Talk:Nineteen Eighty-Four

Archives
2002 – 2004 January 2005 January 2005 - February 2006 Freedoms Parody Discusstion (Jan. 2005) February 2006 - May 2006 June 2006 - December 2006 2007

Project subpages
Sources

"Nineteen Eighty-four" or "1984"?

I believe the correct title of the book is "1984." It is very difficult to persuade copy editors and proofreaders to begin a sentence with a number that is not spelled out, and I believe this is why "Nineteen Eighty-four" often appears. But I believe I have read that Orwell himself was emphatic that the title should correctly be written as "1984." I cannot cite a source for this however. 96.232.28.15 (talk) 04:38, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I have never seen a copy of the book available with the title as "1984", infact, I'm rather sure the original presses were titled as "Nineteen Eighty-Four" too.. 80.6.152.186 (talk) 02:04, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Map Innacurate

Jus would like to point out the map shows Northern India and Pakistan, upto Iraq part of EastAsia, although I distintcly remember that in the book, the Oceanians were fighting the Eurasians at the Malabar Coast. Also, most of that area is disputed territory anyway. Orwells mentioning of that comes after Indian Independence and Chinese communist takeover, indicating that Britain was trying to re-capture its Empire. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yjvyas (talk • contribs) 09:35, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Nineteen Fourty-Nine

Although this is a typical start of an article about a book, phrase Nineteen Eighty-Four (1949) still looks odd.

77.122.214.181 (talk) 19:07, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I think that's because Orwell probably did most of the work on the book during 1948 (though publication occurred in 1949) and so the shift of '48' to '84' was meant as a pun similar to 'war is peace,' 'freedom is slavery' and the like. People should be able to tell which is the title and which the publication year in "Nineteen Eighty-Four )1949)" without much trouble. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.69.137.21 (talk) 01:16, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Oceania's currency is the Dollar?

In the article it says 'Oceania is a metamorphosed future British Empire that geographically includes the United States, and whose currency is the dollar.' but I'm pretty certain the book says the main currency is the 'dollarpound'. Could someone check this for me? the line needs editing if I'm right about this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.11.97.150 (talk) 13:21, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

In the part where Winston buys the coral paperweight, Mr. Charrington states "...if it so happened that you wanted to buy it, that'd cost you four dollars. I can remember when a thing like that would have fetched eight pounds, and eight pounds was- well, I can't work it out, but it was a lot of money..." I think we can say that the currency is the dollar. --Kroova (talk) 02:12, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

the store owner also talks about way back when they used to use pounds, so i would assume that the pound has been phased out. 70.66.248.41 (talk) 22:50, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Possibility of change

In my oppinion this part of the article should be deleted, its all personal assumption.

"It should be noted that the Appendix to the novel, regarding Newspeak, refers to Ingsoc and Oceania strictly in the past tense, this may imply that the Party will eventually be overthrown at some future point."

These articles should be based on facts, not logical guesses.Sirkad 00:40, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. I think that the author is stating, in the body of the article, the larger consensus of opinion, and then is wisely adding, at the end, the caveat that some interpreters who read the novel attach weight to the Appendix's being in the past tense. How you read the article depends on *what weight* you give the Appendix. (The Appendix is a fact, but different interpreters pay differing amounts of attention to it; it is good that the article includes the possibility that paying attention to the Appendix is something that some people do.) ("Logical guesses" and "original research" are of course issues here; and I may be biased because I am in the process of publishing an article where I take the Appendix to "imply that the Party" has been overthrown at some future point.) Jmwturner (talk) 06:15, 30 November 2007 (UTC)jumwturner

It's an appendix, not an epilogue, you do know the difference don't you? Still, enough people seem to have made that guess in reliable sources for it to be mentioned. Robin Johnson (talk) 08:29, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

A more fundamental criticism might be that tense - past or present does not always imply actuality. Authors often use past tense to refer to things in a different level, for instance talking about the 'writing' of 1984. Rereading the appendix it does seem rather a subtle use, and since it is outside the scope of the book itself it is ultimately written from the perspective of the time. In other words it is looking into the future looking back into the past, a common place for science fiction authors or futurologists. As one such it does not seem to imply to me which way 1984's history goes, in fact if Ingsoc survives(ed) more than a few years after 1984 then Newspeak will be complete anyway. (which really seems to be the whole point of the book anyway, a particular irony given today's world.) Lucien86 (talk) 03:51, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Orwell doesn't use the phrase "Eternal War"

I've changed the title of the Military Conflict infobox to "Perpetual War", because Orwell uses "perpetual" in this context.[1]

• "... perpetually working, fighting, triumphing, persecuting ..."
• "... perpetual peace ..."

--Jtir (talk) 21:40, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

And the term matches the Further information: link in the adjacent text. --Jtir (talk) 21:42, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Review?

Would someone possibly review this article again? It seems as thought it may be up to a higher status (was there a previous one?). --Μ79_Šp€çíá∫횆^{tell me about it} 02:35, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

sources re censorship of 1984 (novel)

I removed two sources concerning censorship — one was a dead link, and the other was unreliable and irrelevant. Now, the remaining source doesn't support the claim, so I have tagged it with {{failed verification}}. Here is a start at restoring some sourcing on this subject:

• A Censorship History - 1984

The author cites these books:

• Karolides, Nicholas J., and Lee Burress. Celebrating Censored Books. Racine, Wis: Wisconsin Council of Teachers of English, 1985. (WorldCat)
• Nelson, Jack, and Gene Roberts. The Censors and the Schools. Boston: Little, Brown, 1963. (WorldCat)

This source, from We (novel), mentions 1984 as being banned in the USSR until 1988.

• Tall, Emily (1990). "Behind the Scenes: How Ulysses was Finally Published in the Soviet Union". Slavic Review. 49 (2): 183–199. {{cite journal}}: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |quotes= and |coauthors= (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)

--Jtir (talk) 17:11, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I narrowed and clarified the lead on the subject ("challenged" is not the same as "banned"). So far the sources only support claims about the US and the USSR. The reason for 1984 being banned in the USSR is not at all sourced. The FL case is weakly sourced, because the author of the site does not give his sources for his discussion of it, but since he does cite sources earlier, I regard him as fairly reliable. The FL case must have been covered in news articles, which would be ideal sources for this topic. --Jtir (talk) 21:34, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Unknown Sentence Fragment?

It would appear that the following is a sentence fragment:

"Later, when approached by Inner Party member O'Brien, he believes that contact with The Brotherhood, opponents of the Party."

I'm not sure what the editor was trying to say and it would seem this line should be adjusted. Adiamas (talk) 18:37, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

History given - even Goldstein's book - not for certain *the* history

It seems to me that, since Winston Smith was given Goldstein's "book" as a trick, by a person who was actually with the Party, that it should possibly be mentioned that it is not certain that even Goldstein's book is an accurate history of the world. For all we know, in the world of 1984, Airstrip One could be the only totalitarian country, a la North Korea, and they could be telling every one of their citizens a lie. Granted, Orwell probably said somewhere that it was supposed to be world domination... Then again, as I say, that's mostly speculation, anyway, so perhaps that's not reallysomething to go into at length, but a sentence of text stating that might be best, I think, if only because the Party might easily be lying to Winston.

I agree... All these maps illustrating the course of the war, listing the combatants, etc. are relatively inconsequential. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.105.235.180 (talk) 23:12, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

It certainly seems to imply it, it would be totally logical that Oceania would be the only dictatorship. They wouldn't say anything positive about their enemies whatever, and if they were politically very similar wouldn't there be far less reason for the war?. Another possibility is that the whole war is in fact fake and is only there to help control the people and distract them from the real problems. The Soviet regimes certainly did things like that, a lot believe that terrorism serves the same function for us today. In fact it is an implied part of Newspeak that truth is only what the party says and that 'real' truth is irrelevant. An idea that certainly British politicians still follow even today. (I suddenly seem to find a lot of humor in what seems such a grim doomladen book, and a joke you can only really understand if you understand British politics.) Lucien86 (talk) 04:24, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Not to mention O'Brien claims he co-wrote 'the book', which strangely evades being mentioned in this article. ('You have read it?' 'I wrote it. That is to say, I collaborated in writing it. No book is produced individually, as you know.' (Part III, chapter II, page 274) BUT: The book is banned, even if co-written by an inner party member. Why would the party edit the foreign affair section of the book, and then leave in the notion that the only way Ocenia would fall is by a prole rebellion, which is most likely to be considered a very serious thought crime? (Same page as before, O'Brian confirms Winston's suspicion that that is in fact the final conclusion of the book) Needless to say, that's some very unlikely and headless editing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.150.226.225 (talk) 03:17, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

how do we ecen know that a world exists beyond England, we know that somewhere along the line nukes where dropped, for all we know, Lond is the last city on earth, and everything else is a lie, to protect the poeple from fear/anarchy.71.61.80.119 (talk) 15:08, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

It is Presumably 1984

am i right by saying that Winston presumes it is 1984? or was he actually definite on saying it was 1984? 03.23.2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Orwell Bradburyreader (talk • contribs) 23:59, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

On page 10 of my copy of 1984 it states "To mark the paper was the decisive act. in small clumsy letters he wrote: April 4th, 1984. He sat back. A sense of complete helplessness had decended upon him. To begin with, he did not know with any certainty that this was 1984. It must be around that date, since he was fairly sure that his age was thirty-nine, and he believed that he was born in 1944 or 1945; but it was never possible nowadays to pin down any date within a year or two." The year is stated to be 'approximately' 1984, but it is irrelevent to the story, since in 2024, the world could resemble the world in "1984." Rusober (talk) 02:41, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

• "in 2024, the world could resemble the world in '1984.'" Uh, would explain that assertion, please? --Jason Palpatine (talk) 08:01, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

okay, pardon the bad formatting, (I think) he means that orwell's "prediction" for the lack of a better word may actually be coming true. i don't disagree with txting, but as you can see it is starting to resemble newspeak in a way. there are may other examples of this type of thing but i don't have any at the top of my head. if you think about it orwell is creepily accurate in his future visions. not exactly, but close enough.

Julia's Last Name

I have attempted to find the last name of Julia, one of the main characters, and i have not had much success thus far, if anyone knows the last name, it would be informative.Rusober (talk) 02:43, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi Rusober! I doubt that you will ever find her last name. After reading the book myself, I am currently writing an 8-page report about it, have not discovered a last name. I am pretty sure that there was no last name mentioned. Take care Maarten,dutch (talk) 19:06, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

The result was no merge. Catchpole (talk) 11:11, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

• • Julia's last name is never given in the novel. --Jason Palpatine (talk) 08:02, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Merge Suggestion

Hey folks, the [WInston Smith]] article was raised in a debate reagrding ficiton and deltion and, on taking a look, I was surprised at how truly poor the article is. It reads like a blend of HS student essay & Cliff Notes. I have done a search through some of the scholarly literature. Here's the link but you will need a JSTOR account or the like to read the individual articles, many of which are quite interesting. I note however, that most of the discussion focuses on Winston Smith more or less in passing, so I wonder if it would not be better to merge the character page into this main article, and then marshal some of the academic literature into an informative package on him that notes the main themes and leitmotifs. If the character section gets too long, we can then spin it back to its own, properly sourced and referenced page. Thoughts? Eusebeus (talk) 16:49, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose I see no reason to merge the Winston Smith article (or any other article in Category:Nineteen Eighty-Four characters) into the Nineteen Eighty-Four article. If a reader searches for Winston Smith, they want to read about Winston Smith. If a reader searches for Winston Smith but wants to learn about the novel 1984, there are plenty of links in the Winston Smith article to Nineteen Eighty-Four. If a reader searches for Emmanuel Goldstein, they want to read about Emmanuel Goldstein (or possibly Eric Gordon Corley). Why should someone on dialup have to load the entire Nineteen Eighty-Four article if they just want to read about Winston Smith? --Pixelface (talk) 02:50, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
• And the Nineteen Eighty-Four article is already big enough as it is. The articles Winston Smith, Julia, Big Brother, O'Brien, and Emmanuel Goldstein are all too long to merge. They're already spunout. --Pixelface (talk) 02:55, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
• Merge to a "List of Characters in Nineteen Eighty-Four" since main article is too long The only character that should get an article based on what I see and what I'd expect would be Big Brother; all the others basically reiterate the plot 5 or 6 times over. --MASEM 14:51, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose. One could easily write a proper character analysis on Winston Smith. Plenty of sources. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 01:36, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
• Don't merge I just sifted through google books and found some good stuff. Wrad (talk) 02:15, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose - no reason to merge - however there is plenty of reasons to improve. I you have these references the best way to "save" the article is to add them and also while you are at it if you can provide more "real world critical comment, review and analysis. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 11:13, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose - again no reason to merge, as the nominator has indicated, there is a wealth of scholarly literature about this central character to a highly significant novel. Expand in situ. Benea (talk) 13:57, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Illegal journal?

I'm reading this book for my British Lit class, and, although a subtle difference, I would say it is a difference anyway. According to the "Plot" subsection: "...Victory-brand gin. He is discontented, and keeps an illegal journal of dissenting, negative thoughts ..." According to the book's text: "The thing that he was about to do was to open a diary. This was not illegal (nothing was illegal, since there were no longer any laws), but if detected it was reasonably certain that it would be punished by death, or at least by twenty-five years in a forced-labour camp." (In my edition, it is page 6, Signet Classics, ISBN: 0-451-52493-4) Should the page be edited to reflect this, or is it not major enough? Tails0600 (talk) 22:44, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me that Orwell is being typically ironic here. "Nothing was illegal," and yet a man could be put to death for keeping a journal. I took it as a mockery of the "free" societies of the west who tightly control the flow of information. 67.84.71.28 (talk) 10:28, 17 May 2008 (UTC)TremorMilo (sorry not logged in)

The journal was 'illegal.' The thought police were a body of people that upheld the strict law set by the 'never seen' big brother... The whole concept of 'thought crime' alone suggests there is social norms that must be acted upon and faliure to do so would result in punishment. The negative thoughts were against the society in which Winston lived in, and hence commiting them to paper would have been a thought crime. Also, the punishment by death is to much of a shallow insight, the punishment of anything was 'room 101'... An example of how all human fear can be exploited into conformity. The death of the person would come when they conformed to the ideals of 'Big Brother' were upheld, so they weren't killed for thought crime they were killed upon understanding. The journal was also illegal on the basis that it was brought in a 'parole' area and it is also a symbol of the past. "He who controls the past controls the future, he who controls the future controls the past." (A very bad paraphrase there, please do excuse.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Femalegeek (talk • contribs) 17:18, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Alright, thanks for the explanation, it struck me as odd while reading the book, so I didn't know if it was or wasn't legal. I appreciate the explanation! :) Tails0600 (talk) 02:54, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

A real howler

...the main alcoholic beverage — Victory Gin — is industrial-grade... How can gin be industrial-grade? Is there some gin-lubricated machinery I'm not aware of? --Glengarry (talk) 19:36, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

That is just figurative language used to describe te fact that it is of poor quality and would be the equivalant of any industrial-grade gin. MattW93 (talk) 21:47, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

What about the US Congress?

With a two-thirds majority in the House and Senate and an atmosphere of war hysteria, establishing a dictatorship in a nuclear-damaged USA probably wouldn't be too hard.. Indeed, given that the US was totally dominant worldwide from 1945-50, it probably would have ended up as the main target in the first strike, as it were.

Nuclear War

If there was a nuclear war between Eurasia and Oceania, why wasn't London destroyed in the fighting? I think Eurasia planned to occupy Airstrip One after the war, but were unable to take it from the formerly American troops stationed there. MattW93 (talk) 21:50, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Not necessarily a contradiction. Hiroshima still exists, why couldn't they have rebuilt London - or at least, kept using it as a city?

You've also got to remember that no one completely understood the scope and power of nuclear armament yet - to many people, it was just a really big bomb, not a doomsday machine that could end humanity. Orwell probably assumed that even in Britain was nuked a few times, life would go on. (Nukes at the time would still have been relatively weak compared to those we have today, and there wouldn't have been all that many, so he could be right). 147.9.177.22 (talk) 05:10, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

According to the book Colchester was destroyed in a nuclear blast, so at least one atom bomb was dropped on Britain-TashkentFox —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.17.219.182 (talk) 10:25, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Real-life Controversies

I cut this, it seemed odd to point to one incident when others exist: Controversy In 1981, Jackson County, Florida challenged the novel on the grounds that it contained pro-communist material and sexual references. [2], [3] 68.50.106.66 02:45, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Ironic, I'd say. The Baptist preacher was a walking billboard for why people should read the book. 147.9.177.22 (talk) 05:10, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Confusing sentence

(psst! Just realised comments should go at the bottom... d'oh! I've moved my comment to the right place. Don't tell anyone, I think I got away with it!) She'sGotSpies (talk) 18:29, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Hiya, forgive any indiscretions but I am new to this!

Just changed some wording that seemed to suggest the novel itself was a dystopia rather than a representation of a dystopia. Don't think that paragraph is perfect but thought I'd try and make it a little less awkward. Utterly confused about the first sentence though; "George Orwell, who had "encapsulate[d] the thesis at the heart of his novel" in 1944." No idea what that is referring to? Also, as it is a quote should it not have a citation of some sort?

At the bottom of that paragraph it also remarks that We is considered to be its primary influence and yet in that article it quotes Orwell as stating pretty definitively that We influenced Nineteen Eighty-Four. Don't know if this should be changed to reflect this.

Thanks! She'sGotSpies (talk) 23:21, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Question

Is "Living standards" a character? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.247.27.77 (talk) 22:24, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Proposal for merge

The "Thought police" article should be merged into Nineteen Eighty-Four. I do not believe that it is notable enough to be a stand-alone. Prowikipedians (talk) 05:17, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I disagree, I think that the dissemination of "thought police" in popular culture and collective knowledge as well as the concept of it warrants an individual article. If the article isn't good enough, it should be expanded, but I think that it itself is definitely 'notable' enough. Kuralyov (talk) 03:22, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Also disagree; a few of the other 1984 stubs could be merged, though. · AndonicO ^Engage. 13:29, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I disagree as well. Just like thoughtcrime, I think it's notable enough. --Alexc3 ^(talk)

An alternate suggestion, split the topic. Put the Orwell reference with Nineteen Eighty Four, and place the popular cultural idea of "Thought Police" here. I hope that our own "Thought Police" don't remove my edit... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.154.218.186 (talk) 16:01, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

The Last Man in Europe

Under the title heading it states that the original title was "The Last Man In Europe", and then states that his reasoning is unknown. To begin with, the sentence is unclear, so I don't know what exactly the author is referring to. However, if it is referring to "The Last Man in Europe", does it not harken to O'Brien's statement to Winston in the Ministry of Love, "If you are a man, Winston, you are the last man." This is just my take on it, but I think a lot of people would agree that the original title would have been a reference to that line. Or am I mistaken? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Writergeek7 (talk • contribs) 21:19, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion. When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the edit this page link at the top. The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes — they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). Stifle (talk) 19:52, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Webcomic of 1984

I found out about this http://1984comic.com/

Since this is a straight-up derivative of 1984, can it be linked from the EL section, or should I find references that it is talked about in newspapers first before linking to it? WhisperToMe (talk) 05:08, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

As a manual

Can we get a section noting the books use as a manual by the UK and US governments? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.231.137.138 (talk) 14:04, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion. When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the edit this page link at the top. The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes — they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). Stifle (talk) 11:18, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Merger

I propose Room 101 be merged here as it is and cannot be much more than a couple of paragraphs. Stifle (talk) 11:17, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Don't merge. I think its fine as it is.92.1.85.210 (talk) 18:52, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Don't merge. It's fine as a daughter article and has sufficient well-referenced social impact in itself. Merging it with this article would make an already long article unecessarily long. Let's make full use of Wikipedia's great wikilinks to make reading screens easier.--Technopat (talk) 21:10, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Don't merge. It has enough meaning as itself to not be merged. --Kroova (talk) 02:20, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Don't merge for the reasons stated above. Kuralyov (talk) 05:27, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

N Proposal failed. There is clearly no consensus for such a merger. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:49, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

World War I

In the Influences section I’d added a reference to the World War I satire  1920: Dips into the Near Future.  Someone immediately torpedoed it, perhaps for good reason. Here's an improved addition, which follows a mention of WWII:

The world of 1984 also parallels, or parodies, life during the First World War as well as the Second. Just how oppressive the British government became during the earlier war can be judged from a satire of the time which Eric Blair may even have read while at Eton, 1920: Dips into the Near Future, published in 1917. (footnote) Though Orwell may never have read it, it shares some themes with 1984, parallels which ultimately come from the common experience of both authors if not from one reading the other. 1920 exaggerates actual government oppression during World War I, and if not a literary influence on Orwell, it still reveals what undoubtedly was an influence on him in the real world. (footnote) Onlinetexts (talk) 07:47, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I undid this addition after discovering that someone previously had removed the reference (footnotes) section. Will add it again when this is fixed. Onlinetexts (talk) 09:50, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Removed common misconception

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

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

Julia and Winston do NOT meet in the Chestnut Tree Cafe

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

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

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

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

Jews and 1984

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

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

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

Similar works?

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

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

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

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

Tea break over 'n' back on me 'ead. Being bold - removed "similar works"

As per the above suggestion, have removed the following "similar works" until someone is prepared to take the time to reference such "similarity": Similar works

• 2112, a song by Rush
• "Anthem", a novel by Ayn Rand
• Animal Farm, another novel by George Orwell
• Big Brother Awards
• Blind Faith, a novel by Ben Elton
• Brave New World, a novel by Aldous Huxley
• Brazil, a film by Terry Gilliam starring Jonathan Pryce
• Diamond Dogs, an album by musician David Bowie
• Equilibrium, a science fiction film starring Christian Bale
• Fahrenheit 451, a novel by Ray Bradbury
• Kallocain, a novel by Karin Boye.
• One, a novel by David Karp
• The Protomen, an album by the group The Protomen
• THX 1138, a film by George Lucas starring Robert Duvall
• V for Vendetta, a graphic novel by Alan Moore and David Lloyd
• We, a novel by Yevgeny Zamyatin
• Little Brother, a novel by Chris Doctorow

Derivative concepts and works

• 1984, a television commercial for the Apple Macintosh
• 1984, an album by Rick Wakeman
• 1985, a novel by Anthony Burgess
• Chain of Command, an episode of Star Trek: The Next Generation
• Nineteen-Forty-Eightish, a song by Roy Harper and Jimmy Page dedicated to 1984
• Undenk
• The Unreals, a novel by Donald Jeffries
• Diamond Dogs, a concept album by David Bowie, which features songs with such titles as 'We Are The Dead', '1984' and 'Big Brother'

Among other non-encyclopedic considerations and issues the setion has, the fact that an album contains a song with such-and-such title doesn't mean it is "similar" to Orwell's book. Loosely influenced by, possibly, but if so, reference it. --Technopat (talk) 15:50, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Completely agree with this deletion. This section should never have appeared - works inspired by of "Allusions from other works" might be better - but as you say always supported by referencing. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 16:15, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

Half Life 2 deserves a spot in Similar Works.

I really think the video game Half Life 2 by Valve deserves mention in this article. The storyline is extremely similar to that of 1984 in that the main character is a relatively unimportant person on a quest to free humanity from an oppressive government. The inclusion of the Combine is necessary for gameplay and to establish the setting, but other than that, everything is quite similar. Please do not disagree because of a bias against the medium HL2 is delivered in. Video games are just as capable of telling a compelling story or giving a stern warning as novels are.

You forgot to sign that comment. I entirely agree with this, there are rather large similarities between 1984 and Half Life 2. Most notably, the thought policing enforced by the Combine. 80.6.152.186 (talk) 02:11, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

There are some remote similarities in that both take place in a totalitarian setting, but the similarities end there. The storylines are completely different and have almost nothing in common, and there's nothing Freeman and Smith have in common (they're practically complete opposites). Considering the Eastern-European setting of the game, the totalitarian theme was probably more influenced by its Soviet history than this book. Sbw01f (talk) 03:46, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

The Theme of Reality

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

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

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

handy new source

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

Cyperpunk-ish.

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

Pair of Books?

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

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

ISBN?

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

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

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

metaphoric bullet?

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

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

Amazon's withdrawal of the Kindle version

An (apparently unauthorized) electronic version of the book was sold by Amazon. It was then pulled, with refunds issued to purchasers.[4] The current source is a column in the NY Times. Have other news sources reported on the issue? This is likely deserving of a paragraph in the Copyright section. —C.Fred (talk) 19:38, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Copyright Status

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

Futurology

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

What does this mean?

The first sentence in the section "Plot":

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

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