Talk:Telescreen

This article was nominated for deletion on 14 July 2021. The result of the discussion was redirect.

Xbox one

The Xbox one camera can never be turned off. It requires an internet connection at all times. It can be easily accessed by government entities. Many people keep televisions and gaming systems in the bedroom. Can anyone imagine the implications? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.27.80.34 (talk) 07:22, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delicious irony

After reading this article: http://allthingsd.com/20130212/erik-huggers-makes-his-case-for-intels-web-tv-service/ I immediately thought of the Telescreens. Basically, it is a Internet-TV box with a build-in camera. This way both the TV program and the ads can be personalized because the hi-res web-cam can track and identify the viewers. I'm just wondering whether or not anyone at Intel realized that most people will see the new set-top boxes as an Orwellian device. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.56.40.2 (talk) 11:30, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

fake news leads to fox news... lol

-UPDATE 9/2/12: This has since been fixed. Please undo the revisions next time you see them.

NO PROLE TELESCREENS

According to the novel most prole homes DON'T have telescreens, because the proles are too poor.

-You got it wrong. The character that says that is mixing "telescreen" for "television". Proles are largely unaware of Party issues going by the novel, and that man was born before the Revolution.--Canario23 (talk) 03:56, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

MINISTRY OF TRUTH?

I thought that they were monitored from The Ministry of Love

I HAVEN'T BEEN TAGGING!

I was making changes that I thought were appropriate. Another one of the reasons that, according to the novel, the proles didn't have telescreens is becuse the party didn't need to monitor them. And, yes that is my IP address. --Acebrock 19:39, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with nineteen eighty four?

Telescreens are only in 1984 and this article primarily discusses the surveillance techniques that INGSOC uses to watch it's citizens.--Acebrock 19:43, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, this really should be merged into the article about the book. Anyone else in agreement? Surrealmonk (talk) 17:11, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I added the merge template to draw attention to this discussion. I don't have any particular opinion either way. Joriki (talk) 06:59, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do not agree because telescreens have been used in several other films and books and are not solely featured in 1984. Other movies include V for Vendetta and Modern Times. If anything, telescreens should be merged with Modern Times because that is probably the first sighting of the device in popular culture. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.86.240.32 (talk) 05:14, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree to merging this article. The appearance of a screen in Modern Times is hardly central to the plot. The Orwellian telescreen, which this article describes, is an extremely important plot device within the context of the book and does not function in the same way. I would be inclined to argue that the modern perception of the 'telescreen' is based far more on Orwell than Chaplin. I would be extremely surprised if the writers of V for Vendetta (itself a commentary of the dangers of totalitarian states) did not take huge cues from Nineteen Eighty-Four. --81.159.161.115 (talk) 13:15, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

previous poster - none of your arguments make sense. since when is "central to the plot" important for the description of the device? moreover, if they are telescreens, and function differently, there is an argument to add to this article describing the different functioning and usage, as opposed to merge with another article. Moreover, because some other story takes huge cues from 1984 does not invalidate that story and the fact similar technology is used. 82.22.149.67 (talk) 08:59, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

82.22.149.67 -- it would be great if someone who knew "Modern Times" would make relevant additions to the article, but I think the "V for Vendetta" bits would be better described in footnotes and "references from popular culture" --- IMHO it's not that important because it doesn't really add anything to one's understanding of the telescreen as it is understood today, or ever was, as it is basically Orwellian. I'm not actually sure what you mean by "because some other story takes huge cues.. does not invalidate that story and the fact that similar technology is used"; how do you invalidate a story? And, no, just because telescreens were straight from 1984 does not change the fact that they are also in V for Vendetta, but I think 1984's telescreens being vastly more influential popular and iconic in our world and significant more relevant to the plot than telescreens anywhere else is good cause for merging with with 1984. Merging this article with "Modern Times" or "V for Vendetta" would be like writing a whole section under "Men in Black (Film)" describing amnesia-pens. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sinbadbuddha (talk • contribs) 14:38, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Solid Surfaces

The telescreens cannot see through solid surfaces, this is evident in the story, as when the painting drops off the wall Julia says: "Now they can see us" the telescreen then says:

"Now we can see you"

I also have an argument that backs that one up: sound can be very telling, y'know.

Well i edited the page, if anyone has any problems then post them here.

"False" news stories

Should the passage in the text that refers to the tellescreens reporting false news stories be changed, as it is never made completely clear how false the stories of production or victory are? Also, it is implied, when Julia brings real tea into Charrington's room, that Ociania had actually invaded India, making a victory not false at all.--Dark Green 23:42, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fairly sure most of it is false, seen in the traditional sense. However, according to the Party in the book itself, and the Party's philosophy, they are not false at all, but entirely true. 87.64.170.119 15:19, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sensitivity

Quoth the article: "The telescreens are incredibly sensitive, and can pick up a heartbeat."

Perhaps not necessarily. In an earlier chapter the telescreen in the protagonist's home is described as being able to pick up "any sound . . . above a very low whisper". This would probably preclude that particular unit's ability to pick up a heartbeat. On the other hand, the ones at his workplace in the Ministry of Truth are described as above. Thus, it may seem that that varying levels of sensitivity (and by extension, sophistication of technology) are built into different telescreens used in different places, according to necessity or pragmatism, as the situation may warrant. Also, the one in the office is a desktop appliance to which one would be in very close proximity. Furthermore, any government office can be assumed to have easy access to replacement parts. Discuss. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.135.48.107 (talk) 23:20, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Telescreen.png

Image:Telescreen.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 08:12, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

seeing vs. reading

The second paragraph twice says "we see", though the telescreen is (rightly) introduced as something from the novel. Perhaps someone who knows the book well could check whether this is in the book and reformulatte it accordingly? Joriki (talk) 07:01, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nickelodeon & Real-Life Telescreens in the '90s

I remember back in the 1990s watching Nickelodeon's very first "Slime Time Live" television special. Their main gimmick was that when kids called their 800 number, Nickelodeon would put their image up on the television screen, showing them looking back through their own television screen (actually looking at their televisions and seeing their own images). People typically don't believe that people could be watched through their televisions in the 1990s (and today by extension) until and unless I remind them of this, and then only if they remember seeing it themselves. The images were stilty and webcam-like, which I had no way of knowing until many years later, as webcams did not yet exist to my knowledge. Most distressing is the fact that they had no idea what sort of television the child calling owned, so either this technology was compatible with even older television sets, as non-color televisions with dial channel-tuning knobs were still common in the 1990s, or by miraculous coincidence no-one with an older television set called in, meaning in either event that the televisions common today are more than capable of doing this. Why, then, do people need webcams to see each other over the internet? I don't believe they do. Nickelodeon never used this gimmick again, which makes me think that they and others decided to let knowledge of this technology fade from the public mind, as it eventually did, and that webcams were advertized as being necessary to help hide the fact that no camera is needed to see someone who is sitting before a monitor / television screen, though this is pure speculation as their real motives could be something completely different. Still, the fact remains televisions could be used as telescreens at least as early as the 1990s and probably several decades before that. --Þorstejnn (talk) 19:49, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen inside many TVs in the UK between 1995 and 2005 and none of them have this technology. Also the Slime Time Live Wikipedia page says the serial only aired from 2000. freakypete (talk) 17:30, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Article restored

I've restored it after expanding it with some new content, which I think the term is notable after all. Ping participants of the past AfD (where I was the nominator): User:Andrew Davidson, User:Zxcvbnm, User:TTN, User:FiddleheadLady, User:Shooterwalker. I think the discussion of this concept by Hubner, LEssig and Posner is enough to have this meet WP:SIGCOV, but perhaps someone will dispute this. I certainly agree that that it would be good to add more sources where the topic is covered in a way that meets SIGCOV (still I couldn't find any work/paper dedicated to this, nor an entry about this in another encyclopedia or similar work), and if anyone can find a citations for some old OR in text (market now as such), it would be great, otherwise we should probably remove it. I'll note that the claim "By the 1950's, the wide publicity of Orwell's book precluded further such usage" does not appear supported by the usage as demonstrated by Prucher here. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:53, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Illustrations

I couldn't find anything free. There are some good images by Abner Dean, but they are almost certainly copyrighted (July 18, 1949 edition of Life Magazine), despite mis-licencing at Flickr. Dean dued in 1982 so we are probably still looking at few more decades of not being able to use his images, unless law changes. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:40, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]