 2) The book didn't have a logo (or any illustrations) for the Insoc party. The logo on the page is from a movie, made decades later. I believe that if Orwell had put a logo for the party, it probably would have been inspired by a communist party graphic. Perhaps the filmakers for the 1983 film were inspired by the German party logo, and a comment to that effect on a page about that movie would be good.--Hamlet 2010a 21:20, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

What is Saveca?
"Oceania (ideology: Ingsoc, i.e., English Socialism) comprises Great Britain, Ireland, Saveca, Australia, Polynesia, Southern Africa, and the Americas." What is Saveca? Londonclanger (talk) 12:58, 3 February 2011 (UTC)


 * It may well be South Africa as 'Southern Africa' covers various smaller ex-UK Anglophone colonies in Africa and he may have thought he needed to include the largest one as a separate 'country'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.112.68.219 (talk) 21:25, 25 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Sorry, unsigned, but George Orwell isn't Doctor Who, with a TARDIS to go forward and backward in time. He wrote, based upon what he KNEW either was extant or was probable. AIRSTRIP ONE is LONDON. Hence, NOT South Africa, unless the nation produces, in Orwell's time, a city named London.Wzrd1 (talk) 04:35, 5 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Actually, I was replying to the initial poster's question RE "What is Saveca?" - THAT was what I presumed meant South Africa. Try saying "Saveca" quickly - Saaarvicka - see.


 * I never even mentioned Airstrip One - which is England or Britain BTW, and not just London. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.4.57.101 (talk) 11:47, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Unauthorized Sequel?
I have a dim memory of once seeing a paperback novel that was an unauthorized sequel to Nineteen Eighty-Four, in which Winston starts seeing angels and demons. Anybody know anything about this? --Mightyfastpig (talk) 23:20, 29 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I have not heard about that, but it does not sound like it would be suitable to be in this or any article. – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 02:46, 30 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Why not? If it actually is a published book then it definitly should be referenced somewhere in Wikipedia and this article would in that case be as good as any. Threadnecromancer (talk) 01:31, 8 February 2012 (UTC)Threadnecromancer


 * I would consider a published sequel to be a derived work; worthy of at least one sentence. Such a book does exist.  Hamlet 2010a 01:59, 10 February 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hamlet 2010a (talk • contribs)
 * It's called Orwell's Revenge: The 1984 Palimpsest by Peter Huber, and was published in 1994. -- Orange Mike &#x007C;  Talk  02:43, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
 * From the description, it doesn't seem to be what the OP was referring to. Nor would I really call it a sequel, more of a reply or alternative view of sorts. There is also '1985 : a Historical Report from the Hungarian: Hong Kong 2036 (Hong Kong 2036 from the Hungarian)' by Gyorgy Dalos but that doesn't seem to be what the OP is referring to either AFAICT (although slightly more likely since I think Winston Smith is mentioned in that book). There may be others, 1984 is a very popular book as the article attests. In the absence of discussion of RS, it's irrelevent anyway. Nil Einne (talk) 07:01, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

"The God Complex" episode of Doctor Who should be put in similar works
The episode "The God Complex" of Doctor Who should be put in similar works beacuse in the episode, they are in the hotel where each room contains someone's greatest fear. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.100.105.96 (talk) 11:54, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Done. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 16:30, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Link to Censorship in Italy
I think the reference to Censorship in Italy is unjustified. Italy doesn't show up either in the article or the book and putting the link in the reference would suggest a connection between 1984's scenario and the current italian situation which, while far from perfect, doesn't deserve such a disrespectful treatment. It just seems that some hardcore berlusconi-opposer came here to point his disgust for berlusconi's government, which is often claimed to be a censoring despotic regime. I don't like mr. b. either, but the claim and that link are plain silly. --151.55.3.158 (talk) 22:20, 23 August 2011 (UTC)


 * One paragraph says that Nineteen Eighty-Four "was very nearly banned in the UK and the US". The subsequent sentence says "only one such challenge is documented: in Jackson County, Florida"  An unsuccessful local challenge in a minor county scarcely constitutes a "very near" nationwide ban.  If by "in the US" the writer meant "somewhere in the US", he/she should have made it more clear.

CharlesTheBold (talk) 01:08, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Examples given for Sources and Influences
While accurate in themselves, do the sections on Sources and on Influences rely almost wholly on the Soviet Union under Stalin? For historical balance, should examples also be given from Germany under Hitler and possibly other totalitarian regimes as well? Hors-la-loi 14:20, 30 July 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hors-la-loi (talk • contribs)

Merger proposal of Versificator.
There is a very short article on the Versificator (Nineteen Eighty-Four), a device found in this book. There really isn't enough content there to justify having a seperate article, and a lot of what is there is original research. There really aren't any sources to actually add any more, either, as the sources available are pretty much brief mentions of the device in plot summaries of the book. It survived a AFD discussion some years back (though how, I really don't know) with the closing admin stating that possible merge discussions could occur. That was never followed up on, so I'm going ahead and proposing it now. What little information present at the Versificator article could easily be added somewhere to the "The world in 1984" section of this article, and the original article can be kept a redirect. Rorshacma (talk) 23:16, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Where has the Versificator gone?
I regularly linked the Versificator article when in discussions about the state of the world today and now can't find any shred of evidence for it besides there was a 'discussed merger' with the original 1984 page. (Ironically versificated out of existence!)

Could we have the versificator page back again please? Either that or actually have something about the versificator on the 1984 page....

(p.s. I would prefer the versificator have its own page just like doublespeak as it has a lot of relevance to today's society) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.104.8.11 (talk) 09:08, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Wikisource
If the book is available for free online, why not to upload it to Wikisource? Galzigler (talk) 19:44, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Copyright status in Argentina
The source about 1984's copyright status in Argentina makes no sense. It's only an article about the issue with Amazon in 2009. According to the Wikipedia's article 'Copyright law of Argentina', 'For most works, copyright last for the lifetime of the author, plus 70 years after the January 1 following his death'. Please found a real source or remove Argentina from the list of countries where 1984 has public domain status.--Sanbor (talk) 14:58, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Delicious irony
Does this http://allthingsd.com/20130212/erik-huggers-makes-his-case-for-intels-web-tv-service/ "telescreen" prototype warrants a honorable mention? Either nobody at Intel reads Orwell's works or this is a very lame attempt at viral marketing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.56.40.2 (talk) 11:47, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

My changes to the Julia section were reverted
I changed this

Shortly after being restored to orthodox thought, Winston encounters Julia in a park. It turns out that Julia has endured a similar ordeal to Winston, and has also been restored to her former state as a mindlessly loyal "comrade."

to

"Some time after being restored to orthodox thought, Winston encounters Julia in a park. It turns out that Julia has endured a similar ordeal to Winston, and has also been purged of rebellion."

It was reverted. I will explain my reason for the proposed changes and leave them for discussion.

1) I thought that the interval between being released and encountering Julia was not specified in the book. So I changed "shortly after" to a more neutral "some time after".

2) I changed "mindlessly loyal "comrade." to "purged of rebellion." Julia was a saucy bitch before interrogation. She had dozens of lovers, she pretended to be orthodox, when in fact she didn't give a fig for orthodoxy. She wasn't a mindlessly loyal comrade. She had no loyalty to BB.

I will leave it up to the collective to consider any changes. I don't mind. All the best, SW. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SleepyWeisel (talk • contribs) 15:37, 6 June 2013‎ (UTC)


 * Note: I've already reverted this to your version, and left a detailed edit summary, along the lines of the points you made above. Though I didn't directly mention your point #1, I concur, based on how Winston reflects upon their encounter in the text. Boogerpatrol (talk) 15:48, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Winston doesn't love Big Brother until the end of the Novel
From the Julia paragraph:

"At torture’s end, upon accepting the doctrine of the Party, Winston now loves Big Brother and is reintegrated into Oceania society."

Perhaps I'm wrong, but I didn't see that Winston loved BB after the torture was completed. The last lines of the novel are at a time when Winston has been released. He is listening to a telescreen which gives news of a surprise victory in Africa. Then he says that "at last" he loves Big Brother.

BTW, the Julia paragraph is a mess and bleeds into the rest of the story. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SleepyWeisel (talk • contribs) 16:42, 5 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Sleepy, this is consistent with my recollection. At the conclusion of the torture, he persists in a sort of vacuous, defeated state, but is overcome with this emotion of love for Big Brother upon hearing the announcement of Oceania's victory; I'm thinking this may literally be the novel's last sentence... Boogerpatrol (talk) 17:04, 5 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Just read it. You're both right. 94.171.243.212 (talk) 23:03, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Letter to Noel Willmett
Orwell's letter to Noel Willmett http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/08/12/george-orwell-s-letter-on-why-he-wrote-1984.html is Orwell's own explanation of some of his main ideas in Nineteen Eighty-Four.

Does this belong somewhere in the entry? --Nbauman (talk) 22:25, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Horrendous spoiler in the first paragraph.
"The final few words of first paragraph practically give away the whole plot. I have deleted this and it should remain deleted. daithi81 (talk) 09:56, 15 June 2011 (GMT)

Who reads an encyclopedia article on a book and does not expect spoliers? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.236.57.130 (talk) 09:04, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

User:daithi81's removal was against policy. Wikipedia articles contains spoilers and no warning is given. This was the result of a big debate many years ago. See Spoiler. Jason Quinn (talk) 16:16, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

the Wars ?
Everything in 1984 seems to be an effect or symptom of the perpetual wars...and the war economy. As if the story of Winston & Julia's struggle is merely an inconsequential daydream in the background, small eddy currents of the (omnipotent?) war—that EVERYBODY and all institutions will serve.

When Winston is reading The Book in bed, doesn't it say that the purpose of war is to impoverish (dis-empower) The People? If so, wouldn't that be one of the main themes? Possible Argument: The War Machine is the main character.  --68.127.80.58 (talk) 21:41, 6 September 2013 (UTC)Doug Bashford

Syme not moved to Inner Party
In the characters section, this excerpt looks like a personal interpretation:

Goldstein's book says that "Between the two branches of the Party there is a certain amount of interchange, but only so much as will ensure that weaklings are excluded from the Inner Party and that ambitious members of the Outer Party are made harmless by allowing them to rise." It is unknown whether Syme has been killed or promoted in the Inner Party in another province.

In addition, I disagree. O'Brien mentions that there's an expert in Newspeak that praised Smith's work but that he forgot his name. This confirms that Syme has been vaporized.

89.189.191.15 (talk) 19:08, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Anyone up for a push to FA?
We've started WikiProject Mass surveillance and are looking to get our first star. Anyone here up for a push towards FA? --HectorMoffet (talk) 23:42, 27 January 2014 (UTC)


 * The derived works and adaptations section is atrocious. Taking a look at that might be nice.  It's all unreferenced and about half seems like OR.  I'm hesitant to start deleting things though because I'm not really sure where you draw the line for notability.  I honestly think that the entire section could probably be cut out as long as mentions of actual adaptations of the novel are incorporated back into the article. Tegrenath (talk) 03:42, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Adaptations and derived works
I propose to completely remove the section "Adaptations and derived works", which is just a list of random things from here and there. The previous section "Cultural impact" already makes the work of describing in prose the cultural impact and adaptions, and the article Nineteen Eighty-Four in popular media seems a better place to expand the number of mentions (and even that article is better than this section). Cambalachero (talk) 16:24, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
 * You have my support. Regards, Orange Suede Sofa  (talk) 16:36, 6 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Yep, I fully support this change as well. It's been an ugly chunk of what could be a really good article for too long.  The popular media page is plenty sufficient as most of the list's contents are merely references, not derived works.  The only thing I might reinstate are the works from the very first part, the actual full adaptations of the work.  Tegrenath (talk) 20:44, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Giant plot
Isn't the plot info about 1984 incredibly long? We have SIX sections talking about the plot (from "background" to "The Newspeak appendix"), and 18 subsections in them. And even more, 29 articles for plot elements (see Nineteen Eighty-Four). I think that there should be a big clean up of this.

As an initial proposal, I think that Ministry of Love, Ministry of Peace, Ministry of Plenty, Ministry of Truth and Room 101 should be merged into a single article, Ministries of Nineteen Eighty-Four (as with the countries). Or should we simply nominate them for deletion? Cambalachero (talk) 16:10, 14 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I agree that it's needlessly long and complex. I've made a first go at dramatically cutting down this section. Popcornduff (talk) 04:28, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

OR to be addressed
I started to selectively edit a few sentences that were OR. There are several instances throughout in which we say, in wiki's voice that such and such is the inspiration for Orwell's themes, motifs, etc. without a source indicating this is so. It may very well be true, but we're about verifiability, not truth. (which, I get, is subtly ironic given the themes of the book..:)) I started to look at the "source of literary motifs" section, and didn't know where to start. There's a lot of great information here, but I get the sense a lot of it is OR. Regardless, it needs sourcing not only of the source material, but of a source indicating a link between that and Orwell's work. It's not enough to just reference a book on Stalinism and say that it was a source of Orwell's motif; we need to have a source that specifically says that. Otherwise we have just referenced a book that mentioned Stalinism. Unfortunately, what sourcing we do have in this section seems to fail that test. Instead of wholesale slaughter of the section, I would like to ask folks to get some sources in. I'll wait a while before starting the bulldozers in the hope that we can retain the good. Honestly though, this whole subsection smacks of OR. Well-written OR, but OR. 12.11.127.253 (talk) 20:08, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Revolution chronology
It being apparently the sixth quarter of the ninth Three Year Plan, is used to set the date of the first Plan at 1958 in the article. But if a Three Year Plan can have at least six quarters, the chance of it actually lasting 3 years is probably only true in Party doublethink. Five Year Plans were famous in "communist" dictatorships, as well as the government lying about them. We know The Party lies about basically everything, so it's not reliable to deduce a date from the idea of a Three Year Plan lasting 3 actual years. 188.29.165.64 (talk) 20:41, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Neologisms
There are very few novels that introduce so many neologisms that become part of the vernacular, as does 1984. For many of these words, Wikipedia has a separate entry. (Consider, in addition, that they are all grouped under the very common adjectival neologism 'Orwellian'.) I suggest a new section, 'Neologisms in 1984', be added here. BooksXYZ (talk) 13:47, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Sonia Orwell out of place in the lead?
Hi,

In the plot/theme summary in the lede, the first and only mention of Julia is the sentence "Orwell based the character of the heroine of the novel, Julia, on his second wife, Sonia Orwell." Would it not be better to introduce Julia first, and then present Sonia Orwell in the character list/analysis in the main body - where SO at the moment does not appear at all, so that the lead does not summarize article content on Julia? T 85.166.160.7 (talk) 11:49, 15 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Your second addition is a little hard to follow, but I think I agree. It's not a big deal, as the Julia mention in the lede follow the introduction of Winston, but to relocate the reference to Sonia Orwell would fit just as well in the character descriptions.  Chaheel Riens (talk) 11:58, 15 December 2016 (UTC)