|
This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: |
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. |
|
 B |
This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. |
| Mid |
This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. |
|
|
|
|
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Socialism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the socialist movement on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. |
|
| B |
This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. |
| Mid |
This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Nineteen Eighty-Four received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article. |
 |
A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day... section on June 8, 2004, June 8, 2005, June 8, 2006, June 8, 2008, June 8, 2009, and June 8, 2011. |
[edit] Horrendous spoiler in the first paragraph.
"The final few words of first paragraph practically give away the whole plot. I have deleted this and it should remain deleted. daithi81 (talk) 09:56, 15 June 2011 (GMT)
[edit] What is Saveca?
"Oceania (ideology: Ingsoc, i.e., English Socialism) comprises Great Britain, Ireland, Saveca, Australia, Polynesia, Southern Africa, and the Americas." What is Saveca? Londonclanger (talk) 12:58, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
- It may well be South Africa as 'Southern Africa' covers various smaller ex-UK Anglophone colonies in Africa and he may have thought he needed to include the largest one as a separate 'country'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.112.68.219 (talk) 21:25, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
-
- Sorry, unsigned, but George Orwell isn't Doctor Who, with a TARDIS to go forward and backward in time. He wrote, based upon what he KNEW either was extant or was probable. AIRSTRIP ONE is LONDON. Hence, NOT South Africa, unless the nation produces, in Orwell's time, a city named London.Wzrd1 (talk) 04:35, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
-
-
- Actually, I was replying to the initial poster's question RE "What is Saveca?" - THAT was what I presumed meant South Africa. Try saying "Saveca" quickly - Saaarvicka - see.
-
-
- I never even mentioned Airstrip One - which is England or Britain BTW, and not just London. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.4.57.101 (talk) 11:47, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
[edit] 1948 vs.1984
The article cites a source that says Orwell derived the title by inverting the year "1948". Do you know if it was ever published with that title, or placed in print, in any form whatsoever? Ol'Campy (talk) 18:47, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
[edit] Link to Censorship in Italy
I think the reference to Censorship in Italy is unjustified. Italy doesn't show up either in the article or the book and putting the link in the reference would suggest a connection between 1984's scenario and the current italian situation which, while far from perfect, doesn't deserve such a disrespectful treatment. It just seems that some hardcore berlusconi-opposer came here to point his disgust for berlusconi's government, which is often claimed to be a censoring despotic regime. I don't like mr. b. either, but the claim and that link are plain silly. --151.55.3.158 (talk) 22:20, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
[edit] Title 1984
It was Orwell's wish that the title should be written 1984, not in the more literate form. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.158.81.129 (talk) 15:07, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
- [citation needed] --Orange Mike | Talk 15:11, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
[edit] sources for literary motifs
I agree with the removal of the Insoc logo comment for two reasons. 1) The logo of the East German communist party dated from 1949, and the book was written a year earlier. 2) The book didn't have a logo (or any illustrations) for the Insoc party. The logo on the page is from a movie, made decades later. I believe that if Orwell had put a logo for the party, it probably would have been inspired by a communist party graphic. Perhaps the filmakers for the 1983 film were inspired by the German party logo, and a comment to that effect on a page about that movie would be good.--Hamlet 2010a 21:20, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
[edit] Unauthorized Sequel?
I have a dim memory of once seeing a paperback novel that was an unauthorized sequel to Nineteen Eighty-Four, in which Winston starts seeing angels and demons. Anybody know anything about this? --Mightyfastpig (talk) 23:20, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
- I have not heard about that, but it does not sound like it would be suitable to be in this or any article. – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 02:46, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
- Why not? If it actually is a published book then it definitly should be referenced somewhere in Wikipedia and this article would in that case be as good as any. Threadnecromancer (talk) 01:31, 8 February 2012 (UTC)Threadnecromancer
- I would consider a published sequel to be a derived work; worthy of at least one sentence. Such a book does exist. <spamlink to bookseller website redacted> Hamlet 2010a 01:59, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
-
- It's called Orwell's Revenge: The 1984 Palimpsest by Peter Huber, and was published in 1994. --Orange Mike | Talk 02:43, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
To-do list for Nineteen Eighty-Four:
