This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
I do not have access to the source being used to support the section so please can somebody who does have access check that this diff is correct in removing the right wing examples? Is it correct that only left wing examples are given in the source used and that no other valid sources support the inclusion of right wing examples here? -- DanielRigal ( talk) 13:34, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
Chas. Caltrop ( talk) 17:28, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
This quote is from the appendix. Clearly, the appendix does include Nazi examples. Please stop edit-warring over something so easily verifiable. -- Mvbaron ( talk) 17:40, 4 August 2020 (UTC)Even in the early decades of the twentieth century, telescoped words and phrases had been one of the characteristic features of political language; and it had been noticed that the tendency to use abbreviations of this kind was most marked in totalitarian countries and totalitarian organizations. Examples were such words as Nazi, Gestapo, Comintern, Inprecorr, Agitprop.
Moreover, of what edit war are you speaking? All of these communications are entirely within the Wikipedia remit.
Linguistically, the political contractions of Newspeak--Ingsoc (English Socialism), Minitrue (Ministry of Truth), etc.--derive from those of German and Russian, which identify the government and social institutions of Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union, such as Nazi itself (Nationalsozialismus), Gestapo (Geheime Staatspolizei), politburo (Political Bureau of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union)...
But in addition there were great numbers of words which at first sight appeared to be mere abbreviations and which derived their ideological colour not from their meaning, but from their structure.
Dear Chas. Caltrop, I BOLDly rephrased the paragraph for the following reasons: 1) in this paragraph we are (i) summarizing the article below, and (ii) explicitly referring to the source: Orwell's appendix. In the appendix, Orwell doesn't say what the contractions refer to, but outlines a theory of why the *structure* of these contractions is important, indeed caries ideological weight. compare: (Orwell 1984, p. 317-8) 2) simply listing the different meanings of the contractions is not a benefit to the reader and also misrepresents the source (see below for quotes)
I have added "Linguistically, the political contractions of Newspeak (...) are described as similar to real examples of German and Russian contractions in the 20th century (...) in that they receive idelogical content in virtue of their abbreviated structure itself. " This is in line with what Orwell expresses in the appendix to 1984 (which is the source of the paragraph in question). Compare in addition to the quote above:
But in addition there were great numbers of words which at first sight appeared to be mere abbreviations and which derived their ideological colour not from their meaning, but from their structure. (...) In the beginning the practice had been adopted as it were instinctively, but in Newspeak it was used with a conscious purpose. (...) It was perceived that in thus abbreviating a name one narrowed and subtly altered its meaning, by cutting out most of the associations that would otherwise cling to it. (...) The word Comintern, on the other hand, suggests merely a tightly-knit organization and a well-defined body of doctrine. (...) Comintern is a word that can be uttered almost without taking thought, whereas Communist International is a phrase over which one is obliged to linger at least momentarily. In the same way, the associations called up by a word like Minitrue are fewer and more controllable than those called up by Ministry of Truth.
(Orwell 1984, p. 317-9)
Please discuss here before reverting. -- Mvbaron ( talk) 19:26, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
Bickering about user behavior, and unsupported accusations not related to improving this article
| ||
---|---|---|
-- Preceding unsigned comment added by Chas. Caltrop ( talk o contribs)
|
Chas. Caltrop ( talk · contribs) I see you are reverting again. Can you please answer why you are 1) reinstating an incorrect source (Orwell 1980 is not a valid citation) and 2) not discussing my reasons above for the lede sentence (a. not representing the source the appendix, grammatically incorrect, no benefit to the reader)? Mvbaron ( talk) 17:54, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
Currently, the majority of the too-few references in the article cite Orwell; this is way too much. Two of the remaining three are dictionaries; the article currently has only one, fully WP:INDEPENDENT, WP:SECONDARY source. This is an unquestionably notable topic, and there is material out there on it.
Please help to improve the referencing in this article, by adding more, non-primary sources. Thanks, Mathglot ( talk) 02:00, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
Hi Error, I saw you reverted your Category:Future Dialect back in, and removed Category:Fictional languages again. That directly contradicts this article ("Newspeak is the fictional language of Oceania"). At the very least, please Category:Fictional languages back in. -- Mvbaron ( talk) 18:53, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
I do not have access to the source being used to support the section so please can somebody who does have access check that this diff is correct in removing the right wing examples? Is it correct that only left wing examples are given in the source used and that no other valid sources support the inclusion of right wing examples here? -- DanielRigal ( talk) 13:34, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
Chas. Caltrop ( talk) 17:28, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
This quote is from the appendix. Clearly, the appendix does include Nazi examples. Please stop edit-warring over something so easily verifiable. -- Mvbaron ( talk) 17:40, 4 August 2020 (UTC)Even in the early decades of the twentieth century, telescoped words and phrases had been one of the characteristic features of political language; and it had been noticed that the tendency to use abbreviations of this kind was most marked in totalitarian countries and totalitarian organizations. Examples were such words as Nazi, Gestapo, Comintern, Inprecorr, Agitprop.
Moreover, of what edit war are you speaking? All of these communications are entirely within the Wikipedia remit.
Linguistically, the political contractions of Newspeak--Ingsoc (English Socialism), Minitrue (Ministry of Truth), etc.--derive from those of German and Russian, which identify the government and social institutions of Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union, such as Nazi itself (Nationalsozialismus), Gestapo (Geheime Staatspolizei), politburo (Political Bureau of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union)...
But in addition there were great numbers of words which at first sight appeared to be mere abbreviations and which derived their ideological colour not from their meaning, but from their structure.
Dear Chas. Caltrop, I BOLDly rephrased the paragraph for the following reasons: 1) in this paragraph we are (i) summarizing the article below, and (ii) explicitly referring to the source: Orwell's appendix. In the appendix, Orwell doesn't say what the contractions refer to, but outlines a theory of why the *structure* of these contractions is important, indeed caries ideological weight. compare: (Orwell 1984, p. 317-8) 2) simply listing the different meanings of the contractions is not a benefit to the reader and also misrepresents the source (see below for quotes)
I have added "Linguistically, the political contractions of Newspeak (...) are described as similar to real examples of German and Russian contractions in the 20th century (...) in that they receive idelogical content in virtue of their abbreviated structure itself. " This is in line with what Orwell expresses in the appendix to 1984 (which is the source of the paragraph in question). Compare in addition to the quote above:
But in addition there were great numbers of words which at first sight appeared to be mere abbreviations and which derived their ideological colour not from their meaning, but from their structure. (...) In the beginning the practice had been adopted as it were instinctively, but in Newspeak it was used with a conscious purpose. (...) It was perceived that in thus abbreviating a name one narrowed and subtly altered its meaning, by cutting out most of the associations that would otherwise cling to it. (...) The word Comintern, on the other hand, suggests merely a tightly-knit organization and a well-defined body of doctrine. (...) Comintern is a word that can be uttered almost without taking thought, whereas Communist International is a phrase over which one is obliged to linger at least momentarily. In the same way, the associations called up by a word like Minitrue are fewer and more controllable than those called up by Ministry of Truth.
(Orwell 1984, p. 317-9)
Please discuss here before reverting. -- Mvbaron ( talk) 19:26, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
Bickering about user behavior, and unsupported accusations not related to improving this article
| ||
---|---|---|
-- Preceding unsigned comment added by Chas. Caltrop ( talk o contribs)
|
Chas. Caltrop ( talk · contribs) I see you are reverting again. Can you please answer why you are 1) reinstating an incorrect source (Orwell 1980 is not a valid citation) and 2) not discussing my reasons above for the lede sentence (a. not representing the source the appendix, grammatically incorrect, no benefit to the reader)? Mvbaron ( talk) 17:54, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
Currently, the majority of the too-few references in the article cite Orwell; this is way too much. Two of the remaining three are dictionaries; the article currently has only one, fully WP:INDEPENDENT, WP:SECONDARY source. This is an unquestionably notable topic, and there is material out there on it.
Please help to improve the referencing in this article, by adding more, non-primary sources. Thanks, Mathglot ( talk) 02:00, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
Hi Error, I saw you reverted your Category:Future Dialect back in, and removed Category:Fictional languages again. That directly contradicts this article ("Newspeak is the fictional language of Oceania"). At the very least, please Category:Fictional languages back in. -- Mvbaron ( talk) 18:53, 22 February 2021 (UTC)