Talk:George Orwell/Archive 1

message: A lot of this page is exactly the same as this page: 
The answer is at the bottom of the page : "This Wikipedia article is reprinted here under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License." --Loudon dodd 20:36, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plagarism? 

message: Wouldn't it be an idea to either list all the essays in this article and drop Essays of George Orwell, or don't list any essays in this article at all? Having two seperate lists seems kind of weird to me...
--Neckelmann
:I agree, they should be merged. Padraic 16:19, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)
Oh, but how are they supposed to find about something as crucial to his personality as his esseys on something as natural as the page of himself? Do you propose we LINK to a single article, making all information harder to access simoltanously, just for something as microcosmos-like as a meta-article about one man's essays? I really do disagree with it. Let's keep it within one and same article. Simpler to access.--OleMurder 17:08, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Essays 

message: Shouldent this article mention that Orwell had a wife who died young, and the fact that he had a son, it seems rather odd to leave these things out G-Man 22:12 25 Jun 2003 (UTC)
:I'll do that now if it hasn't been included already--Acebrock 20:14, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wife and son 

message: The trivia section of George Orwell needs verification. --Nzo 23:23, Jan 17, 2005 (UTC)
:What's contested?  The cold war attribution?  ---- Charles Stewart 11:55, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Verify 

message: The article states "Orwell denies that Animal Farm is a reference to Stalinism".
Why, then, does the rest of the article repeatedly refer to Animal Farm as "his anti-Stalinist work"?
It's fine to state, as the article does in one place, that many consider it to be anti-Stalinist, but it's stupid to repeatedly state it as a fact, as though Orwell positively confirmed this theory. On the contrary, he denied it. What could he possibly have gained by lying about it?
172.215.26.98 02:15, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no idea how that sentence got into this article. Orwell in his writings clearly says that he wrote Animal Farm based on the Russian revolution, and it's hard to think that anyone who has read the story would not take it as being anti-Stalin, since it should be fairly obvious that the character Napoleon is based on Stalin. --DannyWilde 14:11, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I certainly recall reading that Orwell somewhere denied that the fable os solely an allegory of the Russian revolution. That's very far from saying that it can't properly be read (non-exclusively) as being just that. The character Napoleon, as you say, was in a sense Stalin. But the character Napoleon (the pig) was also, as legitimately ... Napoleon (Bonaparte). --Christofurio 22:58, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Is it a joke or are you serious? --DannyWilde 08:59, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Regarding one of his works. 

message: Is this really necessary this far up?
Probably not, but what if he was gay? Then it's an important piece of his persona.--OleMurder 17:08, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This sounds like vandalism. Please revert such edits ASAP. Drutt 12:16, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "And yes he was gay?" 

message: Where is the proof that a recording of Orwell speaking was found in 2002 (as mentioned in the Trivia section)? It is important, as this is the only place that I've managed to find it cited. And, if there is such a recording, I hope we can get a link to it on here. Snap Davies 13:12, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recording? 

message: User:Husky kindly provided the fairuse Image:Orwell cover.jpg
to replace the deleted Image:George-orwell.jpg.  I wonder, though, is this the best we can do?  It's rather jarring to have a large promotional image as the main image for this page: surely there is something better we can find? --- Charles Stewart 00:54, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image 

message: the book animal farm is the best and the preface was also informative.
:okay, first of all, sign your post. More importantly, though, this is irrelevant. We are not reviewing his books, we are trying to improve the article. If you want to review books, go to amazon.com or something. (Wikifan999 05:56, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  his book animal farm is good 

message: We really need an image of george orwell!! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Adjam (talk • contribs) 16:08, 27 January 2006.
:There's an image here on a page licensed under the Creative Commons ShareAlike 2.1 liscense. I doubt that the liscense includes the photograph, though. --TantalumTelluride 20:12, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We've already tried many things, but it seems very difficult to get a proper picture of Orwell. Book covers are not allowed because the article is not about the book, and virtually all the pictures never went out as a 'press kit', thus making it impossible to use an image under fair use. Ideally, we would have a portrait of Orwell photographed by someone who died before 1936 (which would be in the public domain), but well, who could have such (rather detailed) information about Orwell portraits?  Husky (talk page) 00:28, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have added an image of Orwell found on a site that attributes it as 'copyleft', however if there is any subsequent doubt over its copyright status then I can always upload a smaller lower quality version under 'fair use' Ian Dunster 13:26, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  pics of orwell 

message: Don't know if other fans have read "Dr. Orwell and Mr. Blair" by David Caute. Caute writes about Blair as a fictional character as a way of exploring him biographically without having to have the estate authorize a biography. I've got the book packed away somewhere so I'm writing this from memory, but I seem to recall that Caute's fictional Blair says that he chose the nom de plume "George" because he preferred the regency of King George VI (or maybe George V?) to King Edward VIII. It's an interesting book, although I can't judge how tight Caute's scholarship is. Any thoughts? KWH 03:11, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't say for sure if this is true or not, but it would seem unlikely since Orwell - at least in his published writings - said almost nothing about the British royalty and instead focused his attention on parlaiment. Tyler 14:50, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  the name "George Orwell" 

message: The article says, ... Gulliver's Travels, which he rated as one of the six greatest books ever written. What were the other five? How about a reference to the book/article where the list appeared, too. It's interesting to know what Orwell considered great literature, since he himself has been so influential. 207.174.201.18 03:31, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No such list exists.  Orwell said, in "Politics vs. Literature: An Examination of Gulliver's Travels (1946) that "If I had to make a list of six books which were to be preserved when all others were destroyed, I would certainly put Gulliver's Travels among them."  But he never did actually make such a list. Fumblebruschi 18:57, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Six greatest books 

message: "In his last years, Orwell was, unlike several of his comrades around Tribune, a fierce opponent of the creation of the state of Israel. He was also an early proponent of a federal Europe."
Is there a reference for this?
:I have inserted two requests for citations.  In future, you can do this by using the code , which generates the relevant superscript. I hope this is of assistance. BrainyBabe 14:00, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've given references for both and link for one.Paulanderson 17:09, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please provide a reference 

message: In the article it says: "Orwell died in London at the age of 46 from tuberculosis, which he had probably contracted during the period described in Down and Out in Paris and London."
That section doesn't exist (but it did, maybe). Maybe the sentence could be rewritten. --Joanberenguer 14:20, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's not a section, it's one of Orwell's books. Robin Johnson 14:23, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing section? 

message: I think it wrong to describe Animal Farm as specifically anti-Stalinist in intent.  It is an allegory, obviously based on events in Russia, which describes the steady corruption of an ideal, proceeding little by little virtually from the outset.  Napoleon/Stalin merely accelerates the whole depressing process.  I do not believe that Orwell would have accepted that things would have been any different if Snowball/Trotsky had been in control.
Rcpaterson 03:13, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Napoleon and Stalin 

message: I noticed that the list is mentioned in the article...but there is no mention made of one of the most controversial aspects, which is Orwell's annotations, which included (erroneous) speculations on Chaplin's Jewishness, and a note to the effect that Paul Robeson was "anti-white".  Should some mention of this controversy be included?  A discussion of it is included here:   69.209.218.60 20:29, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  IRD list 

message: Does anyone feel able to create a stub on Tribunite (sub-set of the mid-20th century British Left)?The only sources I have are 
http://www.allwords.com/word-Tribunite.html 
(and other pages with identical text)
and this from Guardian
http://books.guardian.co.uk/news/articles/0,6109,1530801,00.html
"According to his biographer, Professor Bernard Crick, Orwell saw himself as a Tribunite socialist whose experiences in the Spanish civil war had left him sharply disillusioned with Soviet communism." 
--201.50.123.251 12:52, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requesting article "[[Tribunite]]" 

message: I am a little mystified that Connolly is presented--unless I'm overlooking some possible alternate reading--as an example of a leading intellectual that Orwell became friends with at Eton. Their earlier friendship at St. Cyprian's, though intermittent, is possibly the most famous in 20th-century English literature. Can someone perhaps rewrite the Eton paragraph, substituting a more appropriate figure?  --Cosh 3:45, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Orwell and Connolly 

message: There's not really a bio of a notable person at Eileen O'Shaughnessy, but just a few facts that might add to this article. Her name should redirect to his; she may deserve a section here.--Jerzy•t 02:19, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge 1st wife's bio in 

message: in "Early life" it says his father worked in an opium department? Is this true or is it a bit of vandalism that got missed? Totnesmartin 11:47, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is not vandalism : you can read it for example in Crick's biography (I'm sorry, this is the french translation, but it can be easely confirmed, I guess) : "Le commerce de l'opium avec la Chine avait été légalisé en 1860 sous la forme d'un monopole gouvernemental. Richard [Orwell's father] y était employé depuis l'âge de dix-huit ans." (Bernard Crick, George Orwell, une vie, climats, Paris, 2003, p. 48 - first chapter, in french : "et j'étais un petit garçon joufflu")--Loudon dodd 23:28, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: sacre plusungood! Totnesmartin 00:44, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opium department 

message: My English teacher once infrormed us at school that the origin of his name was to do with H.G. Wells. This seems entirely logical as the "G" in "H.G." stands for George (as found here). The statement in the article about the river still remains possible in conjunction with this theory. Is there any way of proving this? --SteelersFan UK06 06:55, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: His pen name has been chosen with his publisher (editor ? I'm not sure about the english word), Victor Gollanz. Orwell gave him a list of names : P.S. Burton, Kenneth Miles, George Orwell, H. Lewis Allways. This fact is mentionned by Bernard Crick in his Orwell's biography. It seems that Eric Blair didn't mentionned Wells. But he knew the Orwell river. I don't know more about that. --Loudon dodd 18:23, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Origins Of His Name 

message: "Back in the United Kingdom, Orwell supported himself by writing freelance reviews, mainly for the New English Weekly but mostly for Time and Tide and the New Statesman."  This sentence is clearly nonsense - "mostly x but mainly y and z"?  Which one was it? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lfh (talk • contribs) 12:35, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reviews 

message: Most tuberculosis sufferers seek out hotter, drier climates to alleviate their condition. Why on earth did Orwell move from southern England to western Scotland? Drutt 20:55, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A question I have answered in the article - some critics have implied that Orwell had a death wish, but Jura is actually quite mild. --Stephen Burnett 21:44, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jura 

message: RE- 'Political views' Orwell was right, years in advance about what Britain was going to be like after WW2. The article in question states
:"He supported the war effort but detected (wrongly as it turned out) a mood that would lead to a revolutionary socialist movement among the British people. "We are in a strange period of history in which a revolutionary has to be a patriot and a patriot has to be a revolutionary," he wrote in Tribune, the Labour left's weekly, in December 1940."
The previous edit is a clear mistake that gives no room for understanding the social context of Britain at the end of the war, and the enourmous changes it underwent. While Britain did not witness the typical conception of a revolution as Russia did in 1917, the changes made by Labour (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labour_Party_%28UK%29#Post-War_victory_under_Attlee) in adopting and advancing Keynessian economics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keynes), and the welfare state does constitute a social revolution. Also, this was the type of socialist revolution that Orwell wanted to witness as he never was a communist, but a democratic socialist.   —Preceding unsigned comment added by Revolver soul2000 (talk • contribs) 19:15, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Orwell's legacy 

message: I am shocked that I had to correct such huge factual mistakes such as that he was against "not-representative government" and that he was against communism.He was very critical to the Soviet Union under Stalin rule and Anti-Stalinist,and against totalitarianism but he was Socialist himself.He was against Representative Government and a follower of Anarcho-syndicalism.
:Orwell was a staunch democratic socialist. While he did fight on the side of the Anarchists in the Spanish Civil War, he never claimed to be a follower of the ideology.   —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.90.182.94 (talk) 03:03, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  He was not against... 

message: Given the length section needs a lot of work. For someone more knowledgable about him I suggest expanding to a few paragraphs. See WP:Lead for more details. I have also archived the talk pages as they were getting quite long.LordHarris 13:59, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead 

message: The opening section of this is just a bit biased, 'a very good description in 'authors' excellent biography'! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.21.33.99 (talk) 18:21, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually the whole section is written from a very definite POV, and I think it suffers from being dumped in as a separate section rather than integrated with the rest of the article.--Stephen Burnett 18:29, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Bernard Crick's biography is the main reference on this subject, in anyway.--Loudon dodd 20:39, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes it is, but the article is about Orwell; it isn't supposed to be a book review. --Stephen Burnett 20:57, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok.--Loudon dodd 18:50, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Having written this section I personally feel that it is very important to have some details about Orwell the man, rather than just seeing him in the light of a political animal. I have used extensive reference to Bernard Crick's biography, as Loudon dodd points out, but this is for people who have not got round to reading this excellent bio. On reading the article initially, I felt that it was far too impersonal and so wanted to include some more personalized detail about a writer who included much of his own personal experiences into his work.Ivankinsman 16:58, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Personal Life 

message: This is not what can be read in Newsinger's essay (Orwell's Politics, chap.VI, 2, "animal farm"), where it is written that Orwell didn't have this "strong belief" at all. Newsinger refers to the compte-rendu that Orwell wrote on Kestler's Darkness at noon (Collected Essays, III,68, "Arthur Koestler")--Loudon dodd 21:14, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Orwell had a strong belief that all revolutions would die and utterly fail" 

message: The "according to Chomsky" and "again according to Chomsky" tone sounds like the work of a troll. Orwells preface to Animal Farm is available online (1) and if someone has personal issues with Chomsky they can paraphrase Orwells ideas in his own words (though Chomsky is essentially correct). 
1) http://home.iprimus.com.au/korob/Orwell.html
-df
:I've removed the following :
:"In his writings, MIT linguist and political analyst Noam Chomsky refers to a suppressed introductionhttp://www.chomsky.info/interviews/20051207.htm Orwell wrote for Animal Farm, an introduction discovered thirty years after Animal Farm's first publication.  In it Orwell saysIntroduction to Animal Farm excerpts, http://understandingpower.com/Chapter4.htm#f14 that Animal Farm was a satire directed against Stalin and totalitarianism in general, but that it also applied to free England.  The concentration of the press and the educational system in England produce something similar to what the Soviet Union's KGB did: suppression of dissent."
:Firstly, the reference to what Chomsky wrote on the introduction is an irrelevance; as it is now widely available, dragging in Chomsky to give a second-hand opinion is pointless. Secondly, Orwell absolutely does NOT say that Animal Farm applies to "free England". This is pure invention, presumably on the part of the contributor who put it there. The introduction certainly does state that publication of the book was difficult, due to the atmosphere of Russomania among English intellectuals following the entry of Russia into the war on the Allied side, and their consequent reluctance to criticise the Soviet regime. That is not at all the same as saying that the book itself is a criticism of English society at the time. --Stephen Burnett 10:03, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "According to Chomsky" 

message: I've removed:
While never a supporter of the free-market libertarian right, he did share occasional criticisms with them. In a review published in the Observer in 1944, he accepted some of the criticisms of collectivism put forward in Friedrich von Hayek's The Road to Serfdom. "In the negative part of Professor Hayek's thesis there is a great deal of truth. It cannot be said too often — at any rate, it is not being said nearly often enough — that collectivism is not inherently democratic, but, on the contrary, gives to a tyrannical minority such powers as the Spanish Inquisitors never dreamt of." Nevertheless, he continued, "a return to 'free' competition means for the great mass of people a tyranny probably worse, because more irresponsible, than that of the state."
At best, this warrants a sentence, no more. I've not found a reliable source for this review either.--Nydas(Talk) 21:05, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's still a slanty use of an obscure quote to promote a particular POV. It would be just as easy to selectively quote Orwell's review of Mein Kampf to show his 'sharing of occasional criticism' with fascism. --Nydas(Talk) 09:15, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The review of Hayek can be found: at http://groups.msn.com/EricArthurBlair/review.msnw . The above removed paragraph goes against what Orwell rather clearly means in this essay, and appears to be an abuse of a negative. Orwell says later in the review, to resolve the negative: "There is no way out of this unless a planned economy can somehow be combined with the freedom of the intellect, which can only happen if the concept of right and wrong is restored to politics." In other words, Orwell states that collectivism has problems, not because we need a free market, but because we need to preserve intellectual freedom. BillCosby 03:58, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Libertarian paragraph 

message: It might make more sense simply to remove the current arbitrary list of Orwell's essays and simply leave the link to the full set.Nwe 17:23, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Essays 

message: "his lack of success reduced Blair to taking menial jobs as a dishwasher for a few weeks, principally in a fashionable hotel (the Hotel X) on the rue de Rivoli" -- "Hotel X" is a pseudonym, right?  If so we should put this name in quotes or just omit it altogether. -- Writtenonsand 04:12, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Hotel X" 

message: Legacy: Literary criticism: "In the celebrated conclusion to his 1940 essay on Charles Dickens one seems to see Orwell himself." 
It so happens that I agree with this, but IMHO it is POV / opinion and should be removed from the article. -- Writtenonsand 04:31, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "One seems to see Orwell himself" 

message: Why can't I edit this article? -- David Sher  —Preceding unsigned comment added by David Sher (talk • contribs) 23:53, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can't edit this article 

message: I don't think he called his wife a "good faithful stick", but a "good old stick".  My father used to use this expression and in the English of that time it was an expression of affection. My grandmother was a good old stick when she did something generous. I don't think it meant that Orwell's wife was some kind of crutch for him. Sorry I don't have the reference handy, but will add it when I come across it.Jmsunlinenet (talk) 03:54, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Good, faithful stick" 

message: In the introduction we have: two novels critical of totalitarianism in general (Animal Farm), and Stalinism in particular (Nineteen Eighty-Four).
Shouldn't this be the other way round? Animal Farm maps directly to Stalinism, with characters and events corresponding to real-life people and events. Nineteen Eighty-Four is the general one. Or perhaps this is all speculation and we should rearrange it: two novels critical of Stalinism and totalitarianism: Animal Farm and Nineteen Eighty-Four. Thoughts? Robin Johnson (talk) 16:45, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Animal Farm, 1984, 'totalitarianism' and 'Stalinism' 

message: 90% of the vandalism I revert seems to be silly changes to the name in the infobox. I suspect alot of first time IPs don't realise that it is his real name and take it as an opportunity to change it to something else of their choice. Is there a case for using his pseudonym or does that contravene some policy? Motmit (talk) 16:21, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Info box Name 

message: I created an entry on the essay Decline of the English Murder - does anybody know what the case in question was? Autarch (talk) 21:47, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unnamed case in Decline of the English Murder 

message: The  tag is for "took her son Eric to England when he was one year old": the ODNB has this at age three. Any editor know the definitive answer for this far-from-important point? --Old Moonraker (talk) 21:00, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Crick explains in a footnote. Several earlier biographers - Stansky Abrahams and Fyvel had given the year 1907 based on information given by Avril Blair reminiscing confidently of a time before she was born. Probably ODNB took this as well. The evidence to the contrary is a diary of Ida Blair for 1905 and a photograph of Eric aged 3 in an English suburban garden. The earlier date also coincides with a difficult posting for Blair senior, and Marjorie (6) needing an English education. Shelden and Taylor agree with Crick. Take your pick Motmit (talk) 21:16, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That was quick—thanks. --Old Moonraker (talk) 21:42, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Brought to England 

message: I know that at least the politics section is just copy/pasted from http://www.experiencefestival.com/a/George_Orwell_-_Political_views/id/1424919 . I don't know wikipedia's policy on this, but I just wanted to point it out. It's not in quotes or anything.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.197.165.134 (talk) 04:55, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No plagiarism, either way: "Adapted from the Wikipedia article "Political views", under the G.N U Free Docmentation License. " at the bottom of their page. --Old Moonraker (talk) 06:50, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  plagarism 

message: Could this section not be somehow integrated into the biography?  That would make it easier for someone doing research on how he lived.205.250.78.245 (talk) 19:58, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Personal Life 

message: The article switches between the two names, i think that there should be a consistent name used but do not know which would be more accurate, his pen-name or birth name? --Weirdloopyloo 14:04, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would recommend using "Orwell," since it seems most people don't know it was a pen name, so "Blair" would be jarring. On the other hand, for Mark Twain's entry, both "Twain" and "Clemens" are used throughout the description.QuizzicalBee 14:38, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I've changed 'He' to 'Eric Arthur Blair' in the early life section, making it easier to follow.--Nydas(Talk) 17:14, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blair or Orwell? 

message: This is my first ever contribution to Wikipedia so please be gentle with me. And I admit it is a small point, but the article says the royalties from Animal Farm were Orwell's "first, proper, adult income". But he had been a high ranking police officer, a schoolteacher, had a job at the BBC that the article itself says had a "good salary", and all the others. He may have had more money after Animal Farm, but why use the words first, proper and adult ? Idealfarmer (talk) 13:37, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You are right - there is much to be improved in the article which tends to spin the line of the poor suffering writer. The bit that amuses me is the comment that he took a job "to escape dire poverty". Don't most people? Motmit (talk) 14:38, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "First, proper, adult income" 

message: The link to his essay on European integration is broken. http://www.worldpolicy.org/projects/globalrights/europe/Orwell-Toward%20European%20Unity.html is the correct link.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Charlesbrophy (talk • contribs) 17:14, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  George Orwell: EU 

message: Orwell is a contentious subject, in that pretty much every shade of political opinion wants to have him on their side.  This article is suffering from a lot of problems, but a lot of sincere people have worked on it and there is much here that is potentially valuable.  I think we can improve this article a lot if we confine ourselves to relying on sources, rather than trying to editorialise about what we would like Orwell to have thought about any given subject.  I have an entire shelf of his books (all the novels, the 1970s' 4-volume 'Collected Essays, Journalism and Letters' and about half of the volumes of the 1990s Collected Works) and am looking to those who have no special axe to grind to help improve this article.  The intro, in particular, is shoddy and too brief.  I invite suggestions from anyone who is seriously thinking about how to present the complex legacy of Orwell to general readers; I am not interested in suggestions from people who want to make their own arguments about what exactly Orwell finally is about.  Save it for your theses, boys and girls.  This is an encyclopedia, and has less glamorous ambitions - I merely want to establish the most commonly-agreed facts about the man and his work.  Lexo (talk) 00:58, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article needs a lot of work 

message: The article currently says
"In December 1936, Orwell travelled to Spain primarily to fight, not to write..."
which is contrary to what appears in the fifth paragraph of the first chapter of Homage to Catalonia, the book this article is about.
"I had come to Spain with some notion of writing newspaper articles, but I had joined the militia almost immediately, because at that time and in that atmosphere it seemed the only conceivable thing to do."
So I think that the claim needs a reliable citation. The same sentence was on Homage to Catalonia and another editor removed it after I pointed out the contradiction. The statement relies on a citation that cannot be read unfortunatly.--Aimaz (talk) 23:40, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Apparently it's Homage to Catalonia plus another previously unpublished retrospective text written later called "Looking Back on the Spanish War" . --Mia-etol (talk) 00:12, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Primary Reason for Travelling to Spain 

message: Added a brief section in legacy about the publication of 4 years worth of his journal by the Orwell Prize. Ffenliv (talk) 02:03, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Journal/Blog 

message: The idea that Brave New World is "more optimistic" than 1984 is based on a faulty understanding of Brave New World.  It is kind of ridiculous in the first place to talk about dystopian novels being optimistic in the first place.  More importantly, though, Huxley predicted a more insidious kind of totalitarian dictatorship than Orwell.  Brave New World shows a people controlled by pleasure and inhumanity.  Whereas Orwell saw a single party eliminating the freedom of the people through control of tangible freedoms and pleasure, Huxley saw a single party eliminating the freedom of the people through an excess of tangible freedoms and pleasure.  They both destroy everything that makes a man or woman free and human: family, virtue, intellectual freedom, art, community, political responsibility, truth, goodness, and beauty (Huxley's "Feelies" are not art).  Neither is optimistic.  If anything, Orwell is more optimistic: Winston at least says that "there is hope in the proles."  Airstrip One at least can be freed by a proletariat revolt (though it will never happen).  Huxley's London locked in a orgiastic cycle that has no hope of freedom.  
I can't figure out how to edit the Orwell article.  If someone can, and you think I'm making sense, please change it to: 
Nineteen Eighty-Four is often compared to Brave New World by Aldous Huxley; both are powerful dystopian novels warning of a future world filled with state control, the former was written later and considers perpetual war preparation in a nuclear age; the latter considers perpetual stimulation in a consumer age.  Both novels envision the destruction of human freedoms by oppressive governments that use technology to destroy personal liberty.  Both envision a populace that mostly neither cares, nor knows how to end their oppression.   
Thanks!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeff Greenwood (talk • contribs) 14:14, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, many people don't notice that the Appendix on Newspeak is written in the past tense.  Newspeak is described as being a language that people used to use, the implication being that they don't use it anymore.  The fact that the Appendix itself is not written in Newspeak is another strong implication that O'Brien's vision of the Party holding power forever was not, in the end, fulfilled. Lexo (talk) 14:45, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comparison between 1984 and Brave New World 

message: Animal Farm is not a novel. It is to short. Change it, someone. --212.247.27.176 (talk) 22:47, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You're wrong; it's a short novel.  In future, if you don't like something in an article, change it yourself.  If it's a good change it will probably be retained, and if it's not it will be reverted.  Don't just complain. And please log in before making comments. Lexo (talk) 14:40, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Animal Farm 

message: SmokeyTheFatCat is undeniably wrong. Smokey is a socialist, the same group Orwell was speaking out against in road to Wegan Pier. Animal Farm, and 1984 are some of the greatest books in the English language simply because they reveal a truth. Smokey, socialism will only work at the expense of the 
individual, and it's shameful you would even come out and say something that dimwitted. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.189.179.137 (talk) 03:36, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  You obviously have not read anything Orwell wrote. 'The Road To Wigan Pier' speaking out against Socialism? Have you actually read Orwell's passionate defense of Socialism in Part II of that book? A defense against the ivory tower socialist intellectuals as well as against the anti-socialists, to be true, but it was Orwell himself who stated in the 1946 essay 'Why I Write' that everything he has written was in defense of democratic Socialism. Mvdwege 21:23, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Smokey and the unsigned contributor are both IMO wrong (neither of them have read Orwell with anything like attention) but more to the point, their discussion, and Mvdwege's knowledgeable contribution to it, are inappropriate.  I would prefer it if people who are so partisan about Orwell do not attempt to work on the article, as it will inevitably result in violations of WP:NPOV which will only have to be undone.  I am not trying to violate anyone's freedom of speech - if you want to argue about Orwell, you are free to do it in a chat room somewhere.  An encyclopedia article must not come down on one side or other of the how-socialist-was-Orwell debate, but should present the evidence and, in so doing, reflect the nature of the debate. Lexo (talk) 12:34, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Response to Vastly overrated 

message: Removing characterization of Orwell as "radical" in the first sentence, as opinion of the editor. 
For comparison, Florence King has characterized Orwell as "Every conservative's favorite liberal and every liberal's favorite conservative." - http://www.nationalreview.com/100best/100_books.html
We can probably produce various sources with various characterizations of Orwell, but if we characterize him we should produce sources. -- Writtenonsand (talk) 02:26, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That's the thing about Orwell: nearly everyone wants him on their side.  The usual left criticism of him is that he wasn't left enough, or was embarrassingly politically incorrect (see Raymond Williams' Orwell); the usual right criticism of him is that for some inexplicable reason he thought of himself as a leftist, when it's perfectly obvious that all his books are anti-socialism, etc. etc.  I think we should be careful when we attempt to characterise Orwell one way or the other, considering how his legacy and influence is still in dispute. But by all means let's portray the struggle over ownership of his influence. Lexo (talk) 14:48, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It should be established, however, that after a certain point in his life, Orwell always seems to have regarded himself as a left-wing radical.  He makes it clear in the unpublished foreword to Animal Farm that he did not write the book against revolutions as such, just against revolutions in which the masses fail to get rid of the revolutionary leadership after their usefulness is over.  Sources can be found for Orwell's sense of himself as a radical, whereas it is not very difficult to demonstrate that the neo-conservative attempt to enlist Orwell as a conservative is based on highly selective use of sources, i.e. they ignore anything he may have said that doesn't suit their case.  But some factions on the left do the same thing, when they criticise him for not being Stalinist or feminist enough (in the opinions of, respectively, Raymond Williams and Beatrix Campbell). Lexo (talk) 21:32, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Orwell "radical": Maybe not 

message: I think I do know how to edit this article.  The first thing that it needs is a good, thorough copyedit.  It is riddled with bad punctuation, bad grammar,http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/c/c8/Button_redirect.png awkward sentences and badly-constructed sections, all of which need fixing.  That will be a long, boring thankless job and I will do it myself if nobody else can be bothered to.  The article is also full of sometimes rather naive remarks, like this one:"Throughout his life Orwell continually supported himself as a book reviewer, writing works so long and sophisticated they have had an influence on literary criticism."  Leaving aside the clumsy writing, if Orwell's reviews have influenced subsequent lit crit, it was not because they were "so long and sophisticated".  While I note that George Woodcock is the source for applying Orwell's remarks on Dickens to Orwell himself, I take issue with it because it just doesn't sound a very useful comparison to me. I'm not dissing George Woodcock, but that's not his most perceptive remark ever.  (Orwell is not very like Dickens.)Next, the structure is eccentric and illogical.  The "References" section is really a "Notes" section and should be retitled as such, with the sources placed in a proper references section and reformatted; another boring job for someone to do.  The "Legacy" part of the article is just a grab-bag of people's favourite bits of or about Orwell, and should be reorganised - Orwell's defence of Wodehouse, while notable, does not belong in "Literary influences" because Wodehouse was not, I think, a significant influence on Orwell.I can think of two ways of reorganising the "Legacy" section: chronologically, giving a history of Orwell's reputation, or thematically, sketching out the main themes of his writing.  The trouble with the latter is that it means deciding and agreeing on what the main themes actually are, which could take forever.Lastly, the intro is not good.  It is weak and almost meaningless to say "His writing is marked by concise descriptions of social conditions and events" - he did much more than just describe them, he also interpreted them.  Also, Orwell did not have "a contempt for all types of authority".  He had a high regard for military discipline, as long as the troops were fighting for a cause he approved of.  When I get round to it, I will have a go at improving things like this but in the meantime, I'm off to fix the grammar. Lexo (talk) 15:15, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Should the nonessential appositives be separated by commas? If so, I can do what I can to assist, when either this page comes off semi-protected status or I reach autoconfirmed status. --Dromioofephesus (talk) 16:23, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  How to edit the article 

message: Greetings All,
Given Orwell's prolificness, I thought it might be interesting to set up a spin-off article, something along the lines of List of publications by George Orwell. It would coincidentally lighten the article here, but I think it might be especially interesting as an overview of his works if listed in chronological order of publication (with date of writing, if known, in brackets) and not separating his novels from his essays, etc. It would complement Essays of George Orwell (which needs serious wikifying, by the way). However, further details could be discussed at the corresponding talk page.  Feedback, anyone? --Technopat (talk) 14:35, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: As it doesn't affect the content of this article - and therefore consensus not required - I decided to be bold and not wait for feedback...--Technopat (talk) 15:16, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Separate List of publications by George Orwell 

message: I have noticed that the death section of this article does not really explain exactly how he actually died. All that is mentioned is he ruptured an artery - why was he in the hospital? It's written as if someone cut out a whole chunk of the section. Can someone please expand on this? This is quite an important section in an article about any deceased person. Thanks. --Hamster X 16:30, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Try reading the preceding paragraph which explains the history of his illness and why he went into hospital Motmit (talk) 17:05, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Death 

message: Have removed the following paragraph:
Conversely, there has been speculation about the extent of Orwell's links to Britain's secret service, MI5, and some have even claimed that he was in the service's employ.(Inline citation:"Orwell and the secret state: close encounters of a strange kind?", by Richard Keeble, Media Lens, Monday, 10 October 2005.) The evidence for this claim is contested.
Apart from the reference being from a blog, which is a Wikipedia no-no, the actual link to the article on said blog is broken. If anyone out there can fix it and reference the info from any other source, please do so and stick it back in the article. Cheers!--Technopat (talk) 09:47, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice work. A claim like that needs a very strong citation. Nick-D (talk) 11:25, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed paragraph with a reference from a blog... 

message: This edit deleted material from the article because "this statement has been used in a book that has been published". The original phrase was added to the article on 25 August 2008. The the only book edition I have found was an online version, described as "newly added" on 11 November 2008. I'm asking, who is copying from whom here? I'm inclined to put it back, once again. --Old Moonraker (talk) 21:56, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've just made an interesting comparison between Wikipedia's Gone with the Wind and the same online publisher's recently issued edition of the work. See for yourselves! Meanwhile, I'm restoring the material. --Old Moonraker (talk) 22:17, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I wrote that particular description of Orwell's writing myself.  I was just trying to find a non-controversial description of what characterised his writing.  Very flattering to think that it's been quoted elsewhere!  My record as a contributor shows that I am very conscientious about providing citations.  I wouldn't steal something and not give an attribution for it.  I will be exceptionally surprised if anyone can show that I unconsciously plagiarised it from somewhere, but I remember sweating over the phrasing, so I doubt that I did.  If someone does find an earlier attribution, I will of course happily delete it from WP but it would definitely have been unconscious rather than conscious plagiarism on my part.  Thanks to Old Moonraker for restoring the edit, anyway.  Lexo (talk) 00:20, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible [[WP:COPYVIO]] 

message: In spite of the fact that this topic has obviously been discussed at some length here, I am not satisfied. Why, please explain to me (without passion and with logic and evidence) why, does a book about "totalitarianism" by a socialist feature a magnificently vilified English Socialist party? Some points have been clarified to a degree, but there still seem to be some holes here.
This quote appears to support that Orwell was a Democratic Socialist until very near the end of his life: 
:"Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism, as I understand it," he wrote in 1946.
I have two major issues with this. Firstly, where's the citation for this quote? It says, "he wrote in 1946." Where or to whom? Secondly, this was three years before the publication of Nineteen Eighty-Four. Granted, the changes to the name of the book (from Nineteen Eighty, then to Eighty-Two, then Eighty-Four) seem to indicate a four-year writing period for the book (if someone could clarify how long it really did take to write, from start to finish, it would help) but where is the evidence that as he wrote the book, and as he was more and more ravaged by a disease that was slowly killing him, that he didn't begin to change his views?
To be clear about this, I understand that there is a possibility that Orwell chose his own political affiliation to vilify to illustrate the corruptibility of any political system, even his own. It has not escaped me that Ingsoc is atheistic, another thing the party has in common with Orwell. I also understand that Ingsoc's ideals are a complete bastardization of the actual principals of socialism, which certainly could be intended as ironic. But was it?
It continues to strike me as unlikely, and I believe further clarification and explanation is needed to help readers understand how someone who outwardly appeared to display strong anti-socialist leanings in his most famous work could actually be a socialist, if indeed he still was at the very end of his life.
Full disclosure: I am, myself, sympathetic to the views of democratic socialists, and personally lean towards a democratic semi-socialist form of government. So I have no personal interest in Nineteen Eighty-Four being anti-socialist. I merely wish the information about it, and its author, to be correct, and I'm still not convinced that is so. I also do not claim to be particularly knowledgeable about George Orwell, which is why I'm making this argument. I came to Wikipedia hoping to find some condensed (but clear) information about him. I have not, to my satisfaction.
So... clarification please!
--Verminjerky (talk) 13:37, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: In a letter to Francis A. Henson of the United Automobile Workers, dated 16 June 1949 (seven months before he died), excerpts from which were reproduced in Life (25 July 1949) and the New York Times Book Review (31 July 1949), Orwell stated the following: "My recent novel [1984] is NOT intended as an attack on Socialism or on the British Labour Party (of which I am a supporter) but as a show-up of the perversions ... which have already been partly realized in Communism and Fascism. ...The scene of the book is laid in Britain in order to emphasize that the English-speaking races are not innately better than anyone else and that totalitarianism, if not fought against, could triumph anywhere." The Collected Essays, Journalism and Letters of George Orwell Volume 4 - In Front of Your Nose 1945-1950 p.546 (Penguin) --Technopat (talk) 16:40, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

text: Okay, so why isn't that quote clearly presented in either the article about Orwell or about Nineteen Eighty-Four? It needs to be, because without knowing what Orwell himself said, it's almost impossible to take the novel as anything but anti-socialist. This is the kind of information that's too relevant to leave out, because it eliminates confusion, and the evidence currently presented regarding the meaning of the book is, as I pointed out, lacking. This quote, complete with citations, needs to be in its place. --Verminjerky (talk) 11:21, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Greetings Verminjerky. My pleasure. I agree that it should be included in both articles, but as a newcomer to this article, I thought I'd post it here first and maybe someone with better knowledge of the layout of the Orwell articles at Wikipedia (and possibly with more time to spare) could copy and paste it. Wikipedia is an on-going project and can only get better, and there are some pretty knowledgeable folks already working on Orwell-related pages. Regards, --Technopat (talk) 19:19, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi and greetings too - the first quote apparently appears in Why I Write, although I have not checked the original. Lots of problems with Orwell - too many people trying to read his mind,  too many people seeking his support for their own views, too many people thinking he had all the answers, some of his adherents seeking to canonise him as a suffering martyr, others piling on his bandwagon, some biographers failing to understand his background, others pushing their own interpretations and being selective with their material (and that's just the adults). His own words often don't help - he enjoyed being provocative and controversial, he wrote for effect, he had the English public schoolboy's ironical sense of humour, he enjoyed winding people up and writing cruel satirical pieces, he was extremely self-deprecating - there are no easy answers. He was an extreme individual who defied categorisation. This confusion ends up on the pages of Wiki and alot of work is needed as Lexo points out below - the Nineteen eighty four article reads like the description of some teenager's computer game and others are simply dire - even some half decent ones have needed corrections to fundamental errors of fact. As Technopat says Wikipedia can only get better and people are working on it, but also a neutral POV is critical and that means concentrating on authentic facts sufficient to allow the readers to make up their own minds rather than having one line or another pushed on them. It also explains why information cannot be easily condensed. Regards Motmit (talk) 22:11, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Greetings Motmit. Thanks for locating the "Every line of serious work..." quotation: it is indeed from "Why I Write" (1936) (The Collected Essays, Journalism and Letters of George Orwell Volume 1 - An Age Like This 1945-1950 p.23 (Penguin) ). BTW, your excellent description above would do very nicely, with very few modifications, in the lead to the article ... if it could be suitably referenced. Regards, --Technopat (talk) 22:44, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Greetings Technopat and thanks - well done for adding Kopp - I was thinking of doing so myself but you beat me to it. Regards Motmit (talk) 22:53, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought that as a major and recurrent figure in Orwell's life - and, as such, well-known to anyone interested in Orwell's world & writing - it was high time Kopp had an article. Unlike some other articles at Wikipedia, at least it refers to a person, i.e. of flesh and blood, not a fictional character. Maybe meet up with you at Wigan Pier? In serious need of propping up... Regards, --Technopat (talk) 12:50, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

text: Thanks for the name-check, but it was a joint effort. If the above link doesn't work, try here. --Old Moonraker (talk) 10:04, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Greetings Old Moonraker (sorry for getting the name not quite right). Thanks for adding the right URL here - have fixed mine above. Cheers! --88.25.1.221 (talk) 13:37, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: As one who could make better use of the "preview" button himself: no problem! Guessed. --Old Moonraker (talk) 13:54, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Socialist until the bitter end? 

message: In the Personal Life section, this line appears (about 5th paragraph):
"The business relationship between Orwell and Victor Gollancz, his first publisher aws stiff, for example, in letters, Orwell always addressed him by surname, as "Gollancz"." (bold added)
I am not familiar with the phrase "aws stiff" and suspect vandalism, but not sure what is supposed to replace it.  Can someone correct?  Feel free to delete this section of the talk page once it's corrected -- this isn't about the content of the article, which I otherwise think is very good. - StrangeAttractor (talk) 07:12, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a typo for "was stiff", with some confusingly bad punctuation around it. Corrected. Robin Johnson (talk) 15:57, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It may be true that Orwell had an uneasy relationship with Gollancz, but it's not true that he always addressed him as "Gollancz" in letters. The original contributor was probably relying on the incomplete Penguin Collected Essays, Journalism and Letters, or just hadn't been reading attentively.  The Secker & Warburg Complete Works are full of letters where Orwell addresses Gollancz as "Mr Gollancz" - I have one before me, dated 9 May 1937 (Vol. 2, Facing Unpleasant Facts 1937-39, p.22).  Even if Orwell did address an acquaintance in a letter by his surname, it isn't necessarily evidence of a strained relationship as it was fairly common practice among men of Orwell's class and age at the time.  Orwell addressed letters to Cyril Connolly as "Dear Cyril", but he'd been at school with Connolly.  Given that this sentence is based on a mistake, I'm not sure it makes sense anymore and I will rephrase it completely.  BTW, we don't delete talk page sections because it makes it difficult to trace what has been discussed about an article and what hasn't been. Lexo (talk) 12:46, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You are absolutely right and I have been thinking of removing this completely in due course (together with a lot of other twaddle).Motmit (talk) 12:54, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Just for the record, and re. use of surnames, a letter dated 14 February 1936 is addressed "Dear Connolly" and the following letter, dated 8 June 1937, is "Dear Cyril". CEJLGO Vol 1 (An Age Like This). --Technopat (talk) 01:22, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism or typo? Can someone familiar with the article check? 

message: 1 error(s) was/were found on George Orwell in the references. The URL(s) and corresponding error type(s) are shown below: 
[('HTTP Error 404', u'http://www.hoover.org/publications/uk/2939606.html')]
You may wish to remove the link(s) or update it as needed. Thank you, AiuwBot (talk) 22:51, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for pointing that one out. The Hoover Institute portal is currently being overhauled, but I managed to use the search function to get the direct link to citation. --Technopat (talk) 23:27, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  HTTP error(s) found on page 

message: Even in the actual article it says that Aldous and Orwell only had the most brief of contact in his formative years, though Orwell had written that he was impressed by Huxley's language. While I know that they corresponded a bit (there is a somewhat famous letter from Aldous congratulating Orwell on the success of 1984) is there any proof that Huxley should be listed under his "Influences"? I should think that, at most, they were cordial acquaintances, not literary buddies.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.106.97.176 (talk) 21:33, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Influence of Huxley on Orwell? 

message: The greatest mistake about Animal Farm, 1984, The Road to Wigan Pier is that they are simply anti-socialist or about Stalin. In fact they are anti-establishment, anti-corruption, anti-authoritarian, anti-police state.  Orwell writes about the dynamic free human spirit which is often let down and abused by those we entrust to positions of power over us. So in this day and age Orwell would be anti-Patriot act, anti-National ID card, anti-warrant less wire tapping, anti-Guantanamo Bay, they are anti-war on terror, anti-extraordinary rendition, anti water-boarding, anti Abu-Gharib, anti-Homeland security etc. etc. etc.
The greatest fallacy is to take the works of Orwell lol  in particular Animal Farm and 1984, and immediately think it is about 'communism', 'socialism'. This is the false interpretation of the works of Orwell, but is a ubiquitous interpretation in English Private Schools and obviously in the United States of America.  This is simply a myth and reflects an extreme shallowness of thinking. If you have read George Orwell and your opinion of the work stops with the works being an indictment Socialism then you have not learned anything and it would appear you need to readdress your opinions, thought processing and perceptions of reality.  The great satire, the great irony and the great depth of knowledge has passed you by.
Orwell is really attempting to talk about corrupt authority, abuse of power, totalitarianism, manipulation of good people, loss of liberty, propaganda, deception, inveiglement, political ponerology, pathocracy.  If you haven’t learned this from reading Animal Farm or 1984, then you have learned nothing and don't posses the depth of understanding required to appreciate literature.
:I'm sure when I say that I hardly know how to express my gratitude for the unique insight and wisdom which you have given to us. Many thanks. --Stephen Burnett 19:11, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Have you read Animal Farm? It's a direct parody of Soviet Government. The pigs have identifiable counterparts in the Bolshevik party. Orwell was a socialist no doubt but Animal farm was a critique of state of the USSR also no doubt.Domminico (talk) 23:53, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

text: I find it presumptuous to predict what Orwell's opinion about today's political goings on would have been had he still been alive. You're probably right, I admit that, but you're making projections about a dead man's thoughts. I can't help but feel that you're hurting how seriously you're taken by others here (you're quite the gentleman, Mr. Burnett) by stating what Orwell's views might be as though it was absolute fact as in "So in this day and age Orwell would be..." That statement at the very least needed a "probably." You know? --Verminjerky (talk) 13:37, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

text: The greatest mistake made about Orwell is to claim, that your interpretation is indisputable truth.--83.88.93.176 (talk) 17:08, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  The greatest mistake made about Orwell 

message: I have tagged two conflicting and quite speculative statements on the page about when Orwell contracted TB. One says he could have gotten it during his down and out years; the other during the Spanish war. Both are hypothetically possible (though not certainly not both together---unless TB plays some kind of tagteam relay thing) but seeing as though they are also both unprovable, should this not be removed altogether? I am new to wiki-editing so don't want to presume. Mangobait 03:35, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed the both cliam altogether. KTC 04:56, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Speculation about when Orwell contracted TB 

message: Somewhere or other I remember reading about how someone was surprised at Orwell not showing more interest in the USA. Apart from his relationship with Philip Rahv and Partisan Review, and a couple of other US leftwing intellectuals, I have come across the following which I think worth including in the article, but am not sure where:
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/5739 The New York Review of Books Volume 31, Number 14 · September 27, 1984
"Orwell's America"
by T.R. Fyvel
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/article-preview?article_id=5810 The New York Review of Books Volume 31, Number 10 · June 14, 1984
"Not One of Us"
by Alfred Kazin
Feedback? Cheers!--Technopat (talk) 23:07, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Our Eric tended to replay the same limited set of tunes over and over, mainly based on his personal experience. The USA wasn't in his collection, any more than was publicly funded health - the socialist dream of his boss Bevan. Odd in a way considering he spent so much time in privately funded clinics. There are comments on both these omissions somewhere in the bio literature but such discussion is all a consequence of the hyping of EB as a political authority. A google search on Fyvel and CIA throws up a significant amount of material with CIA funding various Fyvel activities. Fyvel had much to do with the creation of the Orwell "myth" and, I suspect, had some influence on Orwell's later works and the self image he presented of himself. Regards Motmit (talk) 09:16, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Fyvel (is there enough info./notability to start an article on him?) et al undoubtedly influenced Orwell in his views, but of course some people (see recent proposals on this discussion page) would hold that our George was an antisemite... (who was it who pointed out the difference between Blair, the man and Orwell, the writer?). Regs., --Technopat (talk) 13:52, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It is well known Orwell  was  identifying  communists  and  leftists  to  the  CIA.  This  should  be  included  in  the  article  here. 65.32.128.178 (talk) 15:17, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: 'Ere we go again! If it's well known that Orwell was on the CIA's paybooks it should be easy to find notable references for including it in the article. Mind you, we enter into an interesting contradiction here, of course, because the CIA has been financing the World Zionist Organization since it (the CIA) was founded in 1947. --Technopat (talk) 18:10, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The IP from Virginia USA may do well to read the article and associated links thoroughly both as an educational exercise and to see that the issues s/he raises are discussed. "It is well known", like "Everybody knows" and "It is a fact" are classic Orwell ploys that he himself used for arguing a case without any supporting evidence. Have fun Motmit (talk) 20:57, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: So the plot thickens - Virginia, you say. Ain't that the CIA's manor or am I thinking of some other Mickey Mouse outfit :) . I'm outta here to get some beauty sleep and start dreaming of leaks at Langley an' Our Orwell filling 'em with well-known facts. --Technopat (talk) 21:20, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Re. "to what extent can you even begin to predict the political positions of somebody who’s been dead three decades" + Orwell + CIA, there's an interesting article at Association for Cultural Freedom (and the recently-added External link to the CIA) which included several of Orwell's friends.  Have fun! --Technopat (talk) 10:32, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Orwell & the USA 

message: The article states "Peter Davison's production of the Complete Works of George Orwell, completed in 2000[115] put most of the Orwell Archive in the public domain." I find this confusing, and would appreciate clarification of the following:
# Does "in the public domain" here literally mean not subject to copyright, or is this a poorly phrased way of saying open to public scrutiny?
# Does "the Orwell Archive" refer to previously unpublished papers, or does it include the body of his works previously published under copyright?
Whether or not the fact of the matter (which I do not know) is that "most" of his published works are not subject to copyright, notwithstanding that works published after 1923 would ordinarily remain protected under United States copyright law for 70 years from his death (or until 1 January 2021, as noted at Wikisource), the article should be made clearer. ~ Ningauble (talk) 22:20, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Public domain 

message: Have added the Talk page header - please read it carefully before contributing to this page. The bit about this NOT being a forum for discussing the article's subject is particularly relevant. As the template states, the aim of this page is to discuss improvements to the article. Thank you. --Technopat (talk) 16:22, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Untitled 

message: *"A number of Polish and continental European critics think that Animal Farm is very similar to Bunt (Revolt. A novel) by winner of Nobel Prize - Wladyslaw Stanislaw Reymont, which had been published much earlier, in 1924." 
I Only find talk of it here in WIkipedia
:For some reason, the comment above is unsigned. Anyways, I can recall seeing mention of that elsewhere. Mind you, it could just as well have been on another article about Orwell/Animal Farm here on Wiki. I will see if I can find it again.
Trevor Crane (talk) 06:59, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moved 

message: What about 1984 and Animal Farm? Can anyone link these as books inspired by his stay in Burma.  Did he foresee what would happen after independence?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.79.9.129 (talk) 20:05, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I seem to remember that Bernard Crick made a link, but I don't have his biography in front of me at the moment. Marshall46 (talk) 14:21, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  George Orwell and Burma 

message: Some people have claimed that the book Animal Farm has a secret antisemitic code, because Orwell apparently associated Communism with a hidden Jewish cabal. I'm not sure about this, but it would certainly deserve more adequate research if it is shown to be notable.    ADM (talk) 17:03, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Not "some people", a single anonymous poster on a message board. The idea that there is a "secret antisemitic code" in Animal Farm is rubbish. One of your links refers to statements in Orwell's letters that Communism had some Jewish basis.  I have read many of Orwell's letters and have never come across such a statement. There is not a single reference in the index to the Collected Essays, Journalism and Letter of George Orwell (Vols 1-4) (Penguin, 1977-80) to Jews and Communism.  The articles you link to appear to be written by people unfamiliar with Orwell's writings and I really do wonder what motivates them to promote these fantasies. Marshall46 (talk) 18:25, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: We had this discussion at Talk:Animal_Farm#Antisemitism, it posted there as well.  One of those links mentions he had Jewish friends.  Also, he published an article criticizing the antisemitism in England: http://www.george-orwell.org/AntiSemitism_In_Britian/0.html So yes, it is in fact rubbish.  Dream Focus 18:34, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Antisemitism in ''Animal Farm'' 

message: Substituted at 20:27, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment