Talk:Two Minutes Hate

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
WikiProject Novels (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Novels, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to novels, novellas, novelettes and short stories on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit one of the articles mentioned below, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Untitled[edit]

This text was included on the main page:

Orwell may have been influenced by the Guy Fawkes night holiday in British culture, in which people burn effigies of purported national enemies — historically Guy Fawkes, but today others can be used (in recent years figures have included Osama bin Laden and George W. Bush).

I would like to see some evidence of this, as it strikes me as completely unfounded and made up - where is the 'link' between Guy Fawkes Night and a '2 minute hate' ?

Highly unlikely, and probably written by an American. Guy Fawkes' certainly wasn't a new thing at the time Orwell was writing. Can't say I remember any concept of burning Bush outside of Exodus.

Isn't it Two Minute Hate?--Acebrock 19:11, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Just checked my copy of Nineteen Eighty-Four. It's "Minutes," plural. Hbackman 22:54, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Merging[edit]

The article is pointlessly short, and mostly composed of recapitulation of what is said in the Goldstein (which is the only that links it) or 1984 entry; it should be merged. --Malyctenar 12:04, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I for one was glad this article was here so i could direct someone easily to the reference instead of having them search through a longer article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Youdontsmellbad (talkcontribs)

In case anyone else raises the issue, I agree with the "glad this article was here" point. It's a useful article in its own right. JohnHarris (talk) 13:43, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Remembrance Day[edit]

I find it hard to see the proposed link between Remembrance Day's two minute silence and the Two Minute Hate speech. One is a poignant reminder of those who lost their lives in wars and how grateful we are to them to be alive and free, and the other is propaganda to brain-wash people into hating Goldstein. Ridiculous. Whoever wrote that needs his head checked out, because he's seeing hate everywhere.

Deleted relevant section.

Although it could of course be argued that the two minutes silence to remember the hundreds of thousands of dead is pathetic and irrelevant and mocks the hundreds of thousands who died -two minutes for thousands of lives. Some anti-war people say that glorifying the dead is not right whatever the reason -I disagree, but its possible because 1984 deals with anger and the evil of war, yet in reality positive things do come from war -of course 1984 is a dystopian novel so it can be idealistic.

I never made the connection between the Two Minutes' of Hate and Silence until I read your comment. Now that I have, I can't imagine that the link could've been anything other than intentional. It fits completely with the Orwell's expositon of the true horror of everyday life in 1984. It is exactly those thing you associate with the Silence that Orwell warps to darkly ironic effect. The Haters are being brainwashed to see exactly what you describe - hate everywhere. --81.159.161.115 (talk) 22:28, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

The Wal-Mart Cheer is essentially a two-minute hate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.163.106.71 (talk) 17:25, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Minutes' or Minutes?[edit]

The article currently uses the appellation Two Minutes' Hate, but my copy of the novel omits the apostrophe: Two Minutes Hate. Intuitively, the apostrophe seems correct, but also appears to contradict most print versions. I checked two other printings using Google Books and neither used an apostrophe. Clarification?--195.113.90.23 (talk) 22:27, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree, the apostrophe seems to be grammatically correct; but it is not present in the novel, so we have to stick to the title version. I have made the appropriate changes. – Richard BB 14:18, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Section - use of orwells concept[edit]

The source cited for this section is a BBC opinion column which itself cites one individual's opinion: "In 2012, regional TV boss Vadim Vostrov wrote a blog post in which he said that Rossiya 1's attacks on the liberal opposition reminded him of the "two minutes of hate" in George Orwell's 1984"

I submit that this reference falls below Wikidepia's standard for relevance and objectivity. Accordingly, I propose to remove it.50.100.29.3 (talk) 13:53, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

To be honest, I'm on the fence as to whether it is WP:UNDUE as, in the context of brevity of this article, it does stand out as being an attempt to make a point (i.e., WP:TROJAN / WP:COATRACK). Nevertheless, I've restored this content for the moment until some form of discussion as to developing the article further has taken place.
I haven't started looking into analogous examples involving the media in other nation-states, but am certain that there is room for developing this article further into the application if deemed appropriate.
By the same token, I'm unconvinced as to this even meeting WP:GNG as a stand-alone article, and am open to further discussion as to merging salient content into a well researched, pre-existing article such as Newspeak, or any other relevant article dealing with political propaganda/mass media, etc where other editors can evaluate relevant or irrelevant content. Any input by other editors is welcome. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:54, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Removed the original research tag. The discussion as to whether this should be a standalone or not has more or less happened (see above) and as for citations, this section is the only one that has any notes at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.28.222.196 (talk) 00:39, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Not a good example[edit]

"Russian T.V.'s Rossiya 1's attacks on the liberal opposition have been characterised as reminiscent of the 'two minutes of hate' in Orwells 1984 and Russian television has been used to portray Ukrainian troops as monsters during the War in Donbass. One of the most notorious examples was a (hoax) 2014 report on state-controlled Channel One TV that Ukrainian soldiers had crucified a three-year-old.[3]"

Actually the same could be said of a lot of Western media coverage of certain countries and people, especially in the Middle East. And Facebook.--176.58.92.198 (talk) 18:25, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

It's reliably source. If you have reliable sources discussing the term as applying to Western, Eastern, or any other form of media, you're welcome to add it. WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT is not an argument for removal. Please note, also, that this is an article talk page, not a WP:SOAPBOX. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:03, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Propaganda is characteristic of western media. You can find plenty of examples[1] by doing a simple search.[2]

But more importantly we can tell, based on the above user's response such as the misuse of the policy "Reliable Source" and their passive aggressive use of citing WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT which breaks policy by assuming bad faith, that the information will be censored and kept out of wikipedia by the consensus of most active editors which are white and male. Next they'll say your reliable sources don't support a Neutral Point of View. Then they will try to keep the information out by claiming that your wording is POV pushing, even though it's a misrepresentation.

This section of the article is a real example of "Two Minutes Hate", not an encyclopedic description of it. And the fact that nobody said anything to Iryna is further evidence that the average wikipedia editor (which is white and male) edits in bad faith to game the system to get what they want.

Anyways if editors on wikipedia want to prove me wrong by adding notable and reliable information here is a list of sources, both reliable and unreliable (if you do miraculously get it in there, expect that the article will be deleted for POV fork or something other doublespeak term to censor the information):

  1. An article from Russian state news: And in another parallel line, Moscow rumor has it that the Kremlin finds this protracted post-Yukos battle just an afterthought compared to the economic war about to convulse Europe and eventually pit Europe against Russia; exactly what the Empire of Chaos is praying – and working - for. “Two Minute” Hate? Talk about hours, days, weeks, and years. [3]
  2. Consortium News: In the up-is-down world that has become the New York Times’ editorial page, the Western coup-making on Russia’s border with the implicit threat of U.S. and NATO nuclear weapons within easy range of Moscow is transformed into a case of “Russian aggression.” The Times’ editors wrote: “One of the most alarming aspects of the crisis has been Mr. Putin’s willingness to brandish nuclear weapons.”
  3. New Eastern Outlook: We come to the moment when there is only one ‘proper truth’. A ‘competent Paper’. A competent TV channel. Inconvenient facts do not exist in the public discourse, not because they are criticized in the public debate, but because they are erased on purpose by the Winstons Smiths of Public Relations, sorry ‘journalism’. We come to the point where fascist slogans “Glory Ukraine, glory to the heroes’ throughout Europe are treated not as an analogy of “Heil Hitler” but something peaceful and democratic.
  4. Today television plays an enormous role in subtly providing images that will transform the dissatisfactions and frustrations of individuals away from the real causes, and toward a partially fictitious enemy, for example, the Muslims. In reality most distressed citizens have more in common with working class Muslims living on the other side of the world, than they do with the corporate and political forces in their home country. But the media and its associated techniques are used intentionally to invoke hatred amongst the less educated elements of society. Behaviours such as homophobia and islamophobia, are encouraged by certain political parties and religions, who bear a common interest in converting the frustration of the individual into a lust for war, with an end of achieving the necessary popular support. The rise of far right parties in many regions of the world that we’re currently witnessing always relies heavily on encouraging two minutes hate in one form or another, amongst its voting population. If most of these voters were made to truly understand the likely outcomes of far-right economic and environmental policies, they would surely choose instead more socialistic ideologies to support, but the political debate is intentionally focussed on the more emotional and fear inducing, yet less important issues, such as immigration, terrorism and gay marriage.
  5. From Common Dreams: The public needs to understand that the vitriol on talk radio goes well beyond Rush Limbaugh as 'Two Minutes Hate' will demonstrate daily, Limbaugh's show continues to be an inspiration for the countless conservative radio hosts who spread similarly hateful rhetoric from coast to coast.
  6. The news channel only tells you what they want you to hear, leaving out key facts that would aid in the other side of the story. Racial stereotypes are formed through television as well. Which shapes the way you think about other countries, as well as your own country. Overall Two minutes hate is a remedial way for the government to control their citizens.
  7. From Assistant Professor at Penn State University Dr. Mark T. Kissling: In terms of procedure, the Pledge is disturbingly similar to the daily "Two Minutes Hate" from Orwell's (1949) novel 1984. Sanctioned by the school, it is rarely a critical act; it is usually an obedient one. It is part of the school's curriculum, although its banal quality usually relegates any learning associated with it to the hidden, implicit curriculum. Bigelow (2007) calls this approach to schooling "nationalistic indoctrination" and "wagon-circling patriotism."
  8. From Associate Professor of University of Illinois at Chicago Dr. Andre Rojecki: Partisan media commentators routinely stoke the fear and anger of their audiences by painting political opponents as irresponsible, feckless, and deceitful. The desired ends of the pantomime--reminiscent of Orwell's "Two Minutes Hate" in 1984--are outrage and ratings points. Perceived risk exposure in a polarized political and information environment is at the heart of the politics of insecurity and their policy consequences.
  9. From P. J. O'Rourke published in Volume 20 of the The Independent Review: But we've caught up with George and surpassed him. WAR IS PEACEKEEPING. FREEDOM IS SLAVERY REPARATIONS. IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH IN STANDARDIZED TESTING. Three international superstates in perpetual conflict and shifting alliance? We've got four, counting jihadists. Two Minutes Hate? Watch Keeping Up with the Kardashians. And the telescreen that watches us while we watch it has nothing on the cookies imbedded in that Mac introduced in the real 1984. If you're a man my age, Google anything and watch the Cialis ads pop up.
Our students, teachers, intellectuals, public figures, and even ordinary citizens posting anonymous social media shaming don't need Thought Police because policing thoughts has become a mass DIY project. Examine any history textbook to see the Memory Hole at work on a scale undreamed of by Winston Smith doing his job at the Ministry of Truth and turning former luminaries into unpersons. Sally Hemings is now more revered than Thomas Jefferson. And Orwell's Inner Party comprised 2 percent of the population-grossly inclusive by the standards of our global 1 percent.

Building an encyclopedia is not difficult, but until the westerners, the conservatives, the liberals, the whites, the men, and other disruptive editors who feel they own wikipedia decide to become more accepting of contributions which they don't feel comfortable with, and until you are willing to put aside your aggression this encyclopedia will continue to be kept out of academia and will continue to serve as a tool used against the average person[4]. Interstingly enough when Iryna decides to cite WP:SOAPBOX, it is not to rid the current advocacy against Putin, but to ensure that the Two Minutes of Hate happening in the article can have Putin's face as its target. The problem on this article extends to almost every single corner of wikipedia, and the community of active editors needs to eliminate the bureaucracy, welcome women and people of color by targeting harassment and incivility they face, and invest more time from each wikimania addressing these issues. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.197.160.241 (talk) 00:17, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Two Minutes Hate. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

YesY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:57, 9 September 2017 (UTC)