Talk:Newspeak/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 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.

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 ? --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.
--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. 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? - 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? 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. -- Tarquin

Aren't "politically correct" terms an example of newspeak? For example, having to say "terminally inconvenienced" for "dead"? -- 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") with a 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. 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 ;) 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 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. 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. 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, 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

Sexcrime vs crimesex

This article links to sexcrime which doesn't exist, but crimesex does. Which is correct? Graue 11:07, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

sexcrime. I'll move it right now.--Acebrock 20:45, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Abbreviations, l33t, SMS and such

I don't think it's appropriate to label every new form of jargon, sociolect or dialect as newspeak. Isn't the term usually applied to forms of jargon and neologism that have some sort of political motivation, and come with some sort of taboo on not using them?

I removed the section on SMS "TXT SPK" as the connection to Newspeak is tenuous at best. If someone wishes this section to be included in the article please include some kind of explaination. 213.168.230.149 20:33, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Dicdefs

Most of the newspeak "word" articles consist of a paragraph or at two of rather redundant text and links to other newspeak word-articles. Most of these cannot properly be expanded, since they are hardly used outside of 1984 and are basically definitions. These should be merged in. Doublethink (and thoughtcrime) merits its own article since it has, ironically, entered the standard English vocabulary and is an important concept known beyond its literary context. The Ingsoc article is also substantial enough that it can probably stand on its own. Possibly prolefeed and unperson as well, if they are improved. The rest should be merged and redirected. I have already redirected the doubleplusungood article since that was the prior consensus and the redirect was replaced by a terrible writeup. NTK 20:20, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Wrong article name and redirects

Right folks, what's the big idea of having Newspeak language redirect to Newspeak, which in turn redirects to Oldspeak (Standard English), its total opposite, which in turn is actually an article about Newspeak (check the first bold word)? Fix it! 82.139.85.118 14:07, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

I've reverted the ungoodness. Thanks for pointing that out. enochlau (talk) 15:37, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Other

Looking through the past versions of Newspeak gives me the impression that the article hasn't evolved but rather deteriorated since the original entry. If anybody cares to keep the "Real-life examples" then serious thought should be given to exploit this in a separate article. Another option would be to create a new separate article just for Orwell's Newspeak. -- mic

I don't disagree that a resemblance between PC and Newspeak can be coherently argued; what I disliked was the blunt statement, "there is a resemblance", as though this were something that had been definitively proved. It can be argued equally coherently that the differences between PC and Newspeak are significant enough to make them, really, two different things. It's important to include both viewpoints in Wikipedia, without being seen to favour one or the other.

On a similar note: I think that your new sentence, "Of course it is this very attempt to change thought thru changing (or eliminating) words that earns political correctness the connection to Newspeak," is fine, but it could really do with the qualifying term "perceived" before the word "connection". Just my opinion. R Lowry 20:30, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC)

This again brings up the same question. I don't see how it can be coherently argued that there is no connection. They are different things, but I don't believe that anybody can logically and coherently show them to be unconnected or signifigantly disimilar. Words like "arguably" and "percieved" are only ment to be used when there is some legitamate debate or difference of opinion. Otherwise this is going to be the existential wiki, rather than an encyclopedia ;) JackLynch 21:00, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Well, there is obviously a difference of opinion in this case. :-) The case against there being a PC / Newspeak connection is made quite well in the article itself, with the point about them having (arguably) different - almost opposite - intentions: Newspeak, to empower the state at the expense of individuals; PC, to empower marginalised individuals by freeing them from negative stereotyping. From that viewpoint, PC and Newspeak are not really related at all. R Lowry 21:18, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Apparently I see it very differently, but since you seem so confident that someone could argue (in my opinion such an argument is Doublethink ;) that they are different in some signifigant way, I agree w the suggested edits. I will say tho that Newspeak was certainly ment to have been portrayed as "empowering" to those it reprogrammed, much as PC is today. Also, for those who are interested, there is reasearch available showing how P.C. rewordings like "special" and "differently abled" have now become slurs of prejuidice themselves, and many in the field feel it is impossible to create a term for the retarded, disabled, or otherwise imperfect which does not evolve a negative connontation JackLynch 21:39, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC)
I agree with the above, I consider PC to be restricting. God forbid I trod on anyone’s toes. More to the point, is not the fact that we take so easily and willingly to a restraint on word choice a perfect example of the conditioning Newspeak was created for. Newspeak itself was created in the storyline under the pretence of freeing the people and giving them the ability to be concise rather then confuse others with needless words. PC does that as well, and while I’m not advocating that some one go out and start calling every one rude and improper slang names, I am advocating that PC restricts the power and beauty that is the English Language. Jack Lynch does bring a perfectly valid point that some words in PC, have already developed negative connotations, but i would like to bring up words that are anti-PC but have entered the American Lexicon with usage contrary to their original intentions. i.e. the Word "gay" is used by many of young age to imply dislike for something, but those same people do not necessarily harbor ill will toward the homosexual community. The term "nigger/nigga" has become an acceptable greeting/title among the black community I wouldn’t be surprised if the title "Mr." was replaced with it in said communities. Speaking of the black community, what about the term "African-America" which is no longer in use, because it was brought to the attention of the masses and the proponents of PC that not all Blacks are African in genetic heritage. PC is Newspeak, and if one sat and thought about it long enough they would realize that PC the term it self is Newspeak. I agree with Jack Lynch’s edit and second any re-edits he proposes on this particular article.---Iorek Brynson
The Nazi/Gestapo example is a bit odd, since that kind of contraction is very common in Germany. - Bz2 16:04, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Query Newspeak link in Newspeak article. Malquote? Doubleplusungood ifso. --[Not signed, no date stamp]

"[A]im was to make subversive thought" -> "aim was to make all alternative thought". Cf. duckspeak, Pynchon, and Fromm.
"The purpose of Newspeak was not only to provide a medium of expression for the world-view and mental habits proper to the devotees of Ingsoc, but to make all other modes of thought impossible".[ Principles of Newspeak ] "The basic idea behind Newspeak was to remove all shades of meaning from language". [ Newspeak, from an afterword by Erich Fromm in 2003 U.S. edition. (Content of the foreword by Thomas Pynchon as well as the afterword is frequently plagiarized, as an engine search for key phrases demonstrates.) ]

"Newspeak words", whether merge into the main article: yes, more intuitive also. Could still hyperlink.

"See also", + link to article on source since Newspeak discussed there also.

Bug: ref="multiple, 2003 ed." command or ref="2003" command per Multiple uses DNF. Kludge: "ref" command used instead, generates duplicate in "Notes and References" section.
References manually generated as a backup. Format per MoS.

Pynchon and Fromm referenced are frequently plagiarized elsewhere on the Web. {{Citation needed}} in article at relevant text.
Link Totalitarian Language: Orwell's Newspeak and Its Nazi and Communist Antecedents not found so moved here until created.

"External Links" -> "Further Reading", per MoS Further reading/external links.
"Retrieved [date]", since on-line reference links break (per Embedded links) Original wording retained as could. Might be shortened.

--GoDot 01:28, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

The word PC as Newspeak

"Politically correct" can be seen as a phrase in conservative newspeak meant to allude to orwellian nightmares. To me, labelling a group of people as "niggers" also appears as politically charged.

I argue that no neutral language seems to exist; all languages looks shaped by (and if sapir-whorf is correct, shapes) their culture and the intentions of their speakers. Sometimes intentionally ("collateral damage", "politically correct", "womyn") and sometimes unintentionally ("nigger").

I consider "charging the opposite view with allegations of newspeak" as a form of newspeak itself.

  • I agree with this user and would also like to state that some words or phrases connotation give off the wrong idea of the meaning of those words or phrases (i.e. ethnic cleansing, connotation of the phrases makes to sound like it is a good thing, when it is obviously not).

Davin Bacon 00:16, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

The term "Politically Correct" is far too loaded, in my mind, to be used extensively in that secion. Instead of "Politically Correct Euphamisms," I propose changing it to something like "Political Euphamisms," and mentioning "political correctness" as just one example some cite of such euphamisms. For one thing, the term itself is generally used to charicature liberals; "collateral damage" is not an example of the term PC as is most commonly used. It bears mentioning, but not to such an extent. MRig 04:50, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

artificial-speak

Finishing reading the article, I was reminded of l33t-speek, but really more so just "teen-speak". Try to talk to someone which is really "into" that, and you get nothing out from them, just "brb lol afk back thx asl", but then, did teens ever speak about big things (I know this can sound condescenting, but...)?

  • Being eighteen myself, I can say that some teens (I hope I'm among them) sometimes speak of more important things. But they do usually seem, to me, maddeningly superficial. However, I get the impression that the adult world isn't much better. Looks like I'm not the only one who thinks so. MRig 04:57, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

But then we have the adult version: just talking about the weather, and one of my favorite (anon) quotes:
"my biggest fear is that one day we will meet eachother on the street and have an artificial conversation".
One could say "artificial" is PC/new-speak because you say what you think is "right", what will not offend anyone, and also it will always spark discussion. You think, you have to say something to this person, when you meet them, you have to say something nice, something light. In this way, emotions are removed from language, from communicating, and if you never talk strongly about things "oooh (celebrity) is so sexy on (tv show) and did you see his fight with (other celebrity)" you could never try to change the world. Well, except to give yourself more money/power...

But then also in relation which might not seem logically so:
"We are so vain that we care for the opinion of those we don't care for"
- Marie von Ebner-Eschenbach (Adjust your speech, your character, your everything, to "how you think" you're supposed to act. Ok. Nevermind)
--Seas 21:39, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thats an excellent point, I don't suppose you've read Ray Bradbury's Fahrenheit 451? ~~Paul

Yes, teenagers often speak about "big things." Do adults? --Zagsa 06:23, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

l33t?

I don't understand how l33t can be considered a form of Newspeak. I can't see any significant similarity in the way l33t and Newspeak "substitute words and phrases" as the article says. Could someone please give examples of some l33t words/phrases which are Newspeak-like, and explain to me why the relationship between l33t and Newspeak is significant? --Jibjibjib 07:24, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

  • In think "leet" should be removed, as it has nothing to do with newspeak.
    • I also support this proposition. Davin Bacon 00:10, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
      • In fact, "leet" could be viewed as an opposite to Newspeak. The purpose of leet (like any jargon) is to get specific thoughts across effectively while the purpose of Newspeak is exactly to prevent this. --CompuChip 14:26, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
      • Agreed. "leet" could be a code, or jargon, or even a version of English with a richer more subtle vocabulary (words like 'n00b', 'dupe', etc carry much more information than it woudl take a full sentence of English to convey --FrostPaladin

spelling checkers

Should spelling checkers be added in here as an example of it in real life? eg I used to spell really well, but now I have MS word my grasp of spelling has deteriorated. I find the same with grammer. Auto correct does the same. i am now almost unable to spell entreprenuer, always getting the e & u around the wrong way. I dont think its unreasonable that people in the near future will be dependent on machines to use their own languages correctly 222.155.79.66 04:36, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

No. That is nothing to do with the subject of the article.Keithmahoney 21:56, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Cyril Kornbluth and Newspeak

This section seems unnecessary, about half the paragraph explains that the book doesn't contain Newspeak, the other half is tortured reasoning about why some of it could be interpreted to have the same effect as Newspeak.

And then, of course, there is the whole missing spoilers warning, if I understadn wikiprotocol correctly.

And the abbreviations used in the Kornbluth story are very directly based on those actually used in telegraphic communication at the time, due to the policy of charging on a per-word basis. Kornbluth in fact worked as a wire-service rewrite man, and was celarly imitatign the dispatches he saw on a daily basis. DES (talk) 23:08, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

This is so obviously irrelevant for the reasons above that I've removed it. It seems to have been added by Adam Keller but he doesn't interact on his talk page (or here it seems) so I haven't told him. 88.111.85.129 05:38, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Original Research

the two paragraphs about the failings of newspeak really have no place here without an outside citation. they read exactly as if someone decided to stick a condensed version of a term paper into the article. the criticism is fine, though there are several comments above which present a good case for it being incorrect, but it needs to have a traceable origin. i move to remove these sections altogether and put out a request for newspeak criticism.209.169.48.66 23:30, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

as I mentioned above, two sections read as straight original research. i'm moving them here if anyone wants to resuscitate parts of them.209.169.48.66 15:13, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

The real life pitfall of the Newspeak is, of course, that there are real-life agglutinative languages which act exactly as Orwell suggests, and the various suffixes, prefixes and derivatives allow almost endless possibilities for neologizising. Instead of shackling the thought, Newspeak actually just enhances the possibilities of expression of its speakers. Certain languages, such as Finnish, Japanese or Hungarian, work almost perfectly on the Newspeak principles — they have very sparse basic vocabularies, but almost all the expressions are derived from the stem words by various prefixes and suffixes.


But again the real-life pitfall of the agglutinative languages looms here: agglutinative languages, like Finnish language, offer almost endless possibilities to neologize an expression or a word by using just basic vocabulary and the various prefixes and suffixes. A concept which is not assumed to exist is easy to conceive by using a word root and derivative prefixes or suffixes. The concept of "freedom" (Finnish vapaus) would be easy to conceive by using expression omaehtoepäestoisuus ("own-condition-un-hinder-ity") where the only word roots needed would be "ehto" (condition) and "esto" (hinder), and the word still would be perfectly understandable Finnish, albeit clumsy. In Newspeak this would be avoided by removing, for example, the word own (and possible hinder) from the language, since in a world where no personal possession or even private thought is possible, there would be no need for a word like own. Similarly, Oldspeak words may be stripped of certain meanings while retaining others, such that though it would be possible to say the weather is good, the phrase the Party is ungood would be meaningless. Even so, it is unlikely that such complete control would be technically possible; even if the expression "the Party is ungood" does not normally make sense, groups of rebels could slightly alter their language to make it make sense. Even if the word "own" is removed, then a word could be formulated that meant "condition-of-person-not-hindered-by-other-people". "Uprising" could be represented by "people-making-attack-on-Party". To fully remove this possibility would be impossible; as long as the words "Party", "people" and "attack" exist, they could be made to say "People-attack-party". To remove thoughtcrime, practically all words would have to be eliminated. In any case, languages evolve over time and would undermine attempts to maintain control. People today often invent their own words and terms for things and events that do not extend to the main community. Also, thought cannot necessarily be controlled by words; even today, not all thoughts can be written down or described. Qualia would also serve as an obstacle. (A further possible complication would be that if someone did commit thoughtcrime, then it would be impossible for authorities to work out what it was they did).

Yes, all very true. Of course, Orwell did intend to write something of a satire in 1984, and so inherent weaknesses in the viability of Newspeak aren't really relevant, even if they are interesting. 88.111.194.96 13:09, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I added the sentence
Similarly, Oldspeak words may be stripped of certain meanings while retaining others, such that though it would be possible to say the weather is good, the phrase the Party is ungood would be meaningless.
as I recall that something along those lines was explicitly in the book (probably in the appendix). Now this is removed, together with a large junk of original research. Also, the sentence
Note that all of these words would be obsolete and should be removed in the "final" version of Newspeak, except for "doubleplusungood" in certain contexts, such as as illustrated in the preceding paragraph.
in the next paragraph, does not make very much sense anymore. I'd like to put the above sentence back into the article, as I think it's also an important point that, apart from removing words entirely, it is also possible to remove just meanings of words (like ethically good) while still retaining ("innocent", as in good weather or good quality) others. But since I don't have the book, perhaps someone could check whether words of this kind are indeed there somewhere probably in the appendix. --CompuChip 13:52, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Swedish

For example, the Swedish Military jargon substitutes "unpeace" (Swedish: ofred) for "war", and "ungood" (Swedish: obra) for "bad".

These is only partially true.

"Obra" is pure post-1970s slang. It was not used when I served in the Swedish army in 1979 and no news paper editor today would let it slip into his paper unless as a direct quote.

"Ofred" is not military jargong, but a word only found today in high literary language. It sounds archaic and would hardly ever be found in the colloquial speech of the XXIst century. 193.15.73.3 14:33, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Both "Obra" och "Ofred" are still frequently used in the swedish army. Slipzen 00:00, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
It is, and so is a great number of other Swedish words. But the article claims that these words are specific military jargon, while implying that this is an example of this brand of antonym construction is a natural occurence in "strongly hierarchical groups", which isn't the case. "Ofred", as noted, is an old construction that is found in Swedish texts as far back as 1535 [1]. "Obra" is slang, and as far as it can be sourced, it's taken from the Swedish translation of... 1984 [2].
This section is just not accurate. Gör om, gör rätt! :) Amphis (talk) 18:08, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Fun

I wonder how Monty Python's Dead Parrot sketch would be like in newspeak..."this parrot is dead! and it's dead! dead! more dead!" :) -- Dreamyshade

Maybe it would be more like "This parrot has unlife! Unlife! Doubleplus unlife!"
Or: "This is an unparrot! Doubleplusunparrot!" —The preceding unsigned comment was added by CompuChip (talk • contribs) 14:20, 20 January 2007 (UTC).

Oh, I can so picture that. 

  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 32.140.161.239 (talk) 00:15, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

In Babylon Five, a term similar to this is used in the last episode of the fifth season [[User::wlievens|wlievens]] /

The episode is The Deconstruction of Falling Stars. It is the 22 episode of season 4. It is the last episode of season 4. The terms in Babylon 5 are:
GoodTruth:
The truth according to the party.
RealTruth:
The truth one sees when one looks around oneself — one should not speak RealTruth allowed unless one wishes to visit a JoyCamp and become vaporized.

Orwell never wrote RealTruth nor GoodTruth, Joseph Michael Straczynski did, but the terminology is clearly parallel to NewSpeak. Powerseeking characters in Babylon 5, like the real fascistic chickenhawks who call themselves neocons tend to use newspeaklike language.

—

— Ŭalabio‽ 2005-07-05 23:38:17 (UTC)

So should the Babylon 5 examples be included in the article as examples of language similar to Newspeak? Beobach972 14:53, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Comparisons are fun & interesting, but I think the farther we get from Orwell's actual Newspeak, the less useful this article will become. In fact, I'm inclined to propose that this article deal strictly with Orwell's Newspeak, with links to possible parallels and "real world examples", which are all subjective.--Son of Somebody 15:17, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

focus of this article

"Newspeak is a fictional language in George Orwell's novel Nineteen Eighty-Four." - So, how come that there are only a handful of examples of Newspeak from the novel, but whole passages on alledged "newspeak" in todays real world? Although I would personally agree that there may be some phenomena in todays world that can be thought of as to resemble Orwells Newspeak, I would think that this is higly dependent on your POV, and that this article is quite out of focus. -- 790 06:03, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

No one seems to feel reponsible for the section Real-life examples of Newspeak. If no sources for the strong claims linking Orwell's novel to real-world phenomena are given, I will delete it by September 1. -- 790 18:05, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
I checked the history page, and it didn't seem like a deletion was made on September 1. I read throught the article, and I agree that it is the best example of WP:SYNTH I have ever seen on Wikipedia. Personaly I believe it should be deleted from "real life" down, especially since Pc, and Abbriviations can be seen as the oposite of Newspeak (PC. is developing new words in order to create new oppertunities of communication, when prior communication around those lines was impossable)(just one alternitive definaition). I will continue with the deletion if no one has any objections.Coffeepusher (talk) 07:50, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I have removed the passage now [3]. As it is a rather long passage, I'd like to give an additional explanation of my action. This article is about a fictional phenomenon in a novel. To relate this fiction to real-world penomena may not be alltogether senseless, but to be encyclopedically acceptable, such allegations have to be (a) sourced according to WP:REF and WP:NOR and (b) expressed in a way that does not obfuscate the fact that the novel and the real world are different things, and relations between them are subject to political, social, artistic and other points of view (WP:NPOV). Both requirements were not fullfilled within several months, hence the deletion. -- 790 (talk) 20:57, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Russian

Ingsoc appears to be direct reference to Soviet era Russian language, which has hundreds of words constructed from first syllables: kolkhoz, glavlit, sovnarkom, politruk, chlenkor etc. Like kolkhoz comes from kollektivnoje hozjaistvo (collective economy). I did not edit the article as I have no proof that Orwell actually knew anything about Russian. Warbola (talk) 20:58, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Oldspeak DOES NOT EQUAL Newspeak

Oldspeak is traditional english, or Standard English if you will. Newspeak is the corrupted language of Nineteen-eighty Four. Newspeak is the real deliberation of making up, or deleting new words, that are irrelevant, and that may cause thoughtcrime. I think they should be two different articles. The articles are exactly the same, there is no point to that. Oldspak is the languauge I am using now, Newspeak is all government, corporate, and military language, not the ORDINARY person. Thanks, and please try to change the articles instead of making them one and the SAME. They are two totally different concepts. Oldspeak, Standard English is traditional, and proper. Newspeak is simplified, unconventional, and not Standard English - besides, it has NO MEANING WHATSOEVER in the real world. 04:46, 6 May 2006 (UTC)~User:Xinyu

Why don't you split off an Oldspeak article instead of moving the current one, seeing as the current one is actually about Newspeak? enochlau (talk) 15:38, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
Also note Talk:Oldspeak for past actions. enochlau (talk) 15:38, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the commments pro's and people. I'll make an article called, "Oldspeak" Sounds good? Please reply soon. 00:47, 7 May 2006 (UTC)~User:Xinyu
No. Just because Oldspeak and Newspeak are not the same doesn't mean they don't go in the same article. Oldspeak is not a very common term and was invented by Orwell only because he needed something to contrast with Newspeak. BTW, I've nominated your page for deletion. Oldspeak (Traditional English)--M1ss1ontomars2k4 00:57, 7 May 2006 (UTC)


Well, just because Newspeak and Oldspeak are contrasts of each other does not mean that they should be treated like the same thing. They're not the same thing, although both are, by definition newspeak words for new terms in the English language. I personally think, know, and believe that Oldspeak just means Traditional English. The Standard English of today - those used by the media, government, military, and multinations are Newspeak. Therefore, they are two different concepts, Notice, I am not using Newspeak here - like confusing terms, colloquials, and slang. --Lord X 01:19, 7 May 2006 (UTC)User:Xinyu
ps. Thanks for letting me know why you are doing the things you are doing. We could at least help each other you know, and not cause too much issues around here.
Agreed that Oldspeak should NOT have it's own article. The simple acid test? Oldspeak has no meaning as a word outside the context of Newspeak.--FrostPaladin 11:48, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
why not link oldspeak to English? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.195.90.73 (talk) 20:53, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

use of American spelling

I just noticed "favor" somewhere in the body of this article, and it occurred to me that the spelling in this article should reflect Orwell's own, and the usage of English actually in his novel, which would seem to be British spelling.....?? Reasons why this shouldn't be the case I'd be interested in hearing...Skookum1 (talk) 17:46, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Feasibility of Newspeak

How feasible would it be to maintain Newspeak given the human tendency to play with words, develop codes, jokes and so on? '...Surely every colour that is not white is unwhite...?' People have memories - and 'dreadful' is shorter than 'doubleplusungood.'

Could the development of Latin names for "plants, animals and other categories of living things" and similar mappings be seen as forms of Newspeak (being useful)?

Languages will always change - and some words will move from 'acceptable' to 'unacceptable' and are replaced by new words which experience the same phenomenon: it is the topics that are the problem rather than the words. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.104.132.41 (talk) 15:39, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Promoting/rejecting

The genesis of Newspeak can be found in the constructed language Basic English, which Orwell promoted from 1942 to 1944 before emphatically rejecting it in his essay "Politics and the English Language".[2]

This sentence must be wrong. (at least it doesn't follow from the source) Joepnl (talk) 14:08, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

'A' and 'B' vocabulary?

Could someone explain what "A vocabulary" and "B vocabulary" are? Several articles on Wikipedia mention them in reference to Newspeak, but the Newspeak article doesn't mention them at all. 70.20.149.174 (talk) 06:58, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

In Orwell's original article, "A vocabulary" was daily conversation, "B vocabulary" was political terms, and "C vocabulary" was technical and scientific terminology. Naturally Orwell's big convern was the B vocabulary. CharlesTheBold (talk) 02:11, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
Don't forget C vocab. I'd be glad to write a section on this soon. --Slartibartfast1992 00:28, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Eh?

The ultimate aim of Newspeak was to reduce even the dichotomies to a single word that was a "yes" of some sort: an obedient word with which everyone answered affirmatively to what was asked of them.

As far as I understand that claim, I can't see it supported from Orwell's appendix, so I've removed it. I think it's a misunderstanding of the way Oldspeak bad, worse, worst good, better, best are reduced to Newspeak ungood, ungooder, ungoodest, good, gooder, goodest i.e. dichotomies that use several roots in Oldspeak use one root in Newspeak, differentiated only by prefixes and suffixes. Weniwidiwiki84 (talk) 09:18, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Copyvio

Is the word 'copyvio' a part of newspeak? Is it a form of 'crimethink'?--MathFacts (talk) 21:12, 8 June 2009 (UTC) No,its wikipedia-jargon for "copyright violation".75* 18:22, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

2013

Hi, I'm in a group of students at The Evergreen State College in Olympia, WA (USA). For a project in our Linguistics course, we're editing, cleaning up, and enhancing the Wikipedia page on Newspeak. Just letting everyone know who we are and what we're up to. Go Geoducks! Kadoru (talk) 23:00, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Objections to theory of Newspeak

I cannot remember where I read it; but I remember coming across a discussion of Newspeak that stated, basically, that it would be impossible to maintain Newspeak as a language to control thought because of the nature of the human brain when it comes to language. People will create neologisms for things they don't have words for; and words that mean one thing can change to mean other related things. Words can also change in connotation. For example, "ungood" could easily change in meaning to mean "against the Party", giving the speaker a word for anti-government activity. The essay theorized that the actual result of Newspeak would not actually be the termination of thought, but the creation of two separate languages--the official Newspeak used in the media, and the Newspeak used in common conversation, especially by the Proles. If anyone can find a reference to this essay, I believe it would be a good addition to this article.--24.164.85.127 (talk) 21:53, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

You are correct. Computer systems 'serialize' all language and images down to a language that consists of numbers only.

The reason that 'pearl clutching' types get worked up about this subject is because they only have a shallow understanding of what language really is.LegendLength (talk) 10:32, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

"rewrite fullwise upsub antefiling"

This is almost certainly an example of the "abbreviated jargon — not actually Newspeak, but consisting largely of Newspeak words — which was used in the Ministry for internal purposes" described by Orwell in chapter 4, so there's no point in trying to parse it as if it were a sentence of full dictionary-approved official Newspeak (not to mention that it would be original research). AnonMoos (talk) 18:36, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

The impact of Newspeak

A few thoughts about this section. First, I think the title could be better as it currently is somewhat unspecified (impact on what) and seems unrelated to the contents. Second, the sources to the first and third paragraphs are, in my opinion, questionable. Reference number four leads to a page that propagates clear political views and reference number six is a dead end. Third, the third paragraph of this section is, to me at least, ununderstandable. I find myself unable to find out what is being asserted and how it is related to the section or the article as a whole. Fourth, the second section's link to the impact of Newspeak should be elucidated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.87.131.242 (talk) 01:12, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Uses of the word in political debates

In some countries, e.g. Sweden, "Newspeak" translated as in the novel, is sometimes used in in politics as derogatory term for attempts of manipulating language, using euphemisms etc. According to [4] this occurs also in English, although googling only find a few examples, like this [5]. Can we write about this? --BIL (talk) 07:32, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

In general English writing, "-speak" has become a suffix for attaching to words to indicate ways of talking that you disapprove of (as in Valleyspeak, similar to "-gate" as a suffix for names of political scandals, but I'm not sure the term "Newspeak" itself has much metaphorical currency... AnonMoos (talk) 11:20, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Unnewspeak

This may seem semantical, but shouldn't Oldspeak be called Unnewspeak based on the principles of Newspeak (i.e. no antonyms, the 'un' prefix)? 98.221.133.96 (talk) 04:30, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

In the Prefixes section of the article, it says, "It is often decided to keep the word with a more unpleasant nuance to it when diminishing vocabulary." Based on that, I would agree that Newspeak should, by it's own rules, not be called Newspeak. It seems that it would follow the stated rules more closely if it was called "Unoldspeak". However, "newspeak" is what Orwell choose, and it is what it is. *Seen a Mike* 16:47, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Fictional Language?

While Newspeak may have been created for a fictional work, several Newspeak words have entered the English language; possibly other languages. Even incomplete and very heavily reliant upon the English language, Newspeak is a functional constructed auxiliary language. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 12:48, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Agglutinative languages

Regarding the paragraph starting "Orwell reveals a certain ignorance"... I can't speak for all agglutinative languages, but I speak a fair amount of Japanese and I think I can safely say that Japanese does not regard words with opposite meanings like "good" and "bad" as redundant, and they are in broad use as in English. In other words, although the word for not good ("yokunai") does resemble "ungood", Japanese still has a separate word for bad ("warui") and the meanings of both differ. The wording of the paragraph gives quite the opposite impression. -- Myxomatosis

I disagree with this as well. Also, if I had to pick one culture with a powerful controlling language that imposes strict cultural norms especially in the realm of respect to superiors, I would pick Japan. This paragraph to my mind disproves exactly what it set out to prove (probably in the name of political correctness, with its focus on ethnocentrism, and the irony should by now be evident). --Rgd

Japanese language cannot and does not strict impose cultural norms and I would use "yokunai" as a perfect example. Myxomatosis pointed out that "yokunai" would resemble "ungood" (more properly, "good-not") and means "not good". However, by pronouncing it almost as "yoku-nai", it would mean "good" to those under 30. A simple sentence "Sore ha yokunai."("That's yokunai.") can be interpreted as both "That's not good" and "That's good" depending on who says to whom in what situation and whether there is someone present in the conversation. So I can agree to a senior "superior" who made bad criticism with "Sore ha yoku-nai." when there is bunch of 20-something listening. I just ridiculed him without him being able to accuse me of doing so and everybody but him would know what I'm saying. This is completely opposite of what "Newspeak" is for. You are mistaking grammatical structure and formal style with restriction. -- Revth 08:31, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Para. beginnning "The real life pitfall of the Newspeak is, of course, that there are real-life agglutinative languages which act exactly as Orwell suggests, and the various suffixes, prefixes and derivatives allow almost endless possibilities for neologizising..." is awkward, purely speculative & unsubstantiated, and does not differentiate the core definition of agglutinative langs. (morphology) from Newspeak's syntactical construction. Should be removed if no one wishes to correct. KenThomas 06:14, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the real model for Newspeak is probably Esperanto. The word "ungood", for example, has an exact equivalent in Esperanto: "malbona". Zamenhof, the inventor of Esperanto, deliberately limited the vocabulary of the language to make it easy to learn. Orwell took the idea of limited vocabulary but attached a far more sinister motive to it, namely limiting people's ability to express themselves. Of course, Esperanto was always intended to be a lingua franca between people who spoke other languages, while Newspeak was intended to be the only language available. CharlesTheBold (talk) 02:11, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Since Orwell wrote 1984 was written soon after he had switched from supporting Basic English to opposing it, and given Basic English explicitly support the un- formation and other compounds, I would have thought comments about other agglutinative languages influencing Newspeak would need credible external references.--Rumping (talk) 21:40, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Newspeak/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Comment(s)Press [show] to view →
===Bias and inappropriate debate ===

After reading the Newspeak article a couple of times and beginign to edit it, I decided not to. There are so many edits that need to be made to bring this in line with what an unbiased article should be, that it would be more appropriate to delete huge sections it than to attempt to salvage those paragraphs.

In it's current incarnation, the article spends more time obfuscating what newspeak is with comparisons to other existing languages. This has almost no relevence to Newspeak. The point of Newspeak was that it it was a limited and corrupted version of English, and that a language with a smaller vocbulary makes it easier to use as a mind-control language. The incidental (or not) relationship to existing languages deserves nothing more than a side note. Not 4 paragraphs.

One of the intents of Newspeak is to obfuscate clear though and debate. This article, ironically, does exactly that. It spends the majority of the first 2 pages attacking Orwel's concept Newspeak for it's passing resmblance to existing languages, and comes as close as an article can to an outright attack on the very subjet it should be explaining.

The opening sections need a massive rewrite.

Last edited at 04:57, 27 March 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 01:10, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

blackwhite

there is a problem with the quotation marks in the first paragraph...one too many or one too few...but I'm not sure how to fix it.... PurpleChez (talk) 18:05, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Newspeak Wikitionary Proposal

Please help at [[6]] to create a Wikitionary for Newspeak/Oldspeak. You can also read the proposal on Meta-Wiki. Please help!

Admins, if this is contary to WP:CANVAS, please delete, but remember that it is just a guideline.

microchip08 18:28, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Sure, glad to help... these ARE ACTUALLY words used back IN approx 1984 to ... well, here they are: the Peacekeeper, the MX, ICBM intercontin missile. And the Peaceshield, aka Strategic Defensive Initiative.
These words of 'newspeak' wisdom were given to us by the then-current POTUS, ronnie raygun.
From wiki... 'On 22 November 1982 the administration announced that the missile was to be known as Peacekeeper.... The operational missile was first manufactured in February 1984 and was deployed in December 1986... in re-fitted Minuteman silos.'
From david portree's 2/22/2015 article in WIRED re: SDI... 'On the evening of 23 March 1983, President Ronald Reagan addressed the people of the United States from the Oval Office.... “Let me share with you a vision of the future,” Reagan began.'
oh .. he got the idea or was a strong supporter due to.. see his film 'Murder in the Air' (1940). 2602:304:CDAF:A3D0:91A5:7215:988:346 (talk) 18:55, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Administrative matter.

Your edit behaviour in article Newspeak

Hi, in the article Newspeak you reverted two of my edits ([7] [8]). In the first of your reverts ([9]) you did not provide an edit summary at all, in the second case ([10]) you gave the factual incorrect and misleading summary: "Factual correction; reverted opinion unsupported by the facts." Neither did I state any opinion in my edit, nor does my factually correct assertion that the work was published in 1949 need any sources (it wasn't sourced before, and it is well sourced in the linked article). Since such editing behaviour is considered unconstructive I ask you to stop your edit warring and either restore one of my proposed changes or find another variation which avoids that "Nineteen Eighty-Four" is directly followed by "(1949)", because this disturbs the flow as readers expect to read "(1984)" here and then stumble upon reading a different date. Alternatively, remove the "(1949)" completely, as it is not essential to the article. In general, regarding when it is okay to revert another editor and how to do it properly, these pages might be helpful: WP:ROWN, WP:RV, WP:REVERT. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 15:56, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Gaslighting and newspeak

Should the precursor not be covered in more depth? --Wikipietime (talk) 22:03, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Not sure what that means. Newspeak is pretty much an extrapolation of 1930s "Basic English" together with totalitarian propaganda, as mention above. AnonMoos (talk) 05:00, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Satire

The article and most of the discussion here seems to completely miss the point. 1984 is a satire. Newspeak is part of that satire, it is not meant to be taken seriously as a language. Newspeak satirizes the idea that a totalitarian regime tries to control the thoughts of their citizens by controlling their speech. In general it points out through satire how people try to control discussion, particularly political discussion, by controlling the language of the discussion.

Some of the passages in the book where they discuss Newspeak are funny. The idea to removing words from the language parallels the habit in the Soviet Union of removing people who had fallen out of favor from photographs. I do not believe that George Orwell thought that Newspeak would succeed as a means of controlling thought, what he is saying is that it is exactly the kind of thing that a totalitarian regime might try to do. Trying to change the language is a more radical and arresting idea than changing photographs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.18.214.110 (talk) 22:19, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

It's a take off on certain totalitarian practices, but it's not anything that most people have a belly laugh over, nor did Orwell intend them to. If you combine the Basic English of the 1930's (which was very familiar to many literate people in English-speaking countries in 1948) with ambitious totalitarianism, then Newspeak is really not all that much of a stretch.... AnonMoos (talk) 04:15, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
But, looking at the BE article - is it not there to provide the basis of learning Standard English and other forms of communication (the equivalent of 'describing a game in one sentence' - which can be done for most games 'in football you want to score more goals than the other side, not annoy the referee or supporters, and not get tangled with the Offside Rule whatever that is'; 'in golf you have to get the balls in the numbered holes in the right order and with fewer strokes than the other side, and some scores for each hole have particular names' etc (cricket appears to be an exception): know the sentence and you can enjoy the game).
The problem with Newspeak is the constraints it imposes - and it does not allow for intonation and other distortions. ('Listen to me mate' can have several meanings, depending upon whether 'mate' has a hard or soft 't' and whether 'here' at the end is implicit. 89.197.114.132 (talk) 15:38, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
I'm not entirely sure what you're trying to say. Basic English was something of an unsuccessful experiment (it certainly was not founded on what linguists today would consider sound linguistic principles), but it was influential for a time and fairly well-known in 1948, and so was probably a loose influence on Orwell's Newspeak with respect to the idea of vocabulary restriction. AnonMoos (talk) 06:32, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

"Modern usage"

I have joined the fray, and also started discussion.

The removed section contains no sources - nor has it done so since first introduction in this edit here on 17th August. The edit summary stated "New section, links have to be added next" - but in 6 weeks that hasn't happened.

The section contains many inflammatory comments:

  • "Newspeak was created by feminist and homosexual movements, merging together marxist theories (already with their own jargon), and postmodernist philosophy, characterised by obscurantism, lack of meaning and the pretense to eliminate reason"
  • "extremist hatred, single-minded to the point of obsession, towards Western society and its values of rationality and freedom."
  • "It can be seen clearly how current newspeak favors the discrimination of women against men"
  • "newspeak favors homosexual and many other assorted deviants"

As pointed out, none of this is sourced or referenced anywhere. If it is to stay, it needs to be highly modified for tone and language before inclusion can be considered. Chaheel Riens (talk) 10:26, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

I would agree now. Gary "Roach" Sanderson (talk) 10:48, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
The section contains spelling and other errors, and makes use of the non-word 'machismo'; it is also (possibly) describing 'a subsection of perceived academic jargon falling in the category of "political correctness gone mad" by those hostile to using non-loaded language', and the 'category of "justifying their academic specialisms" by others' rather than the language used in the book. (I know this is slightly straw-man-ish but people know what I mean - and Postmodernism Generator could also be included) 89.197.114.132 (talk) 13:52, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

This mess of a section came back, again. I went ahead and reverted it, as it seems to be consensus that it'll need major revision before it belongs here, if it's even salvageable. Perhaps it's time to consider stepping up the protection level? Eaglgenes101 (talk) 04:07, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

It's got no hope. Unsourced, and the above comments still stand. There's also the contentious edit summary of "reverting deletion of content by confirmed longtime vandal" - which I presume is a dig at me. I've been accused of many things in my time here on Wiki, but that's the first time LTV has been directed my way. Chaheel Riens (talk) 09:48, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

"Published in..."

It seems that is makes more sense to include the term "published in..." as part of the parenthetical (1949), otherwise it's possibly confusing as to why we have the statement "Nineteen Eighty-Four (1949)" - which doesn't make sense, and implies that Nineteen Eighty-Four somehow equals 1949.

Additionally the edit summaries used are at best inaccurate, and at worst outright false:

The date was not corrected, or even changed, and there is no opinion or POV in the phrase "published in"

With this edit - again it's not Original Research to say the novel was published in 1949 - if it is OR to say it was published in 1949, why is it then acceptable to leave in 1949 at all - but the hidden text is there for the benefit of editors to let them know why the text is there. The term "published in" is there for the reader, who has no interest in changing the article and just wants to know about Newspeak. Chaheel Riens (talk) 21:36, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

A reply
Dear Colleague:
You are voicing your opinions: "it seems" is a weasel word phrase DISGUISING your opinion as fact. Either you know of you do not know. The standard format already is established Wikipedia policy. Moreover, most of your "communication" to me is personality politics. There is no danger of Anglosphere confusion, because the novel Nineteen Eighty-Four (1949) is older than you; you are re-visiting the grave of a dead horse.
Again, by inserting your opinion, that "the reader must be told" when the novel was published, because he or she is insufficiently intelligent? What? A title in words and a four-cypher number are indistinguishable? The cheap-shot insults prove that you are here in behalf of a Big-time Somebody; you are the fourth fellow to argue this pointless point.
Chas. Caltrop (talk) 01:13, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
This response makes little - or no - sense. What does the fact that Nineteen Eighty-Four is older than me have to do with my editing the article? However, I'll make the best of it:
  1. "Either of you"? Who is the other person in this discussion?
  2. If I'm the fourth person to argue this point, then that surely should tell you that it is not pointless, and you are in the minority over your own opinion regarding it.
  3. I am here on "behalf of a Big-time Somebody" - what exactly are you inferring here, Big Brother himself? Or some other conspiracy to add two words to the article?
  4. "personality politics" maybe, but valid ones. I note that you are now editwarring over the insertion as seen here and are still using inaccurate edit summaries. In short, your behaviour is disruptive to the improvement of the encyclopedia.
Chaheel Riens (talk) 09:08, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Newspeak. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:01, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Antonyms

The article contains two brutally contradictory assertions, both false:

  • Newspeak#Prefixes: The lexicographers of the Party usually retain the word that possesses unpleasant nuances (shades of meaning), therefore, uncold is preferred to unwarm.
  • Newspeak#Synonyms_and_antonyms: Standard English words that communicated a negative denotation or connotation were eliminated from the vocabulary of Newspeak as redundant; thus, "bad" becomes ungood.

In the Appendix: Principles of Newspeak, Orwell explicitly spells out that there is no set rule:

  • All that was necessary, in any case where two words formed a natural pair of opposites, was to decide which of them to suppress. DARK, for example, could be replaced by UNLIGHT, or LIGHT by UNDARK, according to preference.

I have removed both untrue assertions. Scarabocchio (talk) 19:25, 4 March 2018 (UTC)


Sentence too long?

"Newspeak is also a constructed language, of planned phonology, grammar, and vocabulary, like Basic English, which Orwell promoted (1942–44) during the Second World War (1939–45), and later rejected in the essay "Politics and the English Language" (1946), wherein he criticizes the bad usage of English in his day: dying metaphors, pretentious diction, and high-flown rhetoric, which produce the meaningless words of doublespeak, the product of unclear reasoning."

I'm not very good with english, but is this sentence not overly long? Someone who is into grammar and the like might want to correct either this or me.

89.160.243.36 (talk) 00:23, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Misassumption

Somewhere the article says that the assumption underlying newspeak is that if something can't be said it can't be thought. Surely this itself is a misassumption, because surely the point of newspeak is to narrow the range of communcation, therefore the range of communicated thought, therefore nearly all thought.

Reducing the vocab is like lowering the resolution of an image.

Inkstersco (talk) 17:02, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

2019

At least some of the (fictional) people in the book 1984, like many historical linguists in the real world, believed in the "strong hypothesis" of linguistic determinism ("the Sapir–Whorf hypothesis"). The fact that many people *believed* this theory had a large influence on what actually happens, in the real world and in the book, whether or not the theory is true. (This is similar to the way that the fact that some character *believes* some MacGuffin is valuable has a large influence on that character's actions in many stories, even in cases where the MacGuffin turns out to be worthless or even non-existent.)
I am surprised that you seem so confident that this theory is definitely false / disproven. Do you have any reliable sources to back up your belief?
If so, I would welcome you adding those sources to the linguistic relativity article, which currently seems to imply that many modern linguists still believe a slightly weaker form of linguistic relativity is true, but it hasn't been conclusively proven or disproven. --DavidCary (talk) 22:57, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Unable to express...

Is there a single-word English term that means "unable to express a thought or an idea due to the restrictions of the language in which it is to be explained?" Apart from, of course, the word Newspeak. Knaw 17:55, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

No. microchip08 18:29, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
The term Sapir–Whorf dilemma is about the closest I can think of -- the idea that removing words for a thing prevents that thing from being easily spoken or thought of is surely an examle of the Sapir–Whorf hypothesis and indeed 1984 is so cited in that article. DES (talk) 12:43, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
linguistic determinism ? --DavidCary (talk) 22:57, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

2017

As a simple example - Homer and the 'wine-dark sea', Russian (I understand) uses two words for blue where English uses one'; more negative example - if people cease using the word 'miscegenation' do the negative connotations associated with the word disappear/get transmuted into something else? 89.197.114.132 (talk) 15:34, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

"2984/New speak" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect 2984/New speak. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 12:47, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

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)

There aren't that many example sentences in the book, beyond "Oldthinkers unbellyfeel Ingsoc" and a few other simple examples, and if we were to devise our own, it would be the dreaded "original research"... AnonMoos (talk) 22:24, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Newspeak/Archive_1&oldid=1137044861"