Talk:Political geography of Nineteen Eighty-Four/Archive 1

Archive 1

New Merger

This article is the product of a merger of the Oceania, Eastasia and Eurasia articles. As this is my first merging, feel free to take a crack at cleaning it up a little if you think I did a lousy job, or suggesting areas to improve; I'm not 100% sure I did it right... Nutiketaiel (talk) 14:12, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Map

I don't think that the map included in this article is very accurate, I can't imagine Eastasia including parts of the former-Soviet Union since it was stated that Eastasia was formed a decade after Eurasia and Oceania. I'm going to upload a new map which I believe more accurately reflects Orwell's intended borders-TashkentFox 11:28, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

It seems accurate to me, if you take into account the decades of war between the emergence of the super-states and the "present day" of the novel, the sparce population of the regions of the former USSR under Eastasian control and the general dissatisfaction and dissaffection the central Asian states felt for the USSR. Nutiketaiel (talk) 14:04, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I wonder, has anyone ever hired military and economic strategists to figure out what would happen if the US, USSR and JAPAN all went to war again in 1949? What would the most likely outcome of the war be, such that the geopolitical map is an accurate depiction of the world as imagined by Orwell in 1984? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.69.98.194 (talk) 06:36, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't think you even need to go back, just look at present day. Japan aren't that powerful BTW, they lie a lot and have better terchnological counter measures to keep the lie afloat. If you think it's US, EU and Russia nowadays. China are basically Russia. Middle eastern countries are all Russia. Whilst EU are mainland europe with British owned africa. It's all leading to the map we see here. UK are leaving the EU. The EU are basically neo-bosihevik nazism anyway, it isn't a stretch of imagination that Putin (and future leaders thereof) will annex EU. UK will grow stronger, and again, isn't a stretch of imagination to annex it's old empire again. And again, same as before, the disputed area has always been traded, fought or diplo'd for during the whole history of mankind. All in all, I can see by 2080, two superstates emgerging with the third (as in 1984 the book) emerging sometime afterwards. By 2100, a new century, we will have this dystopian future. And the crazy thing is, people think this kind of socialism is utopian due to social media brainwashing. It has begun. HR — Preceding unsigned comment added by Contributions/86.178.123.54 (talk) 17:44, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

merge

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result was merge into Nations of Nineteen Eighty-Four. -- HermXIV (talk) 00:02, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

---

I have suggested that Airstrip One be merged into this article as the Airstrip One article doesn't appear to be notable enough on its own for an independent Wikipedia article. -- Mikeblas (talk) 15:10, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree with this merger. Airstrip One doesn't need its own article any more than Oceania, Eastasia and Eurasia did. Nutiketaiel (talk) 17:49, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Agree.--Utinomen (talk) 21:30, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Eastasia

Based on Orwell's description, Eastasia controls South East Asia (Thailand, Burma, Indochina) but probably not countries to the west (Iran, Afghanistan, Central Asia etc). Is there some reason this wasn't changed to meet Orwell's info? After all, he did write the book, and was probably using Goldstein as a way to communicate what the world of 1984 looked like. Is the reason SE Asia not included due to it being in the supposed boundaries of the Disputed Territories? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.228.42.46 (talk) 20:14, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Airstrip One

Orwell thought of the name 'Airstrip One' for Britain because during the Second World War Britain had effectively become one gigantic airbase sending out thousands of bombers day and night - it had become one vast airstrip. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.112.68.219 (talk) 21:24, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Evidence that England is the only totalitarian state?

That off this island, the world is normal, basically like our world today, but England has become closed off, and all information about the outside world (the superstates, the war, etc) is fabricated to its population?

-G — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.51.155.176 (talk) 00:07, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't think there is any evidence of that to be found in 1984, however since you do bring up an interesting thought, I'll ask you back: What if all upheaval, war and famine in the world are orchestrated and coordinated events? What if there is a vastly expanded realm of thought you are systematically kept ignorant of? What do you know, that did not come to you by the way of something your government approved of, be it the wires of the internet coming into your house or any book or magazine you may have read? You yourself may well be yet another unaware prole of a wider Oceania. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.184.26.187 (talk) 03:03, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

This is related to the point I was going to make. This page talks about enemies and lands being conquered but we don't know if it's true in the context of the book. All we really know is that Winston is told that. CsikosLo (talk)

Ingsoc

Just struck me - Airstrip One is a satellite state of greater Oceania, but all of Oceania follows the political ideology of IngSoc - English Socialism? Given that basically the USA usurped the British Empire and conquered South America, it seems curious that an English (not even British) ideology would dominate. Does the book say that Oceania practices Ingsoc, or just Airstrip One? Gymnophoria (talk) 10:53, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

It says all I think. Why is it so hard to believe the English would regain their old empire back? It makes sense to me. PS you do know today the English (westminister) control all of it's home nations and overseas nations. AKA "the english". So it's not far flung to think Northern and southern america and ex empire (commonwealth) countries would come back in a time of great expansion and atomic war.86.178.123.54 (talk) 17:53, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

It’s written from the perspective of Winston. As far as he knows, all Oceania follows Ingsoc. But we don’t have the voice of one single person from anywhere else in Oceania. Who knows what the common folk in Australia, Mexico and South Africa believe? Maybe people in South American are given propaganda that says that all Oceania is inspired by Bolivarian values. Or maybe they do follow Ingsoc, but don’t associate it with Airstrip One (the name is rather opaque after all) any more than Marxists think of themselves as following a German ideology, or Christians think of themselves as believing something Palestinian. Correctrix (talk) 11:15, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

International relations

In the International relations section it says "War is necessary to use up the oversupply constantly generated by the respective extreme forms of capitalism". This is obviously politically biased and untrue. A cursory glance at the wikipedia article for Capitalism comes up with this definition "Capitalism is an economic system based on the private ownership of the means of production and their operation for profit. Central characteristics of capitalism include capital accumulation, competitive markets, a price system, private property and the recognition of property rights, voluntary exchange and wage labor". All of the nations in 1984, as portrayed in the book, have almost none of these traits. The means of production are completely owned by the state and are not operated for profit, as is evident by the fact that the oversupply is intentionally destroyed, but rather for subjugation of the populace. Capital does not accumulate, as stated previously any excess is spent fighting the enemy There is no competition; people do earn money for work, which they can spend on government issued products, but they cannon legally sell things to each other, nor are their property rights, or any rights for that matter, recognised.

Only according to the most twisted and ideological definitions of Capitalism, is the world of 1984 Capitalist.--AwaweWiki (talk) 14:44, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

It seems bizarre to me too, but it doesn't seem impossible that it's how Orwell thought of it; he did after all consider himself a socialist. However the sourcing is pretty thin for such an odd claim. I think if it stays it ought to be attributed to the author of the source (a certain Fabio Parasecoli, who wrote Bite Me: Food in Popular Culture, which may not be a thoughtful and balanced political analysis). --Trovatore (talk) 20:30, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

I have to agree that the declarative statement contradicts what is presented in the text of Orwell's work. As mentioned earlier in the article, Oceania was founded following an anti-capitalist revolution, and the principles of Ingsoc were a form of Oligarchical Collectivism. Orwell refers to "the vanished world of capitalism" and includes Winston being tortured into confessing to being "an admirer of capitalism" along with other crimes like spying, sabotage, and murdering his (still living) wife. Unless there's some credible evidence of the author being a respected source on Orwell, it should probably go. 24.42.183.131 (talk) 00:24, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Oceania, 'Tis for Thee

Just a note:

Strong and peaceful, wise and brave

fighting the fight for the whole world to save

we the people will ceaselessly strive

to keep our great revolution alive!

unfurl the banners, look at the screen

never before has such glory be seen

Oceania, Oceania, Oceania

'tis for thee

Every deed, every thought,

'tis for thee

Every deed, every thought,

'tis for thee!Gesalbte (talk) 05:22, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

WP:NOTAFORUM CheeseInTea (talk) 18:03, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

:-) Cool book.Wipsenade (talk) 17:02, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Oceania's Population

It's worth mentioning that at the time of writing Goldstein's book, Oceania's population stands at around 300 million, according to this line: "... It's numbers limited to six millions, or something less than 2 per cent of the population of Oceania". - THE THEORY AND PRACTICE OF OLIGARCHICAL COLLECTIVISM, Chapter I (1984, Part II, Chapter 9). If <2%=6M, then 100%~300M.
Whether Blair actually thought through this futuristic datum or not, it's interesting to note that 300M is much lower than the actual population of Oceania's territories, even at the time he wrote 1984 (according to this UN based diagram: [1] ). --אדי97 (talk) 14:09, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

The book is set after a devastating nuclear world war. Colchester was wiped off the map, for example. Correctrix (talk) 11:17, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Weird, references someone named "Carr" before he's introduced, not clear who it's talking about.

Not sure how this should be edited to fix this. It looks like the critic Carr isn't really properly introduced anywhere in the article, and since I'm not that familiar with the subject matter, all I can do is post this comment here.

It does mention his full name further down, but it just seems like something got overlooked or dropped in the editing process, breaking the article's flow.

Thanks! 68.169.161.59 (talk) 00:21, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

I noticed that too - I have added his name - though does he warrant so much space in the article ? -- Beardo (talk) 23:03, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Dorian Lynskey, 7th source on the page

"It is stated that Oceania formed after the United States merged with the British Empire. The text, however, does not indicate how the Party obtained the power it possesses or when it did so." This line and its source need to be removed. Dorian Lynskey holds no official connection to 1984, as this is from a biography of George Orwell. I read the book source after purchasing because I was interested, and didn't even FIND anything relating to how Oceania formed. So whoever added this line and source lied about the source used, even. Nowhere in the actual book of 1984 does it state how Oceania really came to be, so I'm not sure why an author from 2019 is being used as a source in the first place.

In paragraph 2, page 153 of Dorian Lynskey's The Ministry of Truth, it even states: Animal Farm can be read as a thematic prequel to Nineteen EightyFour: first the revolution betrayed, than tyranny triumphant. Although there are passing references to a revolution and civil war in Oceania, following a limited nuclear war, there is no clear description of how Ingsoc seized and cemented power, but Animal Farm strongly suggests how it played out, with Snowball as a younger version of the “sinister enchanter” Goldstein, transformed by paranoia into “some kind of invisible influence, pervading the air about them and menacing them with all kinds of dangers.” In fact, an early draft of Nineteen Eighty-Four winked at Animal Farm by having O’Brien compare the unlikelihood of a prole uprising with the “theoretical possibility that the animals might one day revolt against mankind and conquer the earth.”

This is the only reference to how Oceania might have come to be in the entire book. So, yes, this line needs to be removed. 2601:243:C700:38E3:4418:E4A5:BE17:543E (talk) 05:52, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

References

References

Revised map

I have included a new version of the world map showing the super states. It takes into account that Orwell describes "the countries south to" China as part of Eastasia's territory. Since Eastasia's control over Mongolia, Manchuria and Tibet changes constantly, due to the war, these regions in consequence are shown completely as "disputed areas". The same is true for Tajikistan, Kyrgyztan and a part of Kazakhstan since Eastasia has a "less definite western frontier". The other regions of the former Soviet Union are part of Eurasia. It was a Soviet conquest of continental Europe which has led to the formation of Eurasia. The victoria lake is shown as a lake.Gernsback67 (talk) 11:53, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

@Gernsback67: yeah, looks fine that, thanks. It could probably lose the rhombus outline, since that was previously highlighting the border of the disp. zone, which of course is now much expanded. Or did Orwell mention the Tangier/Darin, etc., points specifically to mean something? Same with the lake: it's cute. Did he mention it particularly.

——Serial 12:24, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

@Serial Number 54129: Orwell was describing the rhombus as a "rough quadrangle" with the four cities at its corners. At the same time he was clear about the Southeast Asian countries belonging to Eastasia. They protrude into the quadrangle. So he was describing it being more "rough" than was shown on the previous map. The Victoria lake does not appear in the novel. This is only about the outline of it shown on the previous map without being "filled with water". Gernsback67 (talk) 20:05, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

I have re-insertedt the revised map after it has been exchanged with no reason given. As explained, it is is more true to Orwell's discription, especially with regard the countries "south to" China. Please have a look at the respective passages of the novel to judge the accuracy of the map. Gernsback67 (talk) 15:35, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Fabio Parasecoli as citation

User:ConstantPlancks would appear to be on a mission to expunge all mention of this author's book as a source. They claim it is part of a Marketing campaign of food book without any connection 1984 or significant author (Political geography of Nineteen Eighty-Four), repeatedly calls it spam (Political geography of Nineteen Eighty-Four,Political geography of Nineteen Eighty-Four,Political geography of Nineteen Eighty-Four), calls it spam astroturfing of unrelated book on food, with the implicit aspersion on the article's editor (Political geography of Nineteen Eighty-Four), and claims that "Fabio Parascoli" is not a notable or significant source for opinion material about political geography or Nineteen Eight Four (Political geography of Nineteen Eighty-Four). Elsewhere on the project, he calls Parasecoli non-notable and—surely verging on a BLP violation—appears to accuse the author of conducting an astroturfing campaign non-notable author astroturfing (Gastronationalism,Gastronationalism,Gastronationalism).

Actually, Parasecoli is Professor of Food Studies and Director of the Doctoral Program in Food Studies at New York University, and visiting lecturer at the University of Bologna, and has an extensive publishing history.

The book was first published 2008, so a spurt of spamming 12 years later seems unlikely in any case. Furthermore, it was published by a respected academic publishing house has been reviewed in peer-reviewed academic journals, including Food, Culture & Society, Gastronomica: The Journal of Food and Culture, Choice Reviews Online and the Australian Humanities Review. It has been cited in other academic works on over 200 occasions.

As to being irrelevant to this article, his research specifically looks at the intersection of food, popular culture and politics—for example, described as arguing that "food has become a powerful ideological tool in political debates, protests, and negotiations" and considering that 1984 is very much both the latter, and the referenced material included rationing, oversupply and chocolate (!!!), it should be obvious why this book is a relevant source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Serial Number 54129 (talk • contribs)

He's not notable for political geography or nineteen-eighty four. Why would anyone think he ( and "Bite Me: Food In Pop culture") deserves 5 different cites in this article? This is classic spamming and using WP for advertising. His opinion is not notable on this topic. He fails virtually all criteria for a reliable source and there are no germane references to the topic. ConstantPlancks (talk) 19:10, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

You do not seem to understand political geography: it's not confined to mountains and lakes, or politicians or senates. It's the interaction and intersection of political cultures and peoples. That is why references to food, and the quite distinctive role it plays in the book, make this not just reliable, but in its small way, an essential source for those particular arguments. In other news, could you stop accusing either me or the author of spamming? One is a personal attack, the other is a violation of our BLP policy. Both can end you up at WP:ANI. Be mindful. Your sole argument, in so far as one is deductable, is that you don't like it, which is unfortunate, but insufficient reason for removing sourced material. SN54129 20:04, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Here's an example of the nonsense I removed. [2]. Mo other scholar nor Orwell claims MiniPlenty overproduces food. Or that it is capitalism. It's fringe nonsense. Just because it mentions food doesn't give rise to inclusion of a fringe view. In addition, 1984 is dystopian fiction. The only experts on its political geography are experts on the novel, author or the dystopian politics. Not rando food and nutritiom professor. Every statement I removed was either fringe (as above) or trite where the removal took nothing away from the article. In addition, Parasecoli was named directly in the article twice. Experts on Orwell aren't so prominent. here's what I removed for the benefit of others.

Trite1 [3] "This is intended to strengthen the party's control over its citizens and help with its wars." -- trivial, Parasecoli unneeded. [4]

Fringe1 [5] "According to Fabio Parasecoli, war is necessary to use up the oversupply constantly generated by the respective extreme forms of capitalism." -- Can't find any significant sources where shortages are anything but shortages or rationing let alone extreme forms of capitalism that produce too much food.

Trite2 [6]"These states all, in effect, use the same totalitarianism,<ref name="auto"/> and are similar monolithic regimes. is the same as "These states all are similar monolithic regimes." His reference adds nothing.

Trite 3 [7] - "Each uses artificially-induced hatred of its then-enemy by its citizenry to control them.<ref name="auto"/> -- trivia about minilove and outside the scope of the source book on food.

Trite 4 [8] - "They (3 states in 1984) are the product, says Fabio Parascoli, of "humankind's foolishness and lack of vision"." Why do we care about this opinion? Seems trivial in redundant in a passage where experts on the topic express same thing.

Trite 5 [9] - "The reader is told, through Winston, that the world has not always been this way, and indeed, once was much better; on one occasion with Julia, she produces a bar of old-fashioned chocolate—what the Party issued tasted "like the smoke from a rubbish fire"—and it brought back childhood memories from before Oceania's creation." -- straight from the book. Don't need Fabio quoting the book just because one of the examples (food) of pre-totalitarian was better. Trivial example. This was the closest to a relevant sourcing and it simply isn't needed.

The easy test is that nothing was lost by removal. ConstantPlancks (talk) 21:26, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

That seems like a pretty good analysis. Basically the only thing Parasecoli says that you can't find in many other more directly related works is the extraordinary claim that Oceania had "an extreme form of capitalism".

I acknowledge here that Orwell considered himself a socialist and was critical of capitalism in general. But 1984 specifically is a thinly disguised critique of Stalinist Russia, and while you can no doubt find someone somewhere who would call Stalinism an extreme form of capitalism, discussion of that POV would surely require inline explanation.

It's not impossible that a professor of food studies could have something valuable to contribute to literary criticism, but it doesn't seem like the first place to go to source such an unusual perspective. --Trovatore (talk) 22:25, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

We have similar removals of this author at Gastronationalism with edit summaries of 'removing non-notable author's astroturfing'. I added that content and citation myself. ConstantPlancks, you seem to be systematically going through the encyclopedia searching for mentions of this author? valereee (talk) 22:25, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, pinging @ConstantPlancks. valereee (talk) 22:29, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

At a first glance, it seems much more intuitive to cite Parasecoli at the gastronationalism article than it does here. --Trovatore (talk) 23:03, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Sure, but what we've got here is an editor systematically going through Wikipedia to remove citations to/mentions of this author (in addition to the above two) here, here, here.. Whether or not he's the best source, that's not okay. valereee (talk) 23:15, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

false. After finding 5 references in this article and two red link namings, it appeared that this author was overrepresented in a number of articles. He's not particularly notable even as a professor. No WP article. Red links in articles. I left all the food articles as good faith but the politics articles seem way out of his field. Read what I removed. Someone familiar with astroturfing experience should review where and how he's mentioned and see if his presence in WP outsizes his notability in the field. I removed places where he was the 3rd source for the same text. A reference where he was mentioned as the reference for the reference and a place where an obvious cut and paste copyvio/plagiarism left an inline (Parasecoli: 2014). ConstantPlancks (talk) 01:50, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Case by case -

case 1: Third reference for a singular generic statement. Only time that reference was used. No text was removed and statement still cited. This is called copyediting but after finding similar references, it looks like astroturfing.

case 2: The 1957 Michelin Guide noted that "regional food has put up heroic resistance and the Walloon provinces and Flemish provinces are proud of their specialities." Filler without detail. The reference says quoted by "Culinary cultures of Europe: identity, diversity and dialogue", by Darra Goldstein, Kathrin Merkle, Fabio Parasecoli, Stephen Mennell, Council of Europe. Directorate General IV—Education, Culture and Heritage, Youth and Sport, Council of Europe, 2005. Parasecoli is the only author redlinked. The quote isn't even describing anything. It seems random. See the flags?

Case 3: (Parasecoli: 2014) was just sitting in the middle of the article. No ref tags, no indication of a publisher, etc. It screams cut/paste. Rather than call out the removal of the text, that whole article should be scrubbed to find out where it was copy and pasted from. Those three would be considered copyedits. Nothing from the encyclopedia was removed. ConstantPlancks (talk) 02:28, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

And this edit with an edit summary "rm non-notable author astroturfing", @ConstantPlancks? valereee (talk) 02:49, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

I answered that on talk page of that article. It's 3 references to the same article in a political advocacy magazine. The only sentence that it solely supports is self-evident opinion that there is Italian food, Mexican food, French food . The other two times it appears is to source a statement that is already sourced. Finally, the source is a single magazine published by the political advocacy organization. This is the source I removed [10]. No meaningful content was removed, just the reference to the advocacy site. BORGEN Magazine is an initiative of The Borgen Project and The Borgen Project believes that leaders of the most powerful nation on earth should be doing more to address global poverty. We’re the innovative, national campaign that is working to make poverty a focus of U.S. foreign policy.. It's considered a self-published source and shouldn't be used. ConstantPlancks (talk) 04:57, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

I agree that doesn't look great. Moreover those mentions all seem to be in Parasecoli's wheelhouse if I've understood it. I wouldn't really even mind mentioning the chocolate thing in this article. I don't think we should keep the "capitalism" one without very careful framing, and probably not even with it, as it seems likely to have been an offhanded reference in a book that's mainly about food. --Trovatore (talk) 23:21, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

• Fiveby that is an academic book, published by an academic imprint, and written by a full professor at NYU whose work focuses on the intersection of food, politics and the media. The book is about food in popular culture. I honestly don't see how anyone could think it is inappropriate to use in this context - it seems like it would be the ideal source for content about food and its political use in a popular novel - just what is your problem here? Girth Summit _(blether) 16:09, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

There is a huge volume of literature discussing 1984 and Orwell's thought, and the article should be based on WP:BESTSOURCES. Is Parasecoli appropriate for such as: war is necessary to use up the oversupply constantly generated by the respective extreme forms of capitalism? or the superstates a product of "humankind's foolishness and lack of vision"? I honestly don't understand how anyone could think these are within the expertise of the author or could be taken from a work on food in popular culture. fiveby(zero) 16:34, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Much of this scholar's work is about the politics of food production and distribution. The first snippet you've quoted above seems to fall squarely within his academic lunchbox. The second one, not quite so much I guess, but why you object to a single sentence providing a short, n attributed quote of an author's interpretation is beyond me. Girth Summit _(blether) 16:48, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

The first claim is bizarre on its face, and the implication that Oceania was capitalist, let alone an "extreme form of capitalism", is not in itself about "politics of food production", but just about politics. We don't have to throw in every idiosyncratic thought that happens to come from a respected academic. At least it should be shown that this is a notable minority view. --Trovatore (talk) 16:57, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Why not use the source where appropriate? In my opinion, the best bit from Parasecoli is: Winston's sensory and emotional memories, elicited by taste and food, are stronger than any propaganda: they work like a compass directing him towards a past of which he has no clear rational recollection. and quoting "Always in your stomach and in your skin there was a sort of protest, a feeling that you had been cheated of something that you had a right to." This might be marginally related to political geography if developed. Also, ...out of political control in the "proles" world. I would wish he would have expounded more on "Real sugar...proper white bread...real coffee..Inner Party coffee..." but food vividly conveys the bleakness and oppressiveness of a fictional political system... is all. The mention of chocolate "and it brought back childhood memories from before Oceania's creation" really demands an explanation of what that memory was, the horrific last memory of his mother, which should probably be in the main article. fiveby(zero) 17:07, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Brilliant - this is more like it. Yes, by all means discuss and consider where best to use this source, consider attributing opinions and offer examples of different opinions, etc. My main concern here is that the original argument put forward for excising big chunks of text and sourcing - that it was somehow promotion for this author and spam - is utter rot. Girth Summit _(blether) 17:17, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

For reference, the snippet in Nineteen Eighty-Four where winston tastes the blackmarket chocolate from Julia is Even before he had taken it he knew by the smell that it was very unusual chocolate. It was dark and shiny, and was wrapped in silver paper. Chocolate normally was dull-brown crumbly stuff that tasted, as nearly as one could describe it, like the smoke of a rubbish fire. But at some time or another he had tasted chocolate like the piece she had given him. The first whiff of its scent had stirred up some memory which he could not pin down, but which was powerful and troubling....The first fragment of chocolate had melted on Winston's tongue. The taste was delightful. But there was still that memory moving round the edges of his consciousness, something strongly felt but not reducible to definite shape, like an object seen out of the corner of one's eye. He pushed it away from him, aware only that it was the memory of some action which he would have liked to undo but could not.

The text in the article sourced to Parasecoli is on one occasion with Julia, she produces a bar of old-fashioned chocolate—what the Party issued tasted "like the smoke from a rubbish fire"—and it brought back childhood memories from before Oceania's creation.

Shouldn't it be directly attributed to Orwell? Or changed to something Parasecoli actually analyzes? ConstantPlancks (talk) 17:20, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

A secondary source is inherently better than the primary source (the book) for stuff like that. Girth Summit _(blether) 17:51, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Then shouldn't it be a secondary source from a RS that analyzes the book and provides analysis? The purpose of using secondary sources is analysis of primary source. That excerpt is simply the primary source repackaged without interpretation. I'm not sure what value that text brings beyond what Orwell wrote. ConstantPlancks (talk) 18:04, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

I don't understand your point - there is analysis in Parasecoli's book, across pages 67 and 68. It also contains quoted text from the novel. Girth Summit _(blether) 18:17, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

The analysis isn't in the WP article. That's what should be described in the WP article - Parasecoli's analysis within his scope of expertise. The article is basically "Parasecoli said Orwell said chocolate tastes "like the smoke from a rubbish fire." He's not an expert on Orwell so thats not a reliable source for Orwell. What we need is Parsecoli analysis of what that paragraph means beyond trivial. Like an analysis of how chocolate triggered memories and how food does that in people across cultures. His expertise is in that, not in Orwell quotes. It should be written like Orwell's character Winston said the rationed chocolate tasted "like the smoke from a rubbish fire" but the chocolate from Julia stirred up "powerful and troubling memories" which <paraphrase whatever analysis Parasecoli provides>. The article left out the analysis part which is the value Parasecoli adds. ConstantPlancks (talk) 19:22, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

You are at liberty to add more from the source at this point, if you think the article would benefit from it. Girth Summit _(blether) 19:43, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm with GS and SN. The objections just are puzzling. valereee (talk) 20:02, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm less than totally sold on citing Parasecoli in this article, but I think the "chocolate" mention is likely reasonable. The "capitalism" one is absurd. Being absurd doesn't mean it can't be covered in Wikipedia, but I'd want to see evidence that there's a significant current of thought taking this view. --Trovatore (talk) 22:01, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

So it could be attributed to the author, or reworded to avoid the mention of capitalism (which is not the main point he's making, as I read it). I'd be entirely happy to see an alternate wording proposed - again, it was the attempt to excise the source entirely on the nonsensical 'this source is terrible and must be spam' argument that brought me here. Girth Summit _(blether) 22:31, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

There are 5 separate places where the book was used. The "capitalism" edit that was removed is this. [11]. What is the main point of that statement that can be salvaged that is notable for this article? Of the 5 seperate citations, I said the chocolate one was the closest to the topic but he doesn't say anything about the chocolate beyond what Orwell said. I've already said "spam" was a poor choice of words. The "capitalism" edit took me to the references where that book was cited five times and Paresecoli was specifically mentioned twice. I can hope you can understand and forgive coming across this could lead me to erroneously conclude this was a form of WP:CITESPAM. ConstantPlancks (talk) 22:49, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

I can't really understand it, no, although I suppose I could chalk it down to your inexperience. If I come across something that I suspect is citespam (I often do), I identify who added it to the article, then I review their overall contributions to see whether this is a habit of theirs; only when I have satisfied myself based on that particular user's behaviour do I start making accusations of that sort. I'll add that if I did discover that I had inadvertently accused one of the most experienced and productive editors on the project of spamming, I would be offering some profound apologies, which would go a damned sight further than 'I acknowledge that was a poor choice of words'. Five citations in an article isn't very many - I just looked at the last article I took through FAC, and found that I had cited the same book 46 times. That does not mean that I am spamming the author of that book, just that it had a lot of good information on the subject I was writing about. This article has fifty references, many of the cited multiple times - it's just not a big deal. Girth Summit _(blether) 23:53, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

I think it's not just the inexperience but the unwillingness to understand their own inexperience. Some inexperienced people get it. ConstantPlancks can't understand why the rest of us keep harping on "X editor has 90K edits" because CP doesn't understand what that means. CP has ~250 edits. Comprehending what 90K edits means...yeah, no. Until they have maybe 2K themselves, we need to shelve this. valereee (talk) 00:28, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Not sure Orwell would consider it absurd: "Is it socialism or is it a peculiarly vicious form of state capitalism?" is my guess at Parasecoli's thinking behind "extreme forms of Capitalism". But the reader shouldn't have to guess at that, and it might be difficult to find an author to put that into proper context for Nineteen Eighty-Four where it's a bit jarring w/o explanation. fiveby(zero) 06:21, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

I acknowledged above that Orwell "identified as" a socialist, as the kids say, and in any case was critical of capitalism, but I seriously doubt that he considered Stalin-style communism (which he explicitly identified as the target of 1984) to be capitalism. I give him credit for being able to be opposed to two things without considering them the same thing. Nor is there much evidence of private enterprise in 1984, except possibly in the unregulated transactions of the proles, who don't really count. --Trovatore (talk) 07:07, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Kind of idle discussion as what the kids say these days shouldn't be part of the article, but if you're "less than totally sold" on the source because of that statement i don't think it's that bad. The above quote is from 1939 and a "key question", in 1941 it would be "a centralized economy that one can call Socialism or state capitalism according as one prefers." If someone needs to say 'state capitalism' rather than 'socialism' to acknowledge the totalitarian nature then whatever, it's a distraction. Parasecoli doesn't really give a good sense of place, but maybe if the article mentioned Victory Mansions, The Golden Country, the walk through the prole neighborhood in search of the capitalist past, then discussion of food wouldn't seem out of place (somewhat along the lines of Nineteen_Eighty-Four#Poverty_and_inequality) Seems a bit OR'ish and expansive for the title, but there is this for a starting point for St Martin-in-the-Fields etc. Any objections? fiveby(zero) 17:59, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

this essay is fascinating; thank you for pointing me to it! If you'll pardon an off-topic aside, it's curious that Orwell never seems to say exactly why he thinks liberal capitalism is "obviously" coming to an end. The only evidence he seems to offer is that that was the trend at the time he was writing, but I assume he did not think that trends always continue. It's not entirely clear whether he thinks the continuance of liberal capitalism would be a good thing, assuming it were possible.

Anyway, back to the article, one issue with framing it in terms of "state capitalism" is that that's a polysemous term in itself, as its article makes clear. To me, it's a contradiction in terms; to Orwell apparently not, but trying to figure out what he meant by it and then somehow retrofitting the Parasecoli text to it seems more than a little original-researchy. --Trovatore (talk) 07:51, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

I think "Orwell's Era and Its Mood" in Roback, Jennifer. "The Economic Thought of George Orwell". The American Economic Review. JSTOR 1805583. and maybe the whole is on point, and if you'll pardon an opinion then following a trend to it's most pessimistic end is very Orwellian.

I am just guessing at Parasecoli's meaning which comes without even a footnote, and reading between the lines i don't think the snippet is so very unreasonable. You're absolutely right on OR, we shouldn't have to guess and especially the reader shouldn't have to. That would be solved by a source with the proper weight and discussion behind it, probably in the George Orwell article. In my opinion the blanket acceptance of snippets from a source is more disappointing than the blanket rejection, but hopefully everyone has moved on from both. fiveby(zero) 19:42, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

In my opinion, the blanket rejection of a source because it comes from the wrong flavour of academic is more concerning - the verbiage that has been directed towards this scholar has been unacceptable, from a BLP perspective let alone a reasonable-accuracy one. Attribution can be a wonderful thing. As in 'what so-and-so describes as extreme such-and-such'. All this can and will be handled carefully without edit warring, I trust. Girth Summit _(blether) 00:40, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

So the problem, or at least one problem, with just attributing the "capitalism" line to Parasecoli is, how many of our readers have ever heard of Parasecoli? If it were an attribution to, I don't know, Herbert Marcuse or something, fair enough; the reader has a reasonable shot of knowing enough about where Marcuse is coming from to consider the source. With an attribution to a relative unknown, it almost sounds like Wikipedia itself is saying that this is an opinion worth taking into account. --Trovatore (talk) 04:17, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure 'likelihood of readers having heard of the author' is a factor we usually consider when assessing the reliability or relevance of a source. Anyway, the article already has multiple references to particular authors' views, attributed to them in text: Joseph Gabel, Craig Carr, Christopher Dent, Czesław Miłosz, Julian Symons, Dorian Lynskey.. Not all of these people have articles about them, so I'm not even sure who all of them are - are they all drastically better qualified to comment than Parasecoli? Girth Summit _(blether) 18:10, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

@Girth Summit: I'm not sure if you actually arguing that for that content or angry about my comment on ANI, but i'll answer your "just what is your problem here?" with nothing and no interest and won't touch the article again. fiveby(zero) 04:51, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Sources

A lot of this article cites analyses of 1984 rather than the book, sometimes even with quotes or facts directly from the book. Is this a Wikipedia policy? 2A02:C7F:2CEF:8A00:AC9C:6AF9:F0B9:AB83 (talk) 20:18, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Citing the analyses allow us to 1) say what scholars think the book was trying to say rather than engaging in our own speculation and 2) determine what aspects of the book are relevant to include rather than just picking and choosing on our own whims. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 21:04, 23 January 2023 (UTC)