Talk:Newspeak: Difference between revisions
m Archiving 44 discussion(s) to Talk:Newspeak/Archive 1) (bot |
manual archiving of unsigned threads - I hope I'm doing this correctly... |
||
| Line 16: | Line 16: | ||
| minthreadstoarchive=2 |
| minthreadstoarchive=2 |
||
}} |
}} |
||
== Racism and political correctness == |
|||
I am amazed that examples spreading racist terminology were not only left up for a year, but that when they were finally changed to terms that did not target any group by identity, but rather a point of view by choice, someone actually changed the page back! TWICE! Is it really that important to maintain a racist presentation of a political topic? -- surfergirl |
|||
---- |
|||
The following paragraph (removed from the main article) needs NPOVing: |
|||
Another example is the attempt to rewrite the definition of the word "[[anti-Semitism]]". This word was coined in the late 1800s by a German author to refer specifically to the hatred of Jewish people; this terminology was intended to suggest that the hatred of Jews had a scientific basis. Since then this word has always meant hatred of Jews, and Jewish people alone. But in recent years anti-Semites themselves have begun to claim that this word actually means "hatred towards those who speak [[Semitic languages]]", which includes [[Arabs]]. Therefore, in this Newspeak, by definition no Arab can possibly be an anti-Semite. Against this pro-Israeli history writing rests the fact that Palestinians used this argument already in the early 20th century, when the word itself was new. Hence, the position of the pro-Israel camp is fundamentally flawed. |
|||
[[User:Samuraise|Samuraise]] |
|||
:If an American can (as [[Joseph McCarthy]] claimed) be un-American, why can't a semite be anti-semitic? |
|||
:--Ann Omnibus |
|||
---- |
|||
Given the controvery over the term "anti-Semitism" (especially as it has been used by non-semites to mean anti-arab which makes the arguement fall apart) maybe we should switch to a less controversial example. Possibly the word fundamentalism ? --[[User:Imran|Imran]] 00:17 Nov 28, 2002 (UTC) |
|||
:There is really no legitimate argument as to the *meaning* of the word in its general useage. In 1800's Germany, Jews were the only Semities that were generally around. The word is taken by most of the English speaking population to mean *exactly* the same thing as "anti-Jewish", (though anti-Jewish does not really exist as word in general use) Attempting to redefine Anti-Senitism to mean something different is an attempt to obfuscate communication, and has no business in a wikipedia article. Fairly ironic that this is borught out in a talk about Newspeak. |
|||
:--[[User:FrostPaladin|FrostPaladin]] 11:57 March 26, 2007 |
|||
---- |
|||
Jack Lynch, |
|||
I accept the change you made to "politically correct language, on the other hand, ''is said to have'' the goal of freeing individuals," etc. That seems fair enough to me. However, by the same standard, I see nothing wrong with the word "arguably" in the sentence, "Either way, there is arguably a resemblance between political correctness and Newspeak", etc; I have, therefore, put it back. [[User:Rlowry|R Lowry]] 20:10, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC) |
|||
:Is there argument on this? do you disagree that there is a resemblance? I see the two (P.C./Newspeak) as synonyms, part of a multitude of evidence of Orwell predicting the future. I suppose if you (or somebody) ''really'' doesn't see the connection... but can you explain why not? - [[User:JackLynch|JackLynch]] 20:17, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC) |
|||
:Either way I guess the "arguably" doesn't take away much. But I am still curious if there is such an argument? [[User:JackLynch|JackLynch]] 20:18, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC) |
|||
---- |
|||
The last few paragraphs should be moved to an article on [[Political correctness]] in general. I agree that "differently abled" is annoying, but that is a POV. (stand-up comedians have had a field day on it -- "dead" is now "differently alive", etc) It's wrong to state that "different" implies "different but equal". "differently able" can mean "less able": the point is that is doesn't ''automatically'' mean that. -- [[User:Tarquin|Tarquin]] |
|||
:Aren't "politically correct" terms an example of newspeak? For example, having to say "terminally inconvenienced" for "dead"? -- [[User:Gpietsch|Gregory Pietsch]] |
|||
---- |
|||
I have difficulty understanding the relevance of the following passsage of text: |
|||
:''Charges of Newspeak are sometimes advanced when a group tries to replace a word/phrase that is politically incorrect (e.g. "civilian casualties") or offensive (e.g. "murder") with a politically correct or inoffensive one (e.g. "collateral damage").'' |
|||
In what sense is 'murder' an offensive term? And is 'collateral damage' really an example of politically correct terminology? An earlier version of this article contained the following text, which I think is far more informative: |
|||
:''Charges of Newspeak are sometimes advanced when a group tries to replace a word that is politically incorrect (e.g., "negro" or "black") or offensive (e.g., "[[nigger_(word)|nigger]]") with a [[political_correctness|politically correct]] or inoffensive one ("e.g., [[African-American]]").'' |
|||
This text was denounced as 'racist' and removed (see top of this Talk page) a little while ago, and eventually replaced with the 'collateral damage' example. I can understand why people might be hesitant to include an example containing racist terminology; surely, though, it is precisely the purpose of the example to demonstrate the contrast between a genuinely offensive term and its p.c. alternative. And, surely, in order to do that, the offensive term has to be included. [[User:R Lowry|R Lowry]] 22:25, 27 Jan 2004 (UTC) |
|||
:You'll have no argument for me. I think the current phrase is foolish and uninformative as well. Maybe you can find something more "PC" so that the wikithoughtpolice don't have to scold you, or make a revert war out of this ;) [[User:JackLynch|Jack]] 00:20, 28 Jan 2004 (UTC) |
|||
== Moved from article == |
|||
''"== Real-Life Examples of Newspeak == |
|||
''A comparison to Newspeak can be seen in political rhetoric, where two opposing sides string together phrases so empty of meaning that they may be compared to the taunts young children toss back and forth. The arguments of either side ultimately reduce to "I'm good; he's bad."'' |
|||
''Charges of Newspeak are sometimes advanced when a group tries to replace a word/phrase that is politically incorrect (e.g. "civilian casualties") or offensive (e.g. "murder") with a [[political_correctness|politically correct]] or inoffensive one (e.g. "[[collateral damage]]"). Some maintain, in opposition to this practice, that to make certain words or phrases 'unspeakable' is tantamount to restricting what ideas may be held ([[thoughtcrime]]). Others believe that expunging terms that have fallen out of favour or become insulting will make people less likely to hold outdated or offensive views.'' |
|||
''Either way, there is arguably a resemblance between political correctness and Newspeak, although some will feel that they differ in their intentions: in ''Nineteen Eighty-Four'', Newspeak is instituted to enhance the power of the state over the individual; politically correct language, on the other hand, is said to have the goal of freeing individuals from limitations imposed by preconceptions due to the use of certain terms. It is this attempt to change thought through changing (or eliminating) words that earns political correctness the perceived connection to Newspeak."'' |
|||
This IMO, is a mess. NPOV does not mean doubting every possible step along the way. Either Lowry and I need to come to some far better agreement, or ''preferably'' some others should become involved. [[User:JackLynch|JackLynch]] 02:09, 13 Dec 2003 (UTC) |
|||
I am leaving this version here, and putting my version in the article. Don't take it the wrong way, it is of course open to further edits, but I want my suggestion to have its chance. [[User:JackLynch|JackLynch]] 02:22, 13 Dec 2003 (UTC) |
|||
== Chinese == |
|||
If, in China, unauthorized publishing of dictionaries is prohibited, there is, or should, be people who make their own dictionaries and distribute them electronically or something. Or non-Chinese should make a Chinese dictionary. |
|||
Can we get some examples of just HOW Chinese words have been redefined? -- Zoe |
|||
:In mainland [[Chinese language|Chinese]], over the past century many words have been redefined or co-opted in government media, and unauthorised publishing of dictionaries (see: [[dictionary]]) is prohibited. |
|||
::I removed this. First of all, although the Chinese government does engage in doublespeak it's really hard to argue that it does this more than any other government. Second, the sentence about the unauthorised publishing of dictionaries is false as a trip any Shanghai bookstore can demonstrate. -- [[User:Roadrunner]] |
|||
It's also a little hard to distribute electronic dictionaries when you have the "Great Firewall of China" to deal with.~~Paul |
|||
== E-prime == |
|||
E-prime has been viewed by some as a "simplified, Newspeak-like English"; I disagree with this and I've found it useful. I also find it more difficult to use than regular english. Use it as a tool, experiment with it; don't view it as law or as something enforced by a tyrannical government. I don't considerit a form of newspeak at all. -- unsigned |
|||
== GOCE == |
== GOCE == |
||
Revision as of 06:24, 7 August 2020
 | This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
GOCE
 | Guild of Copy Editors | |||
| ||||
Newspeak in real life - new section?
Could it be possible for someone to elaborate on real-life examples of Newspeak as well as connecting it to "political correctness" in a new section? I've already put up a new section to start. 97.70.186.205 (talk) 17:41, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
- That sounds like prohibited original research. We have a "See also" links to political correctness which I think suffices. -- Beland (talk) 05:26, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
Actual examples of Newspeak in use (whether quoting from "1984" or otherwise)?
All I can find are references to the principles, grammar and some vocabulary.
Nowhere in this article, or elsewhere online, can I find some actual examples of a Newspeak sentence - let alone a paragraph. This is a serious omission for what is supposed to be an encyclopædic article.
I have not read 1984, so could someone who has, possibly provide a quotation? EuroSong talk 18:18, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
Removal of right wing examples
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)
- A reply
- Dear Colleague Daniel Rigal
- The novel Nineteen Eighty-four (1949), by George Orwell, has the "Appendix", which is the source that you require to confirm the fidelity, veracity, and accuracy of my editorial correction. If the Appendix included Nazi examples, I would have included them when I wrote that section of the text. Please, read the source, don't fight Jensen's ded-end quarrels. Know the facts; just read the Appendix, written by Orwell, all the data are contained therein.
- I shall follow up with you, so that WE can do right. Let me know.
- Regards,
Chas. Caltrop (talk) 17:28, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
- I am sorry, but what are you talking about?
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.
- A reply
- Dear Colleague Mvbaron
- I speak of the fact that the German language examples are not examples of Newspeak, the subject of this article, which is about the contractions of Newspeak, and not German contractions. Orwell's examples are from the German, as examples of telescoped language, but not as examples of Newspeak. Again, not the same thing; Gestapo and Nazi are not Newspeak words, therefore do not count as Newspeak.
Moreover, of what edit war are you speaking? All of these communications are entirely within the Wikipedia remit.
- Regards,
- Chas. Caltrop (talk) 18:07, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
- Chas. Caltrop, thank you for the reply, this makes it a bit clearer what you mean. (may I ask you to indent your replies? It makes it way easier to follow the conversation.) Let's look at the sentence in question:
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)...
- Is the problem the meaning of "derive"? As in, linguistically, the (Newspeak) contraction "Ingsoc" doesn't derive from any German contraction? If that is the problem, we could simply exchange "derive from" with "are modeled after"? To quote the appendix again, the interesting part about the contractions is exactly their structure (as in the German, Russian case):
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.
- --Mvbaron (talk) 18:24, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
- Chas. Caltrop, thank you for the reply, this makes it a bit clearer what you mean. (may I ask you to indent your replies? It makes it way easier to follow the conversation.) Let's look at the sentence in question:
New Proposal
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)
Your Edit war with Chas. Caltrop at Newspeak.
Bickering about user behavior, and unsupported accusations not related to improving this article
| ||
|---|---|---|
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Chas. Caltrop (talk • 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)
- Note: Collapsed irrelevant behavioral commentary per WP:NOTFORUM and WP:TALK.
User:Chas. Caltrop, if you have comments about how to improve this article, please make them here. If you suspect violations of User editing guidelines, please make them at the User's talk page, and do not copy such discussions here. Any further comments here that are not specifically about improving this article will be collapsed or removed. Thank you. Mathglot (talk) 01:33, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
Primary sources
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)
- Mathglot, thank you! I added two more sources, but maybe you can help me here: is it permitted to use a German-language source in en.wikipedia? I found one which I found really good, but it is in German. Happy to re-write the paragraph if it is not permitted. --Mvbaron (talk) 09:09, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
- @Mvbaron:, German, or any language, is permitted for establishing WP:Verifiability, per WP:NONENG. If an "equivalent" (i.e, "just as good", not "same-thing-translated") source is available in English, then prefer the latter; but if not, the foreign source is just fine. You can always start with that one, and if someone finds a better one in English later, so much the better. I'm decent in German, if you need help with it. P.S., if you have a source, but don't know what to do with it, just stick it in the "Further reading" section (create one, if needed) and then pick it up as a reference later, when you figure out what to do with it. Mathglot (talk) 09:30, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
- Start-Class constructed language articles
- High-importance constructed language articles
- WikiProject constructed language articles
- Start-Class Book articles
- WikiProject Books articles
- Start-Class language articles
- Unknown-importance language articles
- WikiProject Languages articles
- Start-Class Philosophy articles
- Unknown-importance Philosophy articles
- Start-Class novel articles
- Mid-importance novel articles
- WikiProject Novels articles
- Articles copy edited by the Guild of Copy Editors