Talk:George Orwell

	This Books related article has been awarded SILVER status for quality. We like it, and you should too! See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.

Archives for this talk page:

<1>

, (new)

If you can criticize something as "orwellian", it isn't

This is a common rule of thumb used by people because "orwellian" has been overused to the point of being meaningless but didn't Winston get away with his (hidden) journal for awhile? Thoughtcrime might be relevant here.--2friedeggs (talk) 17:47, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

See above for why this is false AMassiveGay (talk) 22:56, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

Exactly what is false, what I said? Or the rule of thumb I stated in the header? At any rate, it doesn't appear to make the header (That if you can criticize an "orwellian" state, it isn't) false. It seems to be more of a redefining of what "orwellian" means instead of how people usually use it.--2friedeggs (talk) 23:35, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

Proposals for division...

Simply put, suggest that 'Animal Farm' and '1984' gets their own pages. Thoughts? KarmaPolice (talk) 18:30, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

This is a good idea. —cosmikdebris ^talk stalk 18:48, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

The question is, if I did create a page titled '1984' would all the old redirects that took them to Orwell before re-redirect automatically? KarmaPolice (talk) 11:14, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

You'd have to fix them all manually (but you can find them all easily using Special:WhatLinksHere/George Orwell and clicking "Hide links"). Plutocow (talk) 23:14, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Divisions...

Okay, I've removed 'Animal Farm'; from this page and given it it's own. Yes, the hacking out is clunky as hell. But to be honest, don't kill yourself over it - I am going to do similar to 1984 and then do a complete rebuild of Orwell himself. KarmaPolice (talk) 16:29, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Rebuild...

Doing one section at a time. Today, the intro. KarmaPolice (talk) 09:50, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Have now done 'Politics'. Some of the old content will be recycled for the '1984' RW page, which I shall put up next. KarmaPolice (talk) 21:23, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Have now split off 1984 back into it's own page, deleted all but the intro for it on this page. Did similar with Animal Farm. For fuck's sake, please don't restore them - I am going to be putting in some his other works [Wigan Pier, some of his best essays etc] so need the space. KarmaPolice (talk) 14:42, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Have now covered Down and Out in Paris and London and Road to Wigan Pier to the new 'Works' section. Will add the other important ones (ie a clutch of his essays) when I can. KarmaPolice (talk) 20:53, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Done 'The Lion and the Unicorn'. Next, Animal Farm's short blurb. KarmaPolice (talk) 21:00, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Now done 'Notes on Nationlaism' and 'Animal Farm'. KarmaPolice (talk) 23:41, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Finally did all Orwell's works. Got rid of the 1984 map because it is in fact incorrect [and no, not according to the fan theory, according to Goldstein's book]. KarmaPolice (talk) 20:34, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Criticisms section done. Not sure what do to with 'Misuse of Orwell's work' section. KarmaPolice (talk) 19:31, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Rebuild complete! I did a massive cull of the 'see also', also put in a few WP ones on the basis I think RW will cover them sooner or later. KarmaPolice (talk) 18:57, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Suspect Refs?

Okay, you've got me now @Rairyu75. What ones you do dislike and why? KarmaPolice (talk) 15:47, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

@KarmaPolice It's less "serious dislike" and more "slightly raised eyebrow." As I'm going through them I find myself going "nyeeeeeeh, wut is this website?" A first example would be:

“”editor at the left-wing Tribune magazine[1]

which takes you to a (Russian?) fan website that has collected all of Orwell's writings, though the particular page linked doesn't mention that Orwell was an editor of the Tribune. It's just a collection of articles that were published in the Tribune. I nicked a ref from Wikipedia (the current "About Us" page of the Tribune's website) and I added it to back up that statement. orwell.ru in general just seems to lack a bit of transparency. Who is O. Dag, the owner of the website? An academic? Or just a man with a heart of gold and an eyepatch providing us with a vital service?

I suppose it's easier to navigate than a website like this relic of the past. A page from two decades ago, written by... well, I PRESUME a gentleman called Arlindo Correia, whom I have no reason to distrust whatsoever, but this IS the internet Karma, so the little skeptic voice in my head keeps wondering how reliable any of the excerpts presented on this page are. Not saying they are made up or anything, just... prima facie sus, ya know? It takes me a bit to understand what I am looking at.

Other things that jumped out at me include a dead link in the lede, https://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/o/orwell/george/o79a/complete.html, which I replaced with the ISBN for the copy of Animal Farm that is chilling close to my laptop. I am really unused to reffing books around these shores, so I wonder if it matters that I put (1945) as the publishing date if my Collins Classics version was issued in 2021? Or would it have been better to link to a complete text, like we did for the Road To Wigan Pier? Project Gutenberg Australia seems like a good bet, since Orwell's works are in the public domain in the land down under and the Project Gutenberg name carries a bit of weight. Not that I give two shits about copyright, I wear an eyepatch on the regular, I'm just saying that it looks inconsistent to have lines like "Thus, lines like "Big Brother is watching you" from 1984" backed up with an ISBN ref and then two paragraphs later we are pulling random fan websites out of our back pockets to give readers the full text. I occasionally find myself unsure on how to proceed, or what to put down, or how to properly format things. - Rairyu75 (Talk) 21:47, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Orwell.ru; I agree. Surviving link from earlier version of page which due to laziness survived the rebuild. I prefer using orwellfoundation.com for this stuff [which is the official, UK site for the foundation].

Gutenberg Oz; I prefer using george-orwell.org, because it's better laid-out [put into chapters which makes it better to find quotes, for starters]. I know this is merely a personal preference, but I do try to avoid quoting from books if possible because how many damn people will toddle off, dig out a text and check? [Okay, finding a copy of AF would be relatively easy, but what about Lion and the Unicorn? Hell, had you even heard of this mega-essay before I did the page?]. If there's any physical book links left, that's again a sign of me being lazy [not changing them over to george-orwell.org].

I agree some of the refs are a bit 'iffy'. Two come to mind; covenant.livingchurch.org and davidlabaree.blog . The former is on the surface unreliable; a group blog for a church. In this case it gets used because it was the only open article I could find - the best I can say here is that a) I have a good knowledge of all Orwell's works, b) I read the article and found nothing wrong with it [the Orwell quotes within it are correct, as far as my memory serves] and c) it's a ref for a fairly minor point in RW's article [that he was to some extent 'culturally christian', or more correctly 'culturally Anglican'.] The latter is the blog of David Labaree, who is 'somebody'. However, the linked article in question is an effective reprint of an essay done by Stephen Pinker, of which a) Labaree links back to and b) is now stuck behind a paywall. Now, if someone can get behind them, get archive.is snaps and provide the link(s), I'd be very happy to put them in instead [this can be said in general; I did find a few 'possibly decent' articles I could have used if they'd not been behind paywalls - couldn't even check them and it hits the 'effectively uncheckable' problem I outlined above.]

I think the best bet to proceed here is to simply give it a bit of a cleanup for links. Replace Gutenberg with george-orwell, Orwell.ru with orwellfoundation.com. I'll also do a quick proof-read; I don't think I've actually sat down and read the whole thing as one text. Also need to do a bit of tidying; there's a bit of sliding of punctuation between British/American, for example. KarmaPolice (talk) 10:41, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Okay, I've done a proofread/cleanup/link check. Orwell.ru is gone and Gutenberg already was. I do need someone to tidy up the bare links [I also added a WP link; POUM] because I really suck at that kind of thing, but unless better online refs can be found, think we might be set. KarmaPolice (talk) 12:41, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

@KarmaPolice Right, whatcha reckon? Think that's all the refs I can be bothered with. I also added some "funny" photos to lighten the mood. I am feeling very tired and when I am in this state I will literally giggle at anything, just uncontrollably, like. I'm probably not being nearly as funny as I think I am. @Cosmikdebris and @Bongolian if youse think the images are silly just go ahead boot them. I won't be offended.

Regards. - Rairyu75 (Talk) 20:46, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

There is still a couple of punctuation errors etc which I'll correct when I am able to post on a real computer. But on links etc I believe it's all done; thanks. KarmaPolice (talk) 10:36, 14 April 2024 (UTC)