Talk:Nineteen Eighty-Four/Archive 6

message: This article has a box that says their is an ongoing discussion about whether the article victory gin should be merged with this article. However, there is not a discussion topic about this merger, if there ever was one. I think that the merger box should be removed, and the articles should exist separately. In addition, there is no article on victory gin , merely a page that redirects to itself. Thanks! Greenblade99 02:19, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The article Victory Gin was deleted ([[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Victory Gin (2nd nomination)|closed discussion). Victory gin, with the lower-case 'g', was a redirect to that article. I've just prodded it for deletion. I'll also remove the merger box from this article. Thanks. Robin Johnson (talk) 12:01, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Victory Gin

message: Remove this:
"The liberal radio program, The Mike Malloy Show began reading Nineteen Eighty-Four in late 2005 and vowed to continue doing so every night until whichever comes first: U.S. President George W. Bush is impeached, or the show is taken off the air. The reading was completed on May 11, 2006."
Not only is it baised, an advertisement for the show, it is factually incorrect to associate Conservatism with 1984.
Or add a paragraph that illustrates the fact that:
Liberals love big government
Liberals have created more socialism in this country than any conservative
Liberals have removed more freedoms than any conservative
Liberals do not believe in personal responsibilty
Liberals do not believe in the sanctity of life
Liberalism is an offshoot of Socialism, which is an offshoot of Communism; therefore Liberalism is more closely associated with the atrocities of 1984.
But what am I expecting? Libipedia, as usual.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.73.21.146 (talk • contribs) 19:57, 5 June 2006
:Keep taking the tablets. The reference to the show is silly and should be removed as irrelevant. But the anti-liberal rant borders on lunacy. 1984 was a satire on totalitarianism, and there have been totalitarian or near-totalitarian regimes that were "conservative" or "socialist" or neither - and they resemble each other more than they differ, in methods at least. Exile 21:05, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's merely describing one radio version of the book. What's wrong with that? "The liberal radio program" could be removed though, as it's rather redundant anyway. And it's less of an advertisement for the show now that they stopped reading the book.--Ssj4android 05:12, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree that that section about the radio show should definitely not be included unless the radio show was very notable or its reading of the book had a lot of media coverage/made a big impact in any way, which i doubt. But i'm not sure why you used it as an opportunity to rant about liberalism in "this country" (whichever country you meant) or in wikipedia, "the free encyclopaedia which anyone can edit". KZF 21:14, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  More Bias. 

message: Are the maps truly relevant? Is the impression not distinctly given in the novel that the people can be told whatever it is wanted that they believe? --GoAround 20:52, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Relevance of maps? 

message: In the controversy section is says some people have called the book antisemetic. However, there's no sources and I doubt anyone has actually taken this stance. The actual antisemetic force is The Party. I mean, c'mon, to say that the book is antisemetic is to say that the book puts The Party in a positive light.
: I for one agree. Sort of. There should be a Wikipedian award for 'Most Irrelevant Allegation of Anti-Semetism'. Orwell himself wasn't anti-semetic, and nor is this novel. End of. Except perhaps in a twisted way whereby one interprets silence on the subject of Jewishness as tacit acceptance of anti-semetism. But that's just paranoid crap from people who really ought to know better, patronisingly condoned by well-meaning people who also ought to know better. </rant> Where was I? Oh, yes. Orwell, anti-semitic? "1984" anti-semetic? Doubleplusunsense. Let's have some decent evidence. Garrick92 18:47, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And why have I spelled anti-semitic "anti-semetic" throughout in the above? Dolt as I am. The following quote should be waved under the noses of anyone claiming The Party is anti-semitic: "Nor is there any racial discrimination, or any marked domination of one province by another. Jews, Negroes, South Americans of pure Indian blood are to be found in the highest ranks of the Party, and the administrators of any area are always drawn from the inhabitants of that area."Garrick92 10:18, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Antisemetic 

message: While there are probably others, I fail to understand why Arctic Monkeys are listed as a related work. The only reason I can discern is from using '1984', but without any reference to any of the themes contained within, what relates it?
Removed this reference, as it really doesn't have anything to do with the themes of the novel. I'll have a look through other references and remove any other redundant ones. --ChinaNailStorm 22:07, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Recordings in Related Works

message: "In fact, it is entirely possible that the other two powers themselves are fabrications, and the entire world is controlled by a single entity."
When I read this book in Grade 12, my teacher suggested to me that this particular idea could be true.  At the moment, I still cling to this belief, especially when given other statements in the article concerning a "fabricated war" that "wags the dog." Darth Sidious 02:54, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  One-World government 

message: i've never written a wikipedia article, just fixed a few typos and broken links. there are several in this article, especially in the goldstein as trotsky paragraph, and i would normally just fix them, but i had never seen an article that's an obvious collaboration before, so i thought i'd ask if anybody minded?
--DyNama 03:34, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I just put the whole thing through a microsoft word spellcheck and fixed anything I knew was mispelled or grammatrically incorrect. You'll find little edits having to do with spelling and grammer thoughout the article. adjust and review.--Acebrock 04:04, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: you got all the typos i'd seen! --DyNama 21:28, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Several typos

message: I think the sections in question have been cleaned up enough to warrant their removal, but I want to see what everyone else thinks.
:no one's objecting? I'll give it three more days just to be sure.--Acebrock 02:22, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll remove them now. Acoording to my time (PST) It's been three days. anyone objects put them back up and say why here--Acebrock 16:15, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  cleanup tags 

message: Any objection to adding a reference to Spike Milligan's 1985?  This was a parody of Nigel Kneale's television version of 1984, that followed the story line quite well.  The 1955 radio broadcast was so popular they remade the episode a few weeks later (not just replayed, they re-performed the episode with slight variations from their original broadcast). --AGoon 21:24, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Milligan's 1985 

message: There is a new screen adaptation coming out in 2007,  I think this should be mentioned both here and on the film page.
:Prove it. VolatileChemical 01:00, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Screen Adaptation #3 

message: Interesting comments about the very nature of the unwinnable war here. Its ironic that a novel where the "powers that be' not only rule, but define reality itself....or re-define it at will. In that some of you astutely point out various scenarios with such as, war exists, but is on a much smaller scale than what the party implies. There not only is no war, but the other 2 super-states dont even exist, except as fake enemies in a fake-never ending war, and other possible scenarios. Whats interesting of course, is that the people inhabitating 1984 really have no idea what the *real* world situation is. Here in this articule, many of you are in the exact same situation as the people in 1984! You dont really know what the true 'world' situation is either. Ah the irony, maybe thats what George Orwell was after all along. Write about a regime that controlls the very nature of reality itself, and does such a thorough job of it, even its readers are left wondering where the truth really lies....brilliant. However from my reading of it, I interpt it this way. Logistically, it would be difficult for any one power to 'rule the world' espcially given the pre-1984 situation with its limited nuclear war and its aftermath, such as we see in 1984. However as Goldsteins book clearly points out, all 3 powers had a tacit and deliberate policy of *not* attacking each others 'core territories'. This implies the leaders of all 3 superstates do talk, do co-operate, at least as far as maintaining there own powers. This may be interpreted as a de-facto 'world goverment'.  If one of the purposes of the 'war' is to destroy human labor and channel it into worthless non-productive directions, that works. Such a war would also have another 'benefit', tho Its never stated in this manner. It would be a good way for the 3 super-states to get rid of excess population as well. Trouble-makers,(or potential ones) surplus workers etc, could all be fed into such a 'war'. This too would suite the super-states quite well im sure. The war, most likely does exsist, however like some here have stated, its nature and extent are probably quite different from what even Goldsteins book implies. Most likely far fewer combatants, and much more limited in scale, yet just sufficent for the super-states requirements.  I think its pretty safe to assume the other 2 super-states *do* exist, do fight over 'neutral territories' in the 3rd world, and more than likely co-operate at the highest levels. It wouldnt suprise me one bit if this war was managed to the point of battles being 'won' and 'lost'  more or less by mutual consent too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.64.223.203 (talk • contribs) 07:58, 5 September 2006
: Please remember that talk pages are for discussing improvements to the article, not the subject matter itself. Robin Johnson (talk) 10:10, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The World order in 1984 

message: The line, "O'Brien, who represents the oppressive Party, is in many ways depicted as a member of the old British ruling class (in one case, Winston Smith thinks of him as a person who in the past would have been holding a snuffbox, i.e. an old-fashioned English gentleman)." within the subection "Orwel's Inspiration" contains a spoiler in that O'Brien's loyalty to the Party is not revieled until later in the novel. I'm not sure how this should/could be corrected, but I thought it worth noting.--72.57.128.5 17:53, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed. Also fixed the more obvious /* Summary of plot */. I'm not sure if other sections should get the warning too. Xiner 23:39, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spoiler Unnoted. 

message: I think it should be noted that, the war may exist due to the fact of during hate week, the allies change, and the party would not have wanted hate week to go any differently than it should have, becuase if the allies changed mid week, then the party has no control over this "war" and if they did fabricate this serciona, then it should be noted as another way they are controlling the hatred of the Party MembersSlayerx675 12:42, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a good thought but it's speculation, not reporting of facts. There's far too much of that in the article already. Robin Johnson (talk) 13:16, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The War 

message: I'm raising the class to A because it is a very thorough and good article. Cbrown1023 21:09, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Class

message: The section "Orwell's Inspiration" contains a pretty vast repository of extremely speculative statments with very little verifiability or citations.  The last paragraph about the Catholic Church is such a jump that I suggest this violates the neutral point of view guideline.  If Orwell wanted 1984 to be a criticism of the Catholic Church's faith based practices, I think it would have come out a lot more clearly in the novel.  As such, this is speculation without a source cited, and not suitable for an A class article. --Jarnor23 05:08, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Talk about giving 'wild speculation' a bad name. The only possible answer to this last point is spherical, and in the plural. /:¬\ Garrick92 19:31, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wild Speculation 

message: Perhaps "for feelings of victims toward tormentors" should be "for feelings of victimization by his tormentors"?  Or maybe it makes sense and I'm just not seeing it.
Oddity- 08:59, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it means how victims feel about their tormentors. I'll see if I can rephrase it for clarity. Robin Johnson (talk) 10:06, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: a typo?

message: Are the links in the "Other Links" section really necessary? They seem more dedicated to criticizing the Bush administration's foreign and domestic policy rather than discussing Orwell's novel 200.119.236.211 22:41, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's not a good enough excuse to remove the whole section, especially since some of them doen't even remotely fit your biased description. Come up with a rationale for the removal of each link you object to and justify hyere before making such widescale arbitrary decisions. Nick Cooper 08:36, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that user's actions were justified.  The excuse is "they're not relevant to the article", and they're not.  I see no issue with removing them, and reviewed most of them after they were deleted.  If you want them there, you need to justify why they're on topic and notable, not the other way around. *Spark* 12:08, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree with the removal of those links: they were personal essays, home pages, and even obscure web comics, many not directly related to 1984 at all. Robin Johnson (talk) 12:30, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Links 

message: The whole section English Socialism (especially the first half) is too long and reads like a very wordy essay.
Example "Such a revolutionary regime, which Orwell found highly desirable and was actively trying to bring about in 1940, is of course a far cry from the monstrous edifice presided over by Big Brother, which was his nightmare a few years later."
Do we really need to have all this? Isn't this section supposed to be about Ingsoc from the book? Rather it seems more like personal opinions of Orwell's views of socialism here there and everywhere. I think it needs to be much more concise and less off topic. Thoughts? The machine512 04:25, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  English Socialism 

message: A number of years ago, I read an article (probably in a magazine) talking about another then-recent book that some other author had carefully crafted that was set in the same universe and time period as Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-Four, and was told from the perspective of one of the other countries Oceania was at war with/was allied to, and my hazy memory of it suggests the title of the novel was also the name of the country in question.  Looking up Eastasia on Amazon.com doesn't bring up any such novel, though.  Neither does a search for Oceania there.
For H. G. Wells' The Time Machine, there is the novel The Time Ships by Stephen Baxter, which is set in the same universe as Wells' work.  And the article The Time Machine references several other sucb novels.
H. G. Wells' novel The War of the Worlds also has a semi-sequel written by a different author that I read sometime in the early 1980s or so, having the premise that the Martians had actually come across from an alternate-universe Mars to the Mars of H. G. Wells' Earth and tried to invade that Earth from there, eventually lost that war, and decided to invade the Earth of their own universe afterwards even though that other Earth was more technologically advanced... and so the people of that Earth recruited some people from "our" Earth who had lived through the invasion to come help them.  I don't remember the title or author (it was a book checked out from the local library, and is probably long gone from there...).  I see no reference to it at The War of the Worlds though.
If someone can track down the Nineteen Eighty-Four sequel, it would probably be worth it to add a reference to it here.  And if someone can track down that War of the Worlds sequel, I'd figure it would be worth adding a reference to it at The War of the Worlds.
Comments?
--Nomad Of Norad 06:29, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other novels in the same universe? 

message: In the article the following paragraph, sounds to like a POV stance. I would wonder equally
well, why we donot consider the dialogue between O'Brien and Winston, and O'Brien's prophecy
of control and domination, of 'Humans are infinitely malleable' as the dreadful prophecy
to even come true (considering Winston being killed in the end).
One essential consequence of doublethink is that the Party can rewrite history with impunity, for "The Party is never wrong." The ultimate aim of the Party is, according to O'Brien, to gain and retain full power over all the people of Oceania; he sums this up with perhaps the most distressing prophecy of the entire novel: If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face — for ever.
===The Creation of the superstates===
i had always thought that from the comments of the old man in the london underground that after world war II that the united states used its atomic bomb technology to conquer england, as well as the rest of oceania. coudl someone verify this?
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.171.70.103 (talk) 03:57, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Boot on face, as most distressing; POV ? 

message: i had always thought that from the comments of the old man in the london underground that after world war II that the united states used its atomic bomb technology to conquer england, as well as the rest of oceania. coudl someone verify this?
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.171.70.103 (talk) 03:57, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The Creation of the superstates

message: Could someone put  by all the stuff that needs to be referenced? I see none of those tags in the sections where references are needed and it helps to know what needs to be referenced.
: I added a reference to the sentence "After the war Orwell expressed his surprise that events had proven him wrong." which some tagged with a 'fact' tag, as I happened to have read that particular essay recently. I also changed the sentence a bit, as Orwell admitted this in 1944, while the war was still ongoing. Mvdwege 18:54, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What needs to be referenced? 

message: I've removed this section for now:
Some people believe that Orwell was a man who saw the future and prophesied the loss of personal freedom and the increase in control that would be brought about.
mainly because of its weasel words, but also because i'm not sure this is the right place to include it in the article. Maybe it would be better placed under the 'futurology' section lower down? KZF 20:37, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good job - I completely agree with your edit, if only on the grounds that you've removed some absolute nonsense. Orwell might have predicted loss of personal freedom and the centralisation of power through some intellectual process (just like scientists are able to predict with some degree of certainty weather conditions next week, based on their knowledge of today's weather conditions and a general understanding of how weather systems changed) but to claim that Orwell "saw the future" is a load of crap. --Jim (Talk) 20:43, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, i find it annoying when people describe Orwell as a 'prophet' and 'visionary' on the merits of this book KZF 21:26, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Weasel words