Talk:Orwellian

This article was nominated for deletion on 27 February 2018. The result of the discussion was keep.

Novels Mid‑importance

	Novels portal 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, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.NovelsWikipedia:WikiProject NovelsTemplate:WikiProject Novelsnovel
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Linguistics: Etymology Low‑importance

	Linguistics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Linguistics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of linguistics 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.LinguisticsWikipedia:WikiProject LinguisticsTemplate:WikiProject LinguisticsLinguistics
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Etymology Task Force.

Books

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate in the project, please visit its page, where you can join the project and discuss matters related to book articles. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the relevant guideline for the type of work.BooksWikipedia:WikiProject BooksTemplate:WikiProject BooksBook

Commentary : Unclear Sentence Structure and Thought Process

Apparently, we are challenged writers writing to challenged readers. Please clean up the sentence structure in this very important topic. The flow and clarity of this piece is horrid. I'm NOT surprised to find Orwellian forces at work on the front line of truth. Here I witness Truth strangled by naive benevolent ignorance. We are all fools to allow it. Yes, this is a citation against ourselves. Those offended should feel the full force of the rebellion for peace and liberty. Get off your pedestals and speak the truth clearly, so others may hearken the dark forces of humanity. It takes a tidal wave of spirit to overcome the decades of thought conditioning of young minds, that spirit begins with responsibility to Truth. We have the Indoctrinated explaining Orwellian, such irony. Example: He was fascinated by the effect of colonialism on the individual, requiring acceptance of the idea that the colonialist oppressor exists only for the good of the oppressed person and people. What? Such crap from the tongue of Big Brother himself. This is an example which supports the shady reputation of public domain. We can do much better. Here is responsibility to the truth, signing in seriously against ignorance.QuillShadows (talk) 19:31, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Orwellian, the case against

I have put back what I consider the most important point about the term Orwellian; Orwell would have hated it. The problem with this is that Orwell never got the chance to find his name taken in vain and so any suggestion that Orwell hated Orwellian will be easily regarded as interpretation.

I am sure Orwell might be proud that he is still read and for other features of his legacy but judging by his writings it is my belief the he would be deeply embarrassed by the frequent use of the word. As I said I can not cite Orwell as saying 'I hate the word Orwellian' but I can cite Politics and the English Language, Propaganda and Demotic Speech and numerous other snippets on his dislike of the way words are used. MeltBanana 01:48, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Orwellian has come to universally mean what it means. There's nothing to be done about it. Sorry, George. (Oops, I mean Sorry, Eric Arthur Blair.) (The negativity is not nice to his name, but, ironically, that's not really his name.) In his novel, 1984, he extrapolated a dismal future world where totalitarianism and injustice are entrenched by manipulative language (among other evils), examples of which he masterfully crafted and thoroughly explained. In other writing, he criticized many examples of manipulated language. If he offered positive examples of honest language, they're not nearly as well known or suspected. Though Orwellian names the hypocrisy and deceit which he despised, we at least think of Orwell as one who taught us to be aware of it, to watch for it in ourselves and others, and hopefully weaken its influence. I think he would not be disappointed by the coinage of the word.

On the other hand, what you added to the article in 2005 is quite agreeable: "It seems unlikely that Orwell would have approved of many of the uses to which his pseudonym is applied. The loose definition of the term and the often poor correlation between the real-life situations people describe as Orwellian and his own dystopian fiction leave the use of the adjective at best inexact and frequently politically inaccurate." If "Orwellian" is overused and misapplied, it loses meaning and blocks thought. Orwell would certainly criticize that. It's a perfectly cromulent word. What other word could take its place? Its possible overuse does not de-define it. A876 (talk) 05:14, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cleaning

There were alot of split sentences and formatting errors. I cleaned up as best as I could. D00d123 (talk) 21:47, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know enough about this subject to edit anything, but I wanted to point out this sentence fragment which confused me: "A counter-point to his previous work, immediately after his return from Spain, Homage to Catalonia." --Headybrew (talk) 21:45, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Countries in See Also

I'm removing the countries from the See Also section. Cuba, North Korea, and the United States are all in there. I fail to see how any of these relate to the article other than that the editor thinks the country is "Orwellian". Mbarbier (talk) 19:25, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thatcher's England

Isn't putting that in the "See Also" section sort of like calling Thatcher a facist? Don't get me wrong, I do think Thatcher was a facist, but I don't think my opinion (or anyone else's) belongs on Wikipedia.TorontoLRT (talk) 00:53, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed it, and redirected the article, which was just a POV essay in any case. Robofish (talk) 00:06, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thatcher was anti-fascist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.87.146.68 (talk) 18:45, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

History of the term

Does anyone know who coined the term "Orwellian"? Since this is a page about a word (rather than the author George Orwell) it might help to clarify the distinction by treating the term as an historical phenomenon seperate from the author's own writings. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.198.71.4 (talk) 20:52, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed

I've just been listening to a radio interview with Christopher Hitchens in which he says that there are three distinct uses of the term "Orwellian", but didn't really catch what they were. This page, therefore, seems to be seriously incomplete. Perhaps his book "Why Orwell Matters" would be a good source for this page. Nadiatalent (talk) 17:14, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reference to this page in hansard

See http://www.parliament.nz/en-NZ/PB/Debates/Debates/Speeches/0/1/1/49HansS_20101118_00000235-Curran-Clare-Local-Government-Act-2002-Amendment.htm

Revision of History?

A typical example is a lack of some of the best online references for this Encyclopedia (Greater India, Nigeria, UK etc included for en.), books. Unfortunately they were copyrighted. Even worse, by just one country (although it probably doesn't apply when books are not called books[1]). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.14.248.102 (talk) 00:43, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"It seems unlikely that Orwell would have approved of many of the uses to which his pseudonym is applied."

I disagree with MeltBanana & A876. Isn't that conjecture on someone's part... as oppose to precise information about the term? Just curious what the Wiki guidelines are.

67.101.212.35 (talk) 20:31, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oops... That was me... I thought I was logged-in.

albabe - The Writer/Artist Formally Known as Al Gordon 20:33, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This would fall under the category of original research, something which is not allowed on Wikipedia... unless there is a scholar or other notable figure who has made this speculation, in which case it should be attributed to that person, not left as is as a statement of "fact". --GentlemanGhost (converse) 20:57, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Usage

My interest in this article was piqued by a recent debate over the use of the term "Orwellian." It seems like this article might benefit from examples of usage, from its earliest utterance to the current time. (I suspect that there have been many.) However, I'm at a bit of a loss as to how to do this without seeming to give undue weight to a particular instance or being perceived as pushing a point of view. The recent use of Orwellian I spotted was in this Victor Davis Hanson column and this Wonkette response. I'm leaving it out of the article for now, but I thought I'd link to it here in case someone wants to follow up on it (or provide a better example, for that matter). Thanks, GentlemanGhost (converse) 22:18, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Ritual abuse"

Ritual abuse is one of the links below this article. Ritual abuse redirects to "Satanic panic". I'm not sure what Orwell or the adjective 'Orwellian' has to do with this? Is it the implication that Satanic abuse is Orwellian or that the people who prosecuted parents for satanic abuse is Orwellian or that the backlash against these prosecutions is Orwellian? Either clarify or remove. FieldOfWheat (talk) 17:40, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]