Talk:Nineteen Eighty-Four

I think the description of the book on here and in popular culture isn't accurate and I can hopefully prove this with the book as my source. The government in the book isn't some all-powerful regime but instead a dying regime that became addicted to surveillance and repression of its own members to the point where the people who could've saved it were instead turned against it. The evidence for this is the description of chocolate and cigarettes which are both portrayed as being cheapened or reduced compared to previous times. A totalitarian government wouldn't be cutting the supplies of those 2 things unless it had to since chocolate and cigarettes are one of the few remaining creature comforts available to the working class. This means that the regime is failing. Another thing to keep in mind is that the repression was mainly targeted at party members and not the 'proles' who were generally left alone. This means that the intent of the book is not to warn the working class of the dangers of totalitarian governments but rather to tell people who would support totalitarianism that such a system will end up collapsing as it fails to function and ends up turning on the few honest people who could've saved it. The only thing the government was good at was catching disloyal government employees and it relied on this ability so much that it ended up getting rid of the people who could've saved it. I think people are misunderstanding the target audience. 2604:2D80:6305:600:587E:9E83:FCFC:9CC3 (talk) 02:13, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

:"I can hopefully prove this with the book as my source." You can not. Wikipedia articles require reliable third-party sources, not primary sources. Dimadick (talk) 09:23, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

::Because, you know, critical thinking is to be discouraged. You are permitted to select one of the officially approved viewpoints, nothing original. Remember: Big Brother is watching! 2600:1010:B18F:F05E:0:28:EE60:5C01 (talk) 07:14, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

::even so, this user is correct.

::It is weird that there is only one mention of the appendix in the whole article, especially considering that the context of Orwell refusing to publish the book without it shows that it is critical to understanding the text.

::You can trivially find references to this, and the widespread misunderstanding of this book's themes is a well trodden topic of discussion among scholars... to the extent that those who want to push their own agendas with the book's themes often implicitly deny its existence.

::Does this example of the discussion meet citation criteria around here: https://cupblog.org/2013/07/01/laura-frost-you-probably-didnt-read-the-most-telling-part-of-orwells-1984%E2%80%B3-the-appendix/ ? 122.199.11.113 (talk) 22:40, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

I think section "Themes" must go back. Why has it been deleted?

2.138.55.128 (talk) 16:16, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

Hello. Just to let everyone know, this article has unfortunately been riddled with AI-generated text and possibly AI-translated foreign-language text by User:Wh67890, who has since been blocked indefinitely. If anyone would like to revert or search for any of this that would be most welcome. Keeper of Albion (talk) 22:06, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

:Where do you see that User:Wh67790's edits were AI-generated? They may well have been but I can't find a discussion of this. Dan Bloch (talk) 00:36, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

::See [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nineteen_Eighty-Four&diff=prev&oldid=1294842914 here] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nineteen_Eighty-Four&diff=prev&oldid=1294848640 here]. Inspecting their edit history and user and talk pages makes it clear they were not proficient in English, which their indefinite block notice notes. Large portions of the added text in those edits are clearly AI-generated and possibly AI-translated. I don’t know whether any of it is plagiarised.

::Note how the sections "Contemporary Critical Perspectives", "Newspeak and Doublethink" and "Contemporary Reassessments and Philosophical Frameworks" (excessive capitalisation also showing the editor was not familiar with MOS) either waffle without conveying anything meaningful or are obvious and already covered within the article. These fluent paragraphs were not produced unaided by somebody who has been blocked for their lack of proficiency in English.

::I deleted "Contemporary Critical Perspectives" in its entirety because I spotted immediately that it was irrelevant AI drivel with an activist Palestine-related photograph and caption. The other sections are still there. Keeper of Albion (talk) 09:52, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

:::I blew it up. It's not fair to expect other editors to have to deal with this. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 10:30, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

::::These two articles also seems to be written by AI, because @Wh67890 made those article. If he was culprit in all those writings and citations mentioned above then probably he is also the reason why these articles exists–as AI written. Looking at his editing history and "talk page" as well as his "user page" it seems he was married to chatGPT, and used it as his companion in all those advocacy. Although I will wait but if no action taken, I would have to delete them with my own hand. [Singular matrix] and Conductivity cell 2409:40E3:2010:C3AF:752F:38CD:3D6E:3CF1 (talk) 10:03, 21 June 2025 (UTC)