Talk:Nineteen Eighty-Four/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Orwell and freedom from fear

I have removed a section dealing with Bush's inaugural address - it is not relevant to 'Nineteen Eighty-four'. Alavery7 16:18, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I don't know what the intent of Alavery7 is, but to just DELETE text as an act of POV censorship with NO discusssion is not in the interest of knowledge and understanding. I have now rewritten the paragraph to make the connections very plain. It would seem that Alavery7 was making selective deleting with NO contributions, because none of the comments following the deleted text were touched and yet they were less related than the deleted paragraph. Knowledge does not come by deletion. That is also Orwellian!

The paragraph is relevant because right now the USA is at War and President Bush has just told the world that premptive wars bring peace! That is EXACTLY what Orwell meant by "War is Peace" when Orwell took "freedom from fear" and reverted its meaning from disarmament to armament in his "Ministry of Peace" or "MiniPax". It would seem that this analysis by Orwell which was written in the 1940s, is very much to the moment when the current president is telling Americans that peace will come through war! MPLX/MH 17:31, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Ok, this is going to be tougher than I thought. My deletion was not POV - in fact, I think the parallell you draw is interesting, but would be better placed elsewhere. If there is an article surrounding the Inauguration address, for example, this text could be placed there. Nevertheless, your statement, IMO, does not grant the reader any additional understanding of the novel; rather your argument is that a reader will better understand Presidetn Bush's statements in light of the concepts in the novel. If so, this belongs in an article primarily dealing with his address, not with Orwell's text, in the same manner that President Bush's comments should not be appended to the discussion of the Bible, simply because he draws allusions to it in his address. I will wait for further discussion before removing the section again, but it remains my intent to do so. Alavery7 18:31, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Alavery7 It would appear that you have a POV in mind that has a political partisan bias. Perhaps I am wrong. But the reason I state this is your need - your zeal to delete something in the article to which I have made many other major contributions. I have NOT deleted the works of other people by my contributions and best as I can determine you have not contributed text to the article.

Case in point. I added the very detailed insert regarding the performance of the Orwell book on old NBC radio shows and I cited references. Same goes for my references to the Annie Lennox insert under recordings. But there are many vague and I think off the beam references in the article that really lack a connection. YOU DID NOT DELETE THEM. On the other hand Orwell worked for the BBC and his friends like Malcolm Muggeridge have noted Orwell's feelings. If you put an overlay of his text on top of the Four Freedoms it is obvious where the four ministries came from and coupled with Orwell's observations on his BBC work it is easy enough to see where he got the MiniTrue idea from.

Others have commented about the old USSR and inferences. There are existing references (that I did not write or insert) about the Patriot Act. But here is President Bush, in a time of war and massive military build-up waging war for peace. VERY Orwellian!!! He then invoked a very specific reference in his speech to the third and fourth of the Four Freedoms in the context of war and his meaning is the exact opposite of the original! That is VERY Orwellian - which is another way of saying that this is very "Nineteen Eighty Four".

Perhaps you should devote your zeal to a comprehensive review of the article and show your interest in it, since I have referenced my own interest many times.MPLX/MH 19:10, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

If I might leave a little though here... First, I'd like to say how happy I was to see this article; I learned a lot reading it (while I had done some basic study of the book before), and being quite fond of the book, I must say I appreciated this a great deal.

Now for the present matter, I don't think that Alavery7's point is so characteristic of a supporter of "Junior": the very polemic nature of the present US government has given quite contrasted opinions to most people; since lots of people use Wikipedia to display their points, it is understandable that the first version of the text might have been mistaken for one of those well-intentioned, yet naive, charges against the present US administration.

The present version of the text seems much better to me, in the sense that it is now clearly an educated analysis (it underlines Roosevelt's speech, from which the idea originates, and wanders to Dubya's inaugural speech only to stress the strong influence that Roosevelt's speech had on the politic consciousness of the USA), and can hardly be mistaken for a political ramble.

I hope that'll help more than it will cause harm, and that I don't sound too naive here; I just wanted to say this because I don't think that MPLX/MH's and Alavery7's intentions are so different, and that it's better to avoid losing time and confidence out of litte misunderstandings. Cheers to all and thanks again for this very nice article ! Rama 08:31, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

When I saw the edits and MPLX's addition yesterday, I found it rather anti-GWB (which I happen to share, but...) POV and unfounded. The connection seems absurdly weak and tenuous; for decades if not centuries politicians all the world over have been speaking of peace while waging or preparing war, and assuring the populace that it is a just war to bring a better tomorrow for everybody (in my country, we have rich experience with "fighting for peace").

So, first of all, I don't think the speech was particularly paradoxical, let alone "[[Orwellian]" - although I don't follow the US media; if MLPX can provide links of other commentators noting this, he has a case in point.

Secondly, even if the speech was meant to explicitly refer to FDR's Four Freedoms, I think that the mediated connection to 1984 is too loose and willed for an encyclopedia.

Thirdly and most importantly, even if the section had a place in the article, it's certainly not squat in the middle of the section "The World of 1984". Move it down among late references, if it must be kept (and I agree with Alavery7 that it concerns more the speech than the novel so it should be better moved there).

--Malyctenar 12:17, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

"if MLPX can provide links of other commentators noting this, he has a case in point" – that would seem to be the key point here, since one of the rules here is (to my disappointment) "no original insights". Notinasnaid 12:58, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Let's get this focused, I did not write the speech or deliver the speech, but the speech drew SPECIFIC reference to the third and fourth of the four freedoms and I did not write or deliver that speech either and nor is my name Eric Blair (George Orwell). If Alavery7 who raised this issue had bothered to read the REST of the article then it would become obvious that using the SAME critique a LOT of other stuff would have to be torn from the article as being EXTREMELY obscure.

Now notice this: I have NOT deleted anything from anyone but Alavery7 who does not identify himself/herself on his/her own page came straight here and without a blink DELETED the orginal text with a two-line "so there!" type of comment. When I rewrote the text Alavery7 came back with a comment that to delete this was going to be harder than he/she thought. So this is not the intervention of a contributor but of a one-track deletionist who seems to be stressing a party line POV. If this was not so then the same standards would have been applied by Alavery7 totally critique the rest of the article. That did not happen - this is a case of embarressment by Orwell (ROTFL).

However, because I want to see how far someone wants to go in trying to ram a party POV on to this article (ROTFL because this topic is about ORWELL and Nineteen Eighty Four: "... the Party can reach down and say that this or that event never happened ..." = in other words "the President never said that"); I WILL NOW remove the paragraph from its original and logical place within the article and move it to join other analysis comments below and add a further rewrite. As for the comments about other sources, etc., I am sure that I can find some talking heads somewhere saying the same thing (just give me some time to do so) ... BUT if I do ... then ALL of the OTHER comments must use this same standard ... or it will become very obvious to all concerned that the objections are indeed party political (more ROTFL!) MPLX/MH 15:52, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

A few things: I'm new and have very little ego, so thus have not made my talk page as robust as yours. I shall try and correct this. Secondly, I happen to agree with your POV and am a registered Democrat, so quit making this a personal attack - calling me a one-track deletionist seems fairly aggressive. Thirdly, my comment that this was going to be harder than i thought referred to contributing to the project by cleaning up unnecessary additions - and that is what the section in question is. Fourth, we are directed to be bold in editing - thats what I did. Once you reverted and opened a discussion, it has been left untouched. For now. Finally, quit pointing out the rest of the examples and lets focus on this one - it has caused discussion enough and I'd like to reach consensus on this before working further on the article. My point is and always has been that, while this is a useful observation, THIS ARTICLE is not the place for it. Your insight bears on the inauguration address, not the novel. A reader learns nothing new about the novel because of the address, but rather may learn new information about the ADDRESS in light of the NOVEL. Now if you'll excuse me, I apparently need to start gathering vanity info for my user page. Alavery7 16:53, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Now let's play fair here. I only responded to your BOLD move of deleting text without any real explanation or other contribution or even knowledge of who you are. You appear to have similiar interests to my own (more ROTFL). That answers your two points.

Your third point - I am not a mind reader. I can only see what you did and read what you said. It is no attack to state: write what you mean and mean what you write. Otherwise I will wander around with a question mark sticking out of the top of my brain.

3a. I have a sense of humor and I have learned that you cannot possess any words on Wikipedia because as the warning says: work may be deleted or screwed up by others in a heartbeat. Hint, hint. More ROTFL.

Your statement = "Finally, quit pointing out the rest of the examples and lets focus on this one ..." Well, no. As you can see I have now rewritten it a third time and placed it in with similar and related text. Now if you want to make this article "All Orwell all of the time" with NO examples from anywhere except for renditions of Orwell and a synopsis of Orwell, well, okay. I will go along with that and I have my eraser ready to start deleting this article down to focussed facts. If YOU want to make this a POV attack on what I wrote in this one section, well that is another matter and I might have something else to add about that. MPLX/MH 19:14, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Orwellian Interpretation of the Four Freedoms

Hi- I have to agree that interpreting the remarks of modern politicians in an Orwellian vein is going to be a very very POV exercise. I also agree that a separate article about Bush's speech and Orwellian themes might be interesting. Either way, the treatment of modern politics and Orwell should be more evenhanded- Bush is promoting a philosophy of liberating people from tyrannical governments, and even if you think this is a "WAR IS PEACE" Orwellian inversion, it is clear in context that this is emphatically not in any way similar to an Oceanian viewpoint. Furthermore, it is ironic that Roosevelt actually believed more in the control of the state over the lives of the people, through an expanded welfare state, and Bush is promoting greater independence of the people from the government. Thus, trying to squeeze a "Bush=Oceania" interpretation over his remarks is a little suspect, in my OPINION.

I had proposed: Some have suggested the Bush doctrine of waging wars to bring domestic peace is an Orwellian reversal of intent, ie "War is Peace," however, President Bush's themes of promoting individual liberty and freedom from control of the State as well as waging wars to free others from totalitarian regimes make comparisons between Bush's views and those of the government of Oceania difficult to support. Ironically, when compared with Roosevelt's view of an expanding state and additional economic control over the citizenry, Bush's views and rhetoric can be interpreted to be less "Orwellian" than Roosevelt's.

But this is also pretty much hopelessly subjective.

Kaisershatner 16:38, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

In reply to Kaisershatner (to distinguish between these and earlier comments above), I suggest that we decide whether or not this is "all Orwell all of the time" or not. If it is then only a strict interpretation of Orwell's work will be acceptable. This means that all plays, recording, etc., must be about this novel and not some vague form of inspiration from it. It means that all references to the "Patriot Act", etc. must go. (I was not the author of that text.)

Now on the subject of Orwell's inspiration for his novel. If that goes then essentially all that is left is an Amazon.com style book review. Pretty useless and uninformative.

With regards to your comments on Bush and Roosevelt:

...the treatment of modern politics and Orwell should be more evenhanded- Bush is promoting a philosophy of liberating people from tyrannical governments, and even if you think this is a "WAR IS PEACE" Orwellian inversion, it is clear in context that this is emphatically not in any way similar to an Oceanian viewpoint.

Well, Eisenhower warned of the Industrial/Military/Complex and this seems to me what we now have. The peace is earned by a war industry and it is the military economy which is driving things today. Furthermore no one is liberating people from tyrannical governments only from tyrannical governments that we don't like for some reason. Hence Sudan and much of Africa are wallowing in genocide and America doesn't give a hoot. Well, not enough to run TV specials, send troops and aid and comfort. Wal-Mart loves China and the US does too, even though it has a tyrannical government that sent its tanks rolling over brave kids on bikes who fell in love with the Statue of Liberty and all that it means. India? Outsourcing and child labor. Thailand? A land where child sex businesses have thrived. So as to your comment, my answer is "I don't think so.". Then you added:

Furthermore, it is ironic that Roosevelt actually believed more in the control of the state over the lives of the people, through an expanded welfare state, and Bush is promoting greater independence of the people from the government.

The fact is that everyone loves what this man finally achieved and no one is trying to destroy it! Roosevelt did wage war on tyranny and it did pay off. The military then downsized for a time and GIs came home to education, new homes and the boom that was the glory days of the USA as portrayed in the ads shown in old National Geographic magazines. You can also look at the beginning of Roosevelt and declare that the man tried to copy the Italian model of fascism before it lost its luster and teamed up with Hitler which caused it to vanish from the front cover of TIME and Fortune magazines. But all of that is another story.

Right now the question is this. Do we cut this Orwell article back to sources of inspiration for the novel, reflections on the novel and cite only plays and recordings which are actually based upon the novel. In other words show the inpiration for the novel but leave out ANY interpretation of what a reader might make of the novel and let the reader alone interpret it. I will go along with that. MPLX/MH 19:14, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I agree with this suggestion, although I would not want this to exclude critical interpretation of the novel that does not point to events post-publication that seem "Orwellian". Literary analysis is worthwhile and valuable to the reader seeking to learn more about the book. Drawing paralells with other, more recent events would be best placed in other articles. Alavery7 19:41, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

MPLX: I think we should leave interpretation to the reader. Best for NPOV. Also, see Sam Spade (talk · contribs)comments below, "Orwell was right about alot of things, alot of regimes, in alot of places. If we want to start a list of things which "may" be orwellian, so be it, but Bush is certainly not so good an example as say... the USSR. 18:46, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC) - I agree we should delete the Patriot Act, Echelon, etc., or we'll just end up with a list of 500,000 political figures and laws. Kaisershatner 19:32, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

My position is not that we should remove all references that deal with works or subjects inspired by Nineteen Eighty-four. In fact, I'm fine with the page as it stands right now. My only point was that the section on the Inauguration Address as it stood added little to the discussion of the novel. It was much less 'catalog-y' than the other entries referenced, and it drew more paralells to the Four Freedoms speech than the primary subject of the article. Could we agree to have a new area - Orwellian Paralells in Political History, or some more workable title? Alavery7!

For the record I think that was an excellent passage about the 4 freedoms, and applaud it for its quality generally. It did however bring into question matters of bias, and article focus. The fact is it gave precious little insight into the book, and when all the wit and history was done, it mainly boiled down to singling Bush out for comparison to an archtype of evil. Its like discussing him in the satan, or (more realistically ;) redneck articles ;) Sam Spade (talk · contribs) 22:56, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

War is Peace

The first of Orwell's Big Brother Party slogans was WAR IS PEACE enforced by the "Ministry of Peace" (abbreviated to "MiniPax"). It was based upon a reversal in intent of President Roosevelt's 1941 speech which invoked "Freedom from Fear" to make wars of aggression impossible. During a period of George W. Bush made specific reference to freedom from fear in his Second Inaugural Address on January 20, 2005, recited the following paragrah:

"By making every citizen an agent of his or her own destiny, we will give our fellow Americans greater freedom from want and fear and make our society more prosperous and just and equal."

Freedom from fear was translated by President Roosevelt to mean a worldwide reduction in arms so that no nation would be in a position to commit an act of physical agresssion against any neighbor, anywhere in the world. Orwell turned this meaning on its head with the slogan that "War is Peace" and his "Ministry of Peace" claimed to bring peace through war. Since no explanation was offered for the inclusion of this specific reference within the dedicated and crafted inauguration speech delivered during a time of war, its context resounds of Orwell's slogan that "War is Peace". A state of emergency or perpetual war, as justification for domestic surveillance and limits on civil liberties, was and remains a common tactic of government, employed today in countries such as Burma. Some argue that it is parallelled by the United States' War on Terrorism, and related elements such as the Department of Homeland Security, the Information Awareness Office, and the USA PATRIOT Act.

The above is original research. If you can cite an expert witness who holds this view, mentioning that might be acceptable here. However, I will say that your point, while one amongst many compliments to orwell in his ability to prophecy is of precious little insight on the subject of his book. Orwell was right about alot of things, alot of regimes, in alot of places. If we want to start a list of things which "may" be orwellian, so be it, but Bush is certainly not so good an example as say... the USSR. Sam Spade (talk · contribs) 18:46, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I (Kaisershatner, not logged in) still object to what in my POV is a gratuitous inclusion of anti-Bush rhetoric in this article about Orwell's 1984. If we're looking for examples of a state of emergency or permananet war to justify civil liberties restrictions, start with Burma, but include Egypt, Poland, Cuba, Libya, China, Vietnam, Algeria, just for starters. If we're looking for examples from American history, put in that Lincoln suspended habeus corpus during the Civil War (is there a better example of cutting back civil rights during wartime?). The Bush inclusion is strained and out of place. It is the POV of the writer that this is "Orwellian." The speech for sure makes deliberate allusion to Roosevelt, but that belongs in an article about the speech, not an article about 1984. User:Kaisershatner (sig added by Sam Spade (talk · contribs) 14:31, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC))

I think most of us agree. Sam Spade (talk · contribs) 14:31, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Now this is getting messy

Sam Spade (talk · contribs)Welcome to the discussion but you have joined in late because you have lumped a lot of text together and you seem to be attributing it to me since I was part of the original discussion. However, I am NOT the author of a good chunk of the stuff recited above! I don't know if you have already removed the text and placed it here because I have not yet checked, but you seem to be jumping the gun to my own proposal in answer above. If so I will go along with that but we need to remove everything else as well. MPLX/MH 19:20, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It would appear that Sam Spade (talk · contribs) jumped in and made a removal and set the course. Using the same standard it is obvious that a lot more has to come out.MPLX/MH 19:27, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

FURTHER DISCUSSION

Using the same standards of editing I have attempted to prune the article so that it now reflects upon the work itself as a book, play and recording. It does not allow for interpretations of the novel by readers. It does allow for inspiration for the novel by Orwell. It also allows for a description of the novel itself.MPLX/MH 19:41, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

That is not acceptable

Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. Please reviw Wikipedia:Talk page as well, thank you. Sam Spade (talk · contribs) 19:56, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Please read the discussion above. You came in because another person asked you to take a look during on ongoing discussion regarding EXACTLY what has been done! I agreed with the idea providing that it was uniform. However, when you added your comments you decided that ONE person was the author of all of the material. That is not true. I had nothing whatsover to do with the comments about the Patriot Act. Now if we are to go along with the discussion in favor of removing all material that does not directly belong to the book, then we would see the removal - NOT DELETION - I do not delete the work of others - to this Talk page for further discussion. The disruption did not come from me. However, I have contributed a lot to other parts of the article but I am the type who is quite happy to walk away and let everyone get on with whatever they want to do. I don't delete, revert or engage in anything heated. MPLX/MH 20:08, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I am really puzzled at what'd going on here. I think the debate is getting unreasonably heated, while nobody really disagrees. Couldn't we all take a deep breath a start seeing this from an earlier point, for instance MPLX/MH's second proposal ? I haven't anyone rise prohibitive critics about it, so at most it will do with slight adaptations. I am really sure that we all are of good faith and might, at worse, harm other's pride by clumsiness; so please everybody stay cool and friendly, and see: it's only a matter of form, not of spirit.

Would anyone have a problem with putting MPLX/MH's second proposal on the table working from there ?

Oh, by the way, as tempting as Orwelian traits of Dubya's administration might be, I'm really afraid that this would soon become a target for anything close to a neo-con on Wikipedia; I don't know about you, but unless you are ready to be talk-paged to death, that seems a little bit futile to me ! :p

Cheers ! Rama 20:18, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I must admit that I find some sections of this article rather worrying — primarily those sections that go outside the novel and make political points by applying Orwell's fiction to modern events and tendencies. The section on modern euphemisms could probably do with complete excision (not on political so much as accuracy grounds; for example, the use of "wetlands" for "swamps", even in so far as that's a genuine case of replacement, simply doesn't even remotely count as an example of Newspeak).

I've just cut the last paragraph of that section, which used as a possible example of hate-speak-labelling the opposition to gay marriages. I started to correct all the grammatical problems with it (in fact my attention was initially caught by an apparent reference to marriages that were anti-gay!), but soon realised that it just wasn't acceptable. Given that just about any example, no matter how hedged about with caveats, would almost certainly be offensive to some, and given that it isn't in fact to do with Orwell's novel, but is an attempt to go beyond the novel, wouldn't removal of the complete section be in order? Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 23:57, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I think so. Now if there is an expert who can be cited, thats another story. But original research, particularly of the extreme POV variety, has no place here. Sam Spade (talk · contribs) 08:34, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

OK — I'll remove it. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:49, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

For Review

It would appear that the comments seem to favor the removal of text that is not about Orwell's inspiration for the book itself; a review of the book itself, or plays, recordings and broadcasts about the book itself. I will give this one more try and if someone jumps in without discussing the issues and starts issuing Orwellan decrees, I am out of here. So here is the first text for review: I say that these references do not belong in the article and should be permanently removed (they were originally under the heading of "Recordings".) What do others monitoring this article have to say? MPLX/MH 03:31, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Rock band Radiohead recorded a concept album titled OK Computer that is believed by some people to be based around the events in the book. Their later album Hail to the Thief contained the song "2+2=5", another allusion to the book. Rock singer Darais Kemp also is known for drawing inspiration from the book, with two of his songs ("Room 101" and "Two Minutes Hate") being explictly based on the novel.

The 1996 album Antichrist Superstar from the rock band Marilyn Manson features 1984-inspired imagery. In particular this is apparent in the names of three of the songs which, while not directly taken from the book can be seen as inspired by the focus on the name of the year and on the two-minute hate:

Irresponsible Hate Anthem; 1996; Minute Of Decay

The band Incubus makes references to the book in their song and video for "Talk Show on Mute" from their 2004 A Crow Left of the Murder album. The words "nineteen eighty-four" are apparent in the song, and the video portrays the band performing in front of a nationwide audience of animals with human characteristics (i.e. role reversal, more akin to Animal Farm).

Agree it should be deleted. I'd have no objection if the references were firmer, but a lot of it seems like guesswork on the part of the author, and it dwindles away into speculation about animals with human characteristics - oh, that must be Animal Farm. ;-) SlimVirgin 03:11, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)

"Use of Orwellian terminology" is (now) a misnomer - most of it isn't about language. I think the section should become a summary for Orwellian (linked in the Main article: style), and then discussion (in that article) of when people have said things are Orwellian (including Echelon etc) has a better chance of being NPOV than trying to describe here "things that remind people of the novel". Also the Media coverage section should distinguish (probably under better heading) adaptations and influenced works which are dark/satirical, and light "pop culture" references. Rd232 08:49, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I consider found those bits useful; certainly at least Kemp is a direct allusion to the book, and the others seem well-argued too. It is useful information; you may question whether it is placed right, but it shouldn't be deleted from Wkipedia altogether. --Malyctenar 11:03, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I was trying to limit this initial discussion to the recordings listed above. Now a debate has been started on other texts without reaching a conclusion on the recordings. If we use the standard of Rd232 and Malyctenar, then please tell me what POV was the reason for Sam removing the text that began this round? However, I also offered to compromise with an equal treatment proposition with which more than one user agreed. I suggested removal of all comments which were not about Blair's'Orwell's inspiration for the book; a synopsis of the book itself, or details about productions of the book as a play or as a recording. Others went along with that as well and I was in agreement with them. Now this discussion has gone back to being messy with a discussion not about the one item up for discussion but about other items that I originally wanted to discuss. Can we have a little organization here, please? Let's first of all address the recordings cited above and then move on - otherwise I am going to conclude that the person who waded in here from out of the blue to delete the first text had a real POV ax to grind! MPLX/MH 18:39, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)