Talk:George Orwell/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

deathplace in Infobox, c'mon it's not going to be London, Ontario

Is it really necessary to say Camden, London, England, United Kingdom (... Europe, the World, the Solar System ... ring top bell)?

I should say at least England can be omitted here (and I am English!). It is important to use it correctly in articles where the difference matters, for example in demographic, geographic articles, or cultural articles where the subject is a strong anglophile or anglophobe, but for a worldwide audience to simply identify which London we mean, United Kingdom suffices.

Of course Orwell tended to regard "England" and the "United Kingdom" rather loosely, for example in (if I recall) the first chapter of the second part of The Lion and the Unicorn, but in an Infobox at least this does seem overprecise to me.

Usually I would take WP:BOLD and just change it, but it seems so obviously contrived – and may have been fought over in the past – I thought I would ask here first. Face facts, if you tell someone you come from "London" they do not automatically think of London, Ontario unless you happen to be in Windsor, Ontario. (I know if you are in Toronto and have a British accent they do not assume you are from London, Ontario). That is London, UK is the primary topic.

I suggest at the least we cut out England, and with slightly more doubt also United Kingdom, or at least abbreviate that to UK.

Si Trew (talk) 20:36, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I would propose "Camden, London, England", only in the name of clarity and aesthetics. Sir Richardson (talk) 23:28, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Infobox The instructions at the infobox demand naming the country. While England is a home or constituent "country" it is a subdivision of the sovereign state of the United Kingdom. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:40, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I can say with complete certainty that in Canada, if you refer to "London" it is assumed by default to be the one over there. If you are from London, Ontario you have my sympathies and you generally always qualify it: "Where are you from?" "London, Ontario". But yes, as for the infobox, the guidelines are clear. freshacconci talktalk 15:33, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Broken reference link

The web site linked by reference number 59 ("Banned Books 1984". marchinred.com. Retrieved 11 March 2009.) does not seem to exist anymore. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.182.131.50 (talk) 07:38, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Anti-Communist?

This article is in the Anti-Communist category, but George Orwell identified as a trotskyist and even fought in the POUM in the Spanish Civil War.71.82.67.87 (talk) 09:44, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Orwell was a democratic socialist, and became highly disenfranchised with Soviet-style Communism as a result of his experiences in the Spanish Civil War Nick-D (talk) 09:51, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

That means he was an anti-Stalinist, not an anti-communist.Spylab (talk) 13:15, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, anti-Stalinist, certainly, but I am doubtful about anti-communist. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 13:48, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually he identified himself as a "democratic Socialist" (or, earlier, as a "Tory anarchist"). He was very particular about the capital letters. Si Trew (talk) 20:51, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Trotskyites are anti-communists. They oppose the communist parties in power, they participate in counter-revolutionary activities and support anti-communist causes and any struggle they get involved in devolves into petty-bourgeois left or right opportunism. Orwell can call himself whatever he likes, it does not change the anti-communist nature of his writing or his views. Alicechamp (talk) 17:06, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

He was in the POUM instead of the International Brigade largely by accident. He was against the Communist Party of Great Britain. I think to say he was anti-Communist is fair, and categorizing articles is just a way to let people find them, not to make value-judgments on them. I think it's a long way from that to say he was a Trotskyite: are you suggesting he was? Si Trew (talk) 23:29, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Communism in Orwell's time was Stalinism. Orwell was one of the few British intellectuals to speak out against Stalin, which made him persona non grata with many, if not most, UK leftwing intellectuals of the day. --Technopat (talk) 23:40, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

"The language"

Just to clarify, which language? The English language? Orwell isn't only known and referenced to in English speaking countries. His publications are printed in numerous dialects internationally. "Language" correctly links to vernacular, the terms and idioms used within a society, which are expressed through language. In human society of course, dozens of them. Sir Richardson (talk) 19:46, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

This was in the lead about his expressions becoming part of the language, and some time between 20 January and now has been changed to "the vernacular". Si Trew (talk) 09:15, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Politics and the English Language

Why is the 4th rule written with "passive voice" instead of just "passive", as in the original. I understand that voice is put for clarification, but I think it narrows the meaning, just "passive" says a lot more. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.42.9.254 (talk) 12:26, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I've fixed this and filled out the references. At the same time I noticed something that has been niggling me for some time, that the essay written here as "You and the Atomic Bomb" (and in the online ref) is actually titled "You and the Atom Bomb".

Links in quotes are frowned upon (MOS:QUOTE section Linking: "As much as possible, avoid linking from within quotes"), but I've left them there for now. Si Trew (talk) 09:09, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Reasons for my edits

In response to this edit, the reasons for my "tinkering" are:

• "While at the school he became friendly with the local curate and became involved with the local church." uses "became" twice.

• " Mabel Fierz had pursued matters with Moore, and at the end of June 1932, Moore told Blair that Victor Gollancz was prepared to publish A Scullion's Diary for a £40 advance, for his recently founded publishing house, Victor Gollancz Ltd, which was an outlet for radical and socialist works." has a dependent clause within another dependent clause. It is preferable, wherever possible, to have less complex sentence structure.

• "Visitors were shocked by Orwell's appearance and concerned by the short-comings and ineffectiveness of the treatment". Using "concerned by", "concerning" as synonyms for "worried by" and "worrying" is a very recent, and regrettable, phenomenon.--Palaeovia^talk 23:25, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks - It is important when making changes in line with personal style preferences not to alter the meaning or introduce things that were not in the source on which the text is based.

That Orwell "became" involved in the church is significant because he was generally opposed to religion and the church. Replacing a verb of transformation to a weak imperfect is just that - imperfect. One could rephrase "became friendly" but actually there is a strong dependence of the latter on the former. Repeating "became", though probably not intentional, actually emphasises this dependency.

I am not sure that your "Mabel Fierz had pursued matters with Moore, and at the end of June 1932, Moore told Blair that Victor Gollancz was prepared to publish A Scullion's Diary for a £40 advance, for his Victor Gollancz Ltd, recently founded to publish radical and socialist works." reads as well as the original. Perhaps replace "for" by "through" and hyphenate "recently-founded" in the original. Gollancz published radical and socialist works, but it is introducing an invention to state that it was founded expressly for that purpose.

Concern and anxiety are not synonymous. Concern is a cognitive reaction while anxiety is an emotional state. Like it or note, "concern" is the term used in the biography by Taylor which is the basis for much of the article, and it is a point he brings out more strongly than earlier biographers.

Hope that helps Motmit (talk) 08:16, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. Since my edits were matters of stylistic sensibility, and not of substance, I am happy to let the issue rest.--Palaeovia^talk 08:52, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Restoring "lies and distortion"

This edit was to "modif[y] POV" by restoring: "The subsequent campaign of lies and distortion carried out by the Communist press, in which the POUM was accused of collaborating with the fascists, had a dramatic effect on Orwell." It succeeded: the POV of the article in regard to the communist press was certainly modified. However as it doesn't seem to have a reliable source I can't see how it's a modification for the better, but as a latecomer to this party I may be missing something. Anyone help me out?--Old Moonraker (talk) 07:09, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I'd agree that it is POV without an RS. Unfortunately I sold all three of my Orwell biographies last year, but I doubt it would be in any of them anyway; quoting Orwell himself we could probably get near to his saying something like that, but it would still have to be a quote and not an RS reference. Si Trew (talk) 09:20, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

My edit (simply restoring what was originally in there, and which had been edited out by a user who makes unsourced claims that the POUM collaborated with the fascists - see "Anti-Communist" above) fits in perfectly with the rest of the paragraph, which explains why GO didn't join the International Brigades so soon after the events in Barcelona. But no big deal, if everyone objects, by all means revert my revert. But check that the rest of the paragraph still makes sense. --Technopat (talk) 12:26, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

If it is RS it stays, if it is unsourced POV it goes. An insertion via reversion is still an insertion, and the onus is on the person inserting it to justify it. That means, also, at least as far as I interpret it, insertion of removed material still has to be justified as if it was inserted the first time, saying "it was already there" is not good enough.

I'll look over it as it stands and see if I can find a way through. Si Trew (talk) 12:37, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I presume we're talking about this diff? Am I missing something? The version before reversion is to my eyes less POV, the "lies and distortion, collaborating with the fascists", on the other hand at least the later version says who is doing the accusing (the Communists) and not just a vague "were accused of". There's also a subtle (or not-so-subtle) change from "Nationalists" to "fascists". I'd just cut the whole lot, myself. Si Trew (talk) 12:42, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

As far as I can remember, GO himself always used the term Fascist - certainly the case in Homage and "Notes on the Spanish Militias" (in CEJL - An Age Like This), both of which I have in front of me right now. On the other hand, in all his correspondence written around the time of Homage being published, as well as his essay "Spilling the Spanish Beans" (1937), he goes to great lengths to denounce the Communist press' smear campaign against the POUM.--Technopat (talk) 13:21, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

A random quote from Homage: "The accusation of espionage against the P.O.U.M. rested solely upon articles in the Communist press and the activities of the Communist-controlled secret police." Homage to Catalonia p.168. Penguin, 1980 --Technopat (talk) 13:33, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

As a random quote, it makes a good inline citation. Going for it. --Technopat (talk) 13:35, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Sounds fair enough to me. Si Trew (talk) 15:17, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Second thoughts, that quote doesn't say that the Communists were liars or distorted anything, it just says they accused the POUM of espionage. In particular, what I'm saying, is that quote on its own does not justify "lies and distortion", only "accusations of". i.e. one could argue the accusations were true and therefore not distortions. I realise that is not what Orwell means, but it's what this says when stood alone like that. Si Trew (talk) 15:22, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

It's a quotation taken from GO regarding his views on the situation and explaining why, after he had already decided to join the International Brigades, he didn't. That doesn't mean he was right in his analysis re. POUM, although, as I mention above, he went to great lengths to denounce what he perceived as a smear campaign against them, to the extent of making it the underlying theme of his best-known work. That said, several authors, including most recently, Preston in We Saw Spain Die (Constable, 2009), who 50 years later had access to multiple eye-witness accounts and NKVD files accept GO's in situ assessment as being substantially correct. However, back to the man himself: "It may seem that I have discussed the accusations against the P.O.U.M. at greater length than was necessary.... I believe that libels and press-campaigns of this kind, and the habits of mind they indicate, are capable of doing the most deadly damage to the anti-Fascist cause. Anyone who has given the subject a glance knows that the Communist tactic of dealing with political opponents by means of trumped-up accusations is nothing new. "Homage to Catalonia pp.170-1. Penguin, 1980. If there's anything POV in there, it's Orwell's. --Technopat (talk) 21:58, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

{

Yeah that sounds better... it would be good to get a quote from the "We Saw Spain Die" book too, if we can (there's a copy available at my local library). The more the merrier. Si Trew (talk) 22:05, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

George Orwell bibliography at FLC

The editors of this article may wish to comment at the featured list candidacy for George Orwell's bibliography article. Cheers, Dabomb87 (talk) 02:24, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Reactions to Orwell's works unclear

Study aids, in particular with potted biographies, might be seen to help propagate the Orwell myth so that as an embodiment of human values he is presented as a "trustworthy guide", while examination questions sometimes suggest a "right ways of answering" in line with the myth.

Could someone clarify the above sentence from George Orwell#Reactions to Orwell's works? Did Alan Brown write this? What is it trying to say? -84user (talk) 19:29, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

George Orwell#Religious views

Every sentence in that section has a reference. What's the thinking behind the new WP:NPOV tag, please? --Old Moonraker (talk) 08:19, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

This section may be referenced but it could still be unbalanced. Orwell's attitude to religion may be a complex issue and he may not have been totally consistent. However there are clear anti-religious sentiments in some of his works e.g. the character of Moses the raven in Animal Farm, some comments in his essay on Tolstoy and Shakespeare. Admittedly, at times he seemed to be specifically anti-Catholic. Some have said about 1984 that it seems difficult to believed that the religious instinct could have disappeared to the extent implied here. PatGallacher (talk) 11:28, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

A new ref for the "inconsistency" added. The more subjective, textual interpretations I'm leaving to others. --Old Moonraker (talk) 12:10, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

This section still raises several problems e.g. I doubt if the term "Judaeo-Christian" appears anywhere in Orwell's works or was even widely used in Britain in his day. PatGallacher (talk) 12:13, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Please quote the comments from Tolstoy and Shakespeare that you consider to be clear anti-religious sentiments. Motmit (talk) 12:17, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I advise reading the whole essay rather than trying to reduce it to a few quotes, but:

"However, Tolstoy is not simply trying to rob others of a pleasure he does not share. He is doing that, but his quarrel with Shakespeare goes further. It is the quarrel between the religious and the humanist attitudes towards life. Here one comes back to the central theme of KING LEAR, which Tolstoy does not mention, although he sets forth the plot in some detail...

The morality of Shakespeare's later tragedies is not religious in the ordinary sense, and certainly is not Christian. Only two of them, HAMLET and OTHELLO, are supposedly occurring inside the Christian era, and even in those, apart from the antics of the ghost in HAMLET, there is no indication of a 'next world' where everything is to be put right. All of these tragedies start out with the humanist assumption that life, although full of sorrow, is worth living, and that Man is a noble animal --a belief which Tolstoy in his old age did not share." PatGallacher (talk) 12:48, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks - I have, of course read the essay which is why I was puzzled by the interpretation. Your quote confirms that I have not missed anything. There is nothing there that could not equally have been said in a discussion between two bishops at a vicarage tea party. Regards Motmit (talk) 14:56, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Orwell himself may have undergone the sort of process which he describes himself in relation to Dickens: "Dickens is one of those writers who are well worth stealing. Even the burial of his body in Westminster Abbey was a species of theft, if you come to think of it. When Chesterton wrote his introductions to the Everyman Edition of Dickens's works, it seemed quite natural to him to credit Dickens with his own highly individual brand of medievalism, and more recently a Marxist writer, Mr. T. A. Jackson, has made spirited efforts to turn Dickens into a blood-thirsty revolutionary. The Marxist claims him as ‘almost’ a Marxist, the Catholic claims him as ‘almost’ a Catholic, and both claim him as a champion of the proletariat (or ‘the poor’, as Chesterton would have put it). On the other hand, Nadezhda Krupskaya, in her little book on Lenin, relates that towards the end of his life Lenin went to see a dramatized version of The Cricket on the Hearth, and found Dickens's ‘middle-class sentimentality’ so intolerable that he walked out in the middle of a scene. Taking ‘middle-class’ to mean what Krupskaya might be expected to mean by it, this was probably a truer judgement than those of Chesterton and Jackson." PatGallacher (talk) 13:06, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

That is indeed a "subjective textual interpretation", as I requested! Meanwhile, a WP:SOURCEACCESS justification: I haven't got access to the original source for "Judeo-Christian", but Ingle's comment is alluded to in Faith and Reason, ISSN: 0098-5449, 28, 60: "Ingle argues that Orwell recognized such humanitarian values had evolved out of Judaic-Christian traditions". --Old Moonraker (talk) 13:11, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

A quote from his essay on Swift: "And the ease with which Swift has been forgiven — and forgiven, sometimes, by devout believers — for the blasphemies of A Tale of a Tub demonstrates clearly enough the feebleness of religious sentiments as compared with political ones." PatGallacher (talk) 01:19, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, everyone, for coming to answer my initial question. So: the initial {{NPOV}} tag was placed because the section omitted some interpretations that an editor has made of some of Orwell's essays. This seems to be original research, so would we now be justified in removing it? If there are sound sources for what at present looks like a somewhat subjective personal interpretation, the material itself could be added without any need to resort to tagging.--Old Moonraker (talk) 08:25, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes - agreed. Motmit (talk) 08:45, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

"Clarify me" tag

It's often very helpful when another contributor looks over one of my edits—it can pick up a "wood for the trees" problem that I've missed—but I can't grasp the problems complained of here. I don't understand (but am willing to learn) why the Church of England shouldn't be referred to as "the institution" in its second appearance; it was the "established church", after all, and you don't get much more institutional than that. The second problem, the use of "belief", seems apt as atheism is under discussion in the following sentence. --Old Moonraker (talk) 17:10, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I first tried to read that section with no prior knowledge (so I purposely ignored the fact that the CoE is referred to as an institution); that gave me the impression that "institution" was referring to " Anglican life". I realised that was not meant, and so tried to help a new reader by pointing to exactly what it refered to. Maybe "the institution of the Church" would be even clearer but clunky. The use of three different ways to refer to the same thing (Church Of England = institution = establishment) sometimes makes me pause, even though I realise it is a preferred writing style. This confusion is probably mine alone, so I have no objections if you revert that part back. The second problem, is the first part of the paragraph deals with Orwell's views on how an institution is managed while the second is about the depth and kind of his religious belief. The two appear different to me, in a similar way as disliking how air traffic control is managed (an arbitrary example) while at the same time believing air traffic should be controlled well. When I read "The ambiguity in his belief in religion echoed the dichotomies ..." I thought I had missed something in the preceding. After re-reading I cannot suggest any way to make this clearer, so you could also remove that tag if you like. -84user (talk) 19:52, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the trouble to explain this for me. In trying to introduce some variety in the wording, it seems I've introduced some confusion: not good. The original suggestion to deal with the other problem was to introduce a paragraph break: a simple and easy way out. Are there any other editors with suggestions of ways to fix my clumsy prose?--Old Moonraker (talk) 21:17, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Was he patriotic

He seemed very patriotic of England?109.154.25.16 (talk) 22:52, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

As a socialist I suppose that he was committed to the international solidarity of the working class. Marxist orthodoxy held that patriotism was a distraction from the struggle that really mattered: not the one between states, but the one between classes. Carinae986 (talk) 00:06, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't think Marxist orthodoxy would have counted for much with Orwell would it - in a letter written fom French Morocco , December 1938, he wrote : "I am not a Marxist and I don't hold with all this stuff that boils down to saying Anything is right which advances the cause of the Party.. " patriotic, and leftist - they aren't irreconcilable are they? The countryside of your youth remains the countryside of your youth for eg. whatever govt.Sayerslle (talk) 15:01, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

it's just conjecture. I don't have any specific information on the subject. I think it's pretty plain from his writings that he was influenced by Marx, however. Carinae986 (talk) 11:30, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Bernard Crick 'there is no evidence ... that his knowledge of marxism was anything but secondary. probably he picked up most of what he knew from the 'oral traditin', by meeting Marxists and listening attentively and seriously as they argued .." p.305. It was Richard Rees said orwell had a great knowledge of marx in 1936 but Crick counters this and in 'The Lost Orwell', 2006 ,there's a New Years Day 1938 letter from eileen to norah myles, which backs Crick's view up, in which she writes; " we also have a poodle puppy. We called him Marx to remind us that we had never read Marx and now we have read a little and taken so strong a personal dislike to the man that we can't look the dog in the face when we speak to him.." Sayerslle (talk) 19:35, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Eton scholarship

To explain my lest, rather terse, edit summary: the Eton scholarship was obtained at St Cyprian's, not before he joined the school.--Old Moonraker (talk) 13:12, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Complete works = OR?

I was thinking of expanding the 'early life' section with the help of the first volume of his complete works. What I want to know is, would this be original research? Does an anthology of his complete works count as a primary source? BillMasen (talk) 16:50, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Probably - the biographical sections have avoided using Orwell's own works as a source for his life because there is considerable doubt over their historical accuracy. The biography is based on corroborated evidence from independent sources and the discussed assessments of biographers. Motmit (talk) 17:00, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

His own writings would definitely be a primary source. A secondary source would be something that a qualified expert had written about him. Carinae986 (talk) 00:09, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

I was thinking more of using them to point out his early views, not events in his early life. For example, the article 'a farthing newspaper', one of his first, suggests a basically leftwing outlook (which one would not necessarily expect from a former imperial policeman) BillMasen (talk) 18:09, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

That might be worth introducing in the section on his political views in "part 3" where the development of his views is duscussed. Connolly makes much of the bolshy left wing views of his contemporaries at Eton when there with Orwell (whose nickname was Cynicus). There is a quote - no sure which of them - to the effect that all seventeen year olds are socialists. Motmit (talk) 18:32, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I added something about his first two professional articles. Unfortunately he didnt seem to write much about politics before going to Spain; in his professional capacity almost everything was book reviews. Pre-road to Wigan Pier diaries there's very little about politics... but I think it's striking that his first two articles were attacks on censorship and capitalism. BillMasen (talk) 23:30, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

In particular there's barely any mention of the USSR, Germany or Italy and what was happening there, which is a surprise considering that he went to fight against them a few years later. But one interesting tidbit from 1935, in a letter to Brenda Salkeld

[Rees] was at some Socialist meeting and they asked me in and I spent three hours with seven or eight Socialists harrying me, including a South Wales miner who told me-quite good-naturedly, however- that if he were dictator he would have me shot immediately.

Suggests he wasn't a fully developed socialist himself, and an interesting premonition of what would happen in Spain. But I suppose it's not really good enough to go in the article. BillMasen (talk) 00:19, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

"hospitalized" vs. "in hospital"

Maybe I'm missing something, aren't WP articles supposed to be written in encyclopedic/factual/WP:NPOV tone? (As opposed to a style or manner an editor imagines a dead author would "approve"? Please explain. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 03:28, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

He is a British author, and you introduced American spelling. You replaced a simple statement of physical location by a clumsy derived adjective which has a slightly different nuance. See "Politics and the English Language" which suggests guidelines for clear writing which are as relevant for an encyclopedia as for any form of other writing Motmit (talk) 06:39, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree that it makes is seem odd when using American styles here. Nasnema  Chat  06:44, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for comments. (I'm new and didn't understand. I also found this: MOS:TIES.) My mistake, sorry, no harm intended. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 07:22, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Possible GA

Anyone else game? I brought George Orwell bibliography to FL and I might be interested in collaborating on this page for a GA or FA status. Is anyone else interested? If so, post here or on my talk. Thanks. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:11, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I was wondering when your grand Orwell quest would get underway again, Koavf. You can count on my support. Skomorokh 03:25, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

It would be good to see the article get to GA status. It is odd , as you've noted , to have the Personal Life section - that material should be integrated into the main biography surely - though I could see a point for a section looking in greater detail at Orwells politics. Sayerslle (talk) 22:20, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I would advise caution before trying to intergrate the biography and personal life parts. It is valuable that we have a straightforward and reasonably brief biography that sticks to the important facts of his life. It is uncontentious and it is all that many people want. The personal life part is concerned with his character and philosophies- also of interest to many. It is more discursive giving contrasting views, and the representative minor biographical details are only there to support those views. This may seem an exceptional way of going about it, but good old George was a bit exceptional and doen't fit well into a standard mould. The section on his political views is always going to be problematical and the middle part of the article which is on his work, and which is supposed provide some critique of his writing, needs considerable effort. Some of the review material that you have added to the individual articles will be very useful, but it really needs much more. Regards Motmit (talk) 23:27, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I see the point you're making. I do feel the political views section is pretty deficient but I also feel to really intervene I would want to have a thorough knowledge of his writing 1930-1950 - 'needs considerable effort' is right - and the secker and warburg editon is 20 volumes. 'the all of orwell' is a lot. Sayerslle (talk) 00:22, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

River Orwell

Blair's pen-name is currently illustrated with an image of a street-corner named after the river. Does this add much to the article? If an image is thought to be of value, there are many of the river itself—example here—but I suggest a straight deletion.

--Old Moonraker (talk) 05:21, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

It wouldn't bother me exactly if the picture were deleted but I think it is ok. - 'does it add much - if an image is thought to be of value' - is in the eye of the reader/beholder but I'd say keep the photo; I mean he didn't get the name out of the air, it came from the Suffolk where his parents had settled and either of the pictures (street or river photo) serve, in a small way, to illustrate that fact.Sayerslle (talk) 21:13, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

OK, all done? I'll use the river itself, then. --Old Moonraker (talk) 08:54, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Now it's done I see that User:Sayerslle is right: the new picture gives a useful sense of place. --Old Moonraker (talk) 09:17, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Cricks throwaway line away about anti-Catholicism

I added the line from Crick because as I was reading through 'A Kind of Compulsion' 1903-36 I was struck by the frequent negative remarks about Roman Catholicism, and its influence, and Roman Catholics. And that 1903-36 time led on to the Orwell in Spain period when his anti-Catholicism intensified - I then looked up Catholicism in Crick and came across this throwaway line and concluded - someone who knows his development right through observes this didn't change 1940-50 so I added it. Some of the evidence 1903-40 to'argue it properly' - (and maybe you're right and some of this should be added after the throwaway line  :

• In a review of The Civilization of France - May 1932 : - " ..the Catholic Church is steadily gaining power in france, - bad news, but not suprising after what we have seen of the Church's recuperative powers in England."
• letter to brenda salkeld 1932 " it was ever so nice seeing you again & finding that you were pleased to see me, in spite of my hideous prejudice against your sex, my obsession abuot R,.C.s etc.." - - I see Wyndham Lewis (not D. B. Wyndham Lewis, a stinking RC) .. has just brought out a book .."

And this became darkened by Spain when he was disgusted by the Church lining up with Franco, and so with Hitler and Mussolini, and selling the idea that Stalinism was revolutionary, when Orwell knew that it was totalitarian counter-revolution:

• "The chapter on the Church (in Frank Jellinek's 'civil war in Spain') does not leave much doubt as to why practically all the churches in Catalonia and Eastern Aragon were burnt at the outbreak of war .." (1938)
• "the sacking of the churches happened during the early period when the proletariat wer in control - a popular movement and a native spanish movement,its roots not in Marx or Bakunin the Church was part of the sttus quo;its influence was on the side of the wealthyin the eyes of at any rate very many the Church was simply a racket and the priest, the boss and the landlord were all of a piece --Catholics would probably do their church a better service by facing this fact than by tracing everything to mere wickedness, or to Moscow "-(1938)
• [1942 - looking back on the Spanish war] "did they [the russians] , as the Catholics maintained, intervene in order to foster revolution in spain? Then why did they [the Stalinists] do all in their power to crush the spanish revolutionary movements..?"

etc..it seems he was hostile to the Catholic Church for sure and this is why Crick wrote the line - maybe Orwell changed in the last period of his life, but Crick indicates this attitude to the Catholic Church did not change - in that period anyhow I think there were good reasons to be anti-Catholic - too many photos of priests lining up with fascists of all kinds...anyway... Sayerslle (talk) 12:02, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for opening the discussion and I am sorry that my edit summary once written may have come across as curt.

On a first look, Crick appears to be the only biographer who raises the Catholic issue and his index has 12 pages under the topic "anti-catholicism" (redirected from Catholicism) - pp115, 226-229, 254, 273, 274. 286. 500, 522 and 533. Judging by their indices, Starsky and Hutch dont seem to consider the issue and nor do subsequent biographers. Crick discusses on p227 Orwells anonymous review of Adams "Spirit of Catholicism" which Orwell praises but warns of dogmatic intolerance in Catholicism. On 226 Orwell refers to the high church he had become involved with at Hayes as "Popish", while in 228 he makes a counter observation that a book by Gore was quite good "although he was an Anglican". On 264 Kimche reports arguing with Orwell about the iniquities of the Catholic church while acknowledging Orwell was simply an intellectual anarchist. On 286 Crick quotes Orwell claiming that the industry of coal miners allowed among other things the Pope to denounce bolshevism while on 522-3 Crick quotes Orwell's comments that even if socialism resolves inequality, the Catholic issue of man's place in the universe will remain. 272 simply refers to flat mate Heppenstall considering becoming a Catholic, while 500 refes to a series of congenial dinners with Graham Greene. And yet on three pages 115, 229, 274 makes the confident assertion that Orwell was anti-catholic (in one instance pronounced). Crick makes no observation on Catholicism relating to Orwell's time in Spain.

In 1932 while teaching at Hayes Orwell became involved with the local Anglican church (which was High Church as observed). The Anglican faith was simply a part of Orwell's heritage as part of good old England and his observations on Catholicism were probably not untypical of the time. Before and during the war Orwell would not have been alone in pointing out the uncomfortable co-existence of the Catholic church with Fascism. In Spain the only established Church was Catholic so criticsm of the the role and actions of the church will appear as anti-catholic.

While there are observations to be made, I think it would be misleading to put anti-catholicism on the same level as anti-totalitarianism or to give any impression that he was sectarian. He was probably simply batting for his own Anglican side and being provocative (but he's dead, so we will never know what he really thought). It does seem pretty clear that anti-catholicsm was very much Crick's own bugbear, and so that should justify prefixing the statement as Crick's.

Glad to see you reverted that sister-inventor again. Regards Motmit (talk) 19:41, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

I think theres a real animus in some of his 1930s remarks about Roman Catholicism - 'stinking', 'priest ridden' etc , imo a bit more than just 'batting for his side' - but whatever, -I'm hoping to get through the CW in the secker & warburg edition, and I might add to the evidence in this section if I come across striking egs - Starsky & Hutch, that made me smile anyhow Sayerslle (talk) 20:27, 7 November 2011 (UTC) " bad as the pro-Government books on the Spanish war have been -the pro-Franco ones have been worse. All or almost all that I have seen-have been written by Roman catholics.." (1938) "what seems certain, however, is that no regression to a semi-feudal, priest ridden régime of the kind that existed up to 1931 or, indeed up to 1936, is now possible. such regimes depend upon a general apathy and ignorance.." (1939) "the Church Times annoys me more and more. it is a poor satisfaction even to see them walloping the Romans, because they do it chiefly by descending to their level" (1933-letter to brenda salkeld) - "This book is almost entirely lacking in the humbug which we have come to expect as a matter of course from English Roman Catholics - the braying of Hilaire Belloc..the tittering of Ronald Knox.." (1934) Sayerslle (talk) 10:03, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

At the risk of this becoming a blog rather than a talk page, lets not forget that this is the bloke who wrote "One sometimes gets the impression that the mere words 'Socialism' and 'Communism' draw towards them with magnetic force every fruit-juice drinker, nudist, sandal-wearer, sex-maniac, Quaker, ‘Nature Cure’ quack, pacifist, and feminist in England." and "If only the sandals and the pistachio-coloured shirts could be put in a pile and burnt, and every vegetarian, teetotaler, and creeping Jesus sent home to Welwyn Garden City to do his yoga exercises quietly!" Motmit (talk) 22:07, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

I won't keep adding quotes, I just added the last ones as I am reading A Kind of Compulsion and came across the derogatory remarks about Belloc and Knox - I think there is an accumulation of remarks that back up Crick's throwaway line - and there is a difference in tone I think between the remarks you've quoted above and his observations about the politics of the Catholic Church in the 1930s - if you say, oh , he didn't mean it all that seriously , I'd say - he was a leftist - he meant it - but perhaps this is a bit blog-ish. I think the Crick sentence should stay in the section on Orwell on religion . Sayerslle (talk) 22:27, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

No problem keeping the Crick sentence as it stands, but I suggest giving the page ref as 229 as at least it follows a bit of discussion there. Motmit (talk) 23:09, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, thats a better ref. I'll do it. Sayerslle (talk) 23:24, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

I carried on reading 'A Kind of Compulsion' after I changed the ref from Crick and read this in the 'road to wigan pier diary' for 27 Feb 1936 "I was very greatly impressed by Garrett, a biggish hefty chap of about 36, Liverpool Irish, brought up a Catholic - I was impressed by the fact that Liverpool is doing much more in the way of slum-clearance than most towns - great quantities of Corporation houses and flats at low rents - in the centre of town there are huge blocks of workers flats imitated from those in Vienna .. Another point is this. Liverpool is practically governed by Roman Catholics .." Those are positive remarks about Catholics - not Catholicism though. Reminds me that I should read the all of Orwell though before I seek to add material to the general sections on Orwell's attitudes.Sayerslle (talk) 22:34, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Just read this too in 'Orwell Remembered' - p.152 Stafford Cottman recalls..." he was upset about the way that local Spaniards treated the horses. - And he even said that in countries where the Catholic influence was strong, there was always a history of bad treatment to animals. His attitude to the Catholic Church was extremely critical." Sayerslle (talk) 13:43, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Footnotes

There's something wrong with the footnotes around 125-130. Volume 1 of Orwell's complete works is called an age like this and covers the years 1920-1940. Volume 4 is called in front of your nose and covers the years 1945-1950. The footnotes are given as "Volume 1, As I Please, 1945-1950." I don't know the original intent of the editor so I didn't change it, but it seems to me that this ought to be cleared up, or else the footnotes ought to be removed. As it stands these footnotes are nonsense. Carinae986 (talk) 08:06, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

I edited the footnotes several times, and then undid the edits, because removing the first footnote seems to have invalidated the others. If I understand it right, Taylor's book is footntoed about a dozen times, with no specific page reference given? I'm posting this to see if the original contributor can be more specific. Otherwise all of those footnotes really ought to be taken down. Carinae986 (talk) 08:28, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

There are two major compilations of Orwell: Complete Works (a 20-something volume set published in the last 10 years), and Collected Essays Journalism and Letters (4-volume set published several decades ago). Perhaps that explains the discrepancy? Ben (talk) 15:39, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

I looked into this. It seems that volume 4 of the 20 volume set is "Keep the Apidastra Flying." I don't own the 20 vol. set so I'm going from worldcat. Carinae986 (talk) 21:05, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

While it is desirable for citations to be as specific as possible, it would be extremely unhelpful for an editor to remove a citation because he/she does not find it specific enough. Wikipedia is a process of constant improvement, something is better than nothing and all editors seek to build on what is already there. It is a good idea for new editors to spend some time getting to undertand Wikipedia and making modest constructive edits before seeking to impose their personal style. Wikipedia is tolerant and there is a Wikipedia guideline Wikipedia:Citing sources which includes reference to "Short Citations". Hope that helps. Motmit (talk) 19:21, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

I reviewed that guideline. I saw the parts that said short cites give "information about the source together with a page number", and also the part that says "Inline citations should additionally give the relevant page number or range of page numbers." Maybe you can guide me to the part you had in mind? I've noticed that it's common for editors to talk about each other's "personal style" when disagreeing with each other, as if it were all a matter of individual preferences. While I realize that most of the contributors are not scholars and don't have any scholarly background, I am, I do, and there are in fact standards. This project can only be helped by adhering to them. Carinae986 (talk) 21:00, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Orwell/Blair

Just come across this article and my immediate impression is that the frequent switching between "Blair" and "Orwell" in referring to the subject is very confusing and not always logical. I'd prefer to see "Orwell" used throughout except for a brief explanation at the start of the article about his birth name and his adoption of a nom-de-plume. Headhitter (talk) 13:35, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Name "Blair" should only be used in the section of the article about his early life when he was referred to by that name. Instance after the adoption of his pen name and general references throughout (e.g. "Orwell is known for his contempt for fascism...") —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:15, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. This convention has been in place for many years and has given no problem to the many millions of readers in that time. Restored changes made against this consensus. Motmit (talk) 17:42, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

But the changes made are inconsistent. He adopted his pen name in late 1932/January 1933, yet the section on Hampstead where he lived from late 1933 refers to him as Blair. As I said earlier, my immediate impression is that the frequent switching between "Blair" and "Orwell" in referring to the subject is very confusing and not always logical. The Wikipedia article on Mark Twain takes a quite different approach. Headhitter (talk) 05:28, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Speaking of brothels...

A recent edit has added that Orwell was reminiscing of 'brothels he visited/worked at' in Paris when he was shot. This is the reference given. However, the original source of this 'anecdote' is reportedly Frank Frankford, a bitter rival, and has been recently discredited. The allegation, presented as fact, cannot be allowed to stand 'as is'. RashersTierney (talk) 00:54, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

speaking of french brothels -orwell doesnt say what he was talking about before he was shot in Homage to Catalonia, he just writes 'i was talking to the sentries preparatory to changing the guard. Suddenly, in the very middle of saying something, i felt etc ' - if theres any question about the truth of the ( in any case totally inessential) detail, i think it should be deleted - reminds me to try and see Hafsia Herzi's latest House of Tolerance though Sayerslle (talk) 17:47, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

I credited the reference and phrased the sentence to suggest his fellow comrades around him claimed that was what he was talking about when he got shot. The reference itself does not discredit the claim George Orwell did or did not frequent brothels during his days in Paris. In fact, there is very good chance he did go to brothels but never owned up to the fact he did. He certainly made many friends in Paris who were drug addicts and men who openly paid for prostitutes. This also includes fellow Spanish soldiers he fought alongside with.--Machinegunetiq (talk) 05:10, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

And therein lies the rub. If the 'anecdote' is notable enough to be included here it is certainly necessary to indicate that it was probably a lie, made up by someone hostile to POUM, and specifically Orwell, in a conscious and deliberate effort to discredit him as indicated by Jeffrey Meyers. RashersTierney (talk) 09:23, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

In hindsight, this was a funny anecdote that should be shared and considered but I understand omitting it from this page. Although I don't know how paying for sex discredits anyone's journalistic integrity (or finer quality traits outside his sex life). It should be noted however in this talk page and people should appreciate such things about his life whether it is savory or not so much. Cheers! --Machinegunetiq (talk) 02:47, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Several

The use of the word several in the lead is wrong because it means more than two. 92.13.95.158 (talk) 08:50, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Two examples of several. RashersTierney (talk) 11:01, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Christopher Hitchens' photo

Why is the whole sidebox about him in this article at all? "one of several authors influenced by Orwell's politics and use of language" ??? Ceplm (talk) 14:00, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

No place for this, per WP:TOPIC; what does it tell us about Orwell? A line in the infobox, together with the existing quotes from Hitchens, are enough.--Old Moonraker (talk) 14:32, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Hitchens is one of any number of writers to have been influenced by Orwell so that looks about right. It would be difficult to give them all due prominence in a biographical entry of this size. --86.40.98.29 (talk) 16:13, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

The picture is unnecessary, what is important is the claim "several authors influenced by Orwell's politics and use of language". Is there a source confirming that? If so it could be at the beginning of the corresponding infobox.93.128.16.131 (talk) 00:38, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Incorrect statement

"In April 1947 Orwell left London for good"

This is the opening line of a paragraph about Orwell's time on Jura towards the end of his life. The statement is incorrect - Orwell died in London in Euston Road at the University College Hospital. 81.111.91.183 (talk) 15:31, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Orwell/Blair: please be consistent

Once again, the use of "Blair"/ "Orwell" is inconsistent. In the paragraph (and in the caption for the accompanying image) about Burma he becomes "Orwell"; in London and Paris he is referred to as "Blair". This is very messy and, as I have argued before, it would be preferable to use "Orwell" throughout. But at the very least we should be consistent and not keep chopping and changing. Headhitter (talk) 14:03, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

It might be odd when it gets to 1932-ish if it says 'Orwell now adopted his nom de plume of - Orwell'. Basically though I agree and it probably is preferable to use Orwell throughout. Sayerslle (talk) 16:32, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

This article with its current Blair/Orwell split receives over a million hits a year. Only one individual appears to find it a problem. The rationale was explained when this individual raised this same issue previously. Lets stick with what works and not pander to a minority of one. Motmit (talk) 20:24, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

But it doesn't work – if it did I wouldn't have to be drawing attention to the inconsistency. And there's no need to pander to me or to anyone else, but I happened to visit the page after several months' absence and felt I ought to comment on what I saw. It doesn't matter how many hits the page has – it only takes one editor to misunderstand the logic of the Blair/Orwell split for the article easily to become a mess. Headhitter (talk) 21:24, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

I take your point - thanks and regards Motmit (talk) 09:02, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

I just wanted to mention that I came to this page looking for some information, and the use of Orwell then Blair, then Blair again just seems distracting. I think some consistency would be good, and if there is no rule about pen names, why not just use Blair? Browncoat101 (talk) 18:09, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

In the Hampstead section, the name Orwell is introduced, without any explanation why – then it switches to Blair again and then back to Orwell: very confusing! Headhitter (talk) 21:35, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Spanish Civil War

Please, let´s keep this wiki neutral, there are more than enough political forums out there where anyone can debate about regionalisms. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.50.95.103 (talk) 03:48, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Plaça Orwell = Plaça Trippy/Tripi

The inhabitants of Barcelona have no idea where plaça Orwell is - they all know it as "plaça tripi". Why on earth is this trivia not allowed on the page? I'm sure Orwell would have enjoyed the local lore. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.85.82.162 (talk) 15:39, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Religion category

The article had until yesterday or so a Category:English atheists category. An (IP) editor yesterday replaced that with Category:English Anglicans. Given the ambiguity explained in the article regarding Orwell's religious beliefs, it seems best to me to leave it off altogether. It's hard to say that he was defined as an atheist if he affiliated actively with the Anglican Church; similarly it's a bit problematic to describe him simply as an "Anglican" if he didn't believe in an afterlife or other major tenets of the faith. The nuanced discussion in the article seems to cover the issue in a way that inclusion within either (or both) of the categories would not clarify. --Lquilter (talk) 14:14, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Catholic propaganda / apologetics

• An anonymous editor just changed a referenced opinion of Orwell about G. K. Chesterton's work on Catholicism from Catholic "propaganda" to Catholic "apologetics". Since the cite is referenced, we really ought to use Orwell's own term, and I'm hesitant to change it based on the IP editor's subject line: "deleted personal opinion, bias" (see diff). If it was Orwell's opinion and language, it should stand, even if it's biased, as an example of Orwell's thought. If it's someone else's POV gloss on Orwell's thought, and Orwell used the term "apologetics", then it would indeed be biased to call the Catholicism work "propaganda" rather than "apologetics". I don't have the reference handy, which is Notes on Nationalism; anyone able to check on this? --Lquilter (talk) 19:57, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
• Well, just found it, and indeed Orwell used the term "propaganda", so I think it should stay; I'll put it in quotes to make it clear that it's a quote. I'm attaching the paragraph below for reference. --Lquilter (talk) 20:00, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

"Ten or twenty years ago, the form of nationalism most closely corresponding to Communism today was political Catholicism. Its most outstanding exponent — though he was perhaps an extreme case rather than a typical one — was G. K. Chesterton. Chesterton was a writer of considerable talent who whose to suppress both his sensibilities and his intellectual honesty in the cause of Roman Catholic propaganda. During the last twenty years or so of his life, his entire output was in reality an endless repetition of the same thing, under its laboured cleverness as simple and boring as ‘Great is Diana of the Ephesians.’ Every book that he wrote, every scrap of dialogue, had to demonstrate beyond the possibility of mistake the superiority of the Catholic over the Protestant or the pagan. But Chesterton was not content to think of this superiority as merely intellectual or spiritual: it had to be translated into terms of national prestige and military power, which entailed an ignorant idealisation of the Latin countries, especially France. Chesterton had not lived long in France, and his picture of it — as a land of Catholic peasants incessantly singing the Marseillaise over glasses of red wine — had about as much relation to reality as Chu Chin Chow has to everyday life in Baghdad. And with this went not only an enormous overestimation of French military power (both before and after 1914-18 he maintained that France, by itself, was stronger than Germany), but a silly and vulgar glorification of the actual process of war. Chesterton's battle poems, such as Lepanto or The Ballad of Saint Barbara, make The Charge of the Light Brigade read like a pacifist tract: they are perhaps the most tawdry bits of bombast to be found in our language. The interesting thing is that had the romantic rubbish which he habitually wrote about France and the French army been written by somebody else about Britain and the British army, he would have been the first to jeer. In home politics he was a Little Englander, a true hater of jingoism and imperialism, and according to his lights a true friend of democracy. Yet when he looked outwards into the international field, he could forsake his principles without even noticing he was doing so. Thus, his almost mystical belief in the virtues of democracy did not prevent him from admiring Mussolini. Mussolini had destroyed the representative government and the freedom of the press for which Chesterton had struggled so hard at home, but Mussolini was an Italian and had made Italy strong, and that settled the matter. Nor did Chesterton ever find a word to say about imperialism and the conquest of coloured races when they were practised by Italians or Frenchmen. His hold on reality, his literary taste, and even to some extent his moral sense, were dislocated as soon as his nationalistic loyalties were involved."

Is it just me.. or does the beginning come off as biased.

"His work is marked by clarity, intelligence and wit, awareness of social injustice, opposition to totalitarianism, and commitment to democratic socialism. Considered perhaps the 20th century's best chronicler of English culture, Orwell..." The quality of this article seems to me like it needs cleaning up to sound less biased from a particular point of view and more informative. Should also I will be unlikely to return to this article so remove the POV tag if you feel the page has been satisfyingly corrected. --216.186.177.178 (talk) 18:37, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

it's just you--the RS are unanimous in his importance and the lede tries to summarize exactly why. What statement is wronghaded??? Rjensen (talk) 19:06, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Its not just him. The lines quoted are definitely biased. Read other biography articles to see why. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.92.109.169 (talk) 05:43, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Concern to old friends

'Sonia took charge of Orwell's affairs and attended diligently in the hospital, causing concern to some old friends such as Muggeridge.'

What caused the concern? Valetude (talk) 19:03, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

The picture is from 1943, not 1933

hello, just a small correction! not sure where to post it.

66.162.40.226 (talk) 23:00, 8 October 2013 (UTC) mehran 10.08.2013

yes, it was the photo used on his National Union of Journalists membership card, 1943, I think. thanks for spotting the mistaken date. Sayerslle (talk) 23:09, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Have sold more copies than any two books by any other 20th-century author.

If you look at the list of best selling books in the world, Nineteen Eighty-Four is the only George Orwell book on the list, at about 25 million copies.

The top seller is "A Tale of Two Cities" by Charles Dickens with about 200 million copies, but that is from 1859, so it doesn't really count. Number two, however, is "The Lord of the Rings" by J.R.R. Tolkien with 150 million copies, and that one certainly counts as a 20th century book (being published in 1954-1955), and "The Hobbit" comes in at number 4 with 100 million copies. Okay, so Tolkien was born in 1892 and not in the 20th century like George Orwell (born in 1903).

Antoine de Saint-Exupéry was born in 1900 and sold 140 million copies of "Le Petit Prince (The Little Prince)". We'll skip Dan Brown's "Da Vinci Code", as it was published in the 21st century (2003). Next on the list, if we demand the author be born in the 20th century, and the book be published in the 20th century, is J. D. Salinger's "The Catcher in the Rye" with 65 million.

So ... multiple books from multiple authors published in the 20th century, that each sold more than twice Orwell's best selling book.

In other words, that claim is apparently specious. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.216.201.207 (talk) 22:48, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

It is sourced to the Cambridge Companion to George Orwell, -I don't know if it is accurate or not - but it is RS sourced at least. Sayerslle (talk) 19:14, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

If the statement is false, it should not be there, whether there is a printed source or not. I've removed it. If you disagree and revert my edit, then at least the false statement should be qualified and stated to be controversial; though as far as I can determine, it isn't controversial at all, just plain wrong. Sayitclearly (talk) 20:09, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Removed paragraph with a reference from a blog Revisited...

I have no idea how this should be quoted from the archive, so apologies in advance.

From archive: [Have removed the following paragraph:

Conversely, there has been speculation about the extent of Orwell's links to Britain's secret service, MI5, and some have even claimed that he was in the service's employ.(Inline citation:"Orwell and the secret state: close encounters of a strange kind?", by Richard Keeble, Media Lens, Monday, 10 October 2005.) The evidence for this claim is contested.

Apart from the reference being from a blog, which is a Wikipedia no-no, the actual link to the article on said blog is broken. If anyone out there can fix it and reference the info from any other source, please do so and stick it back in the article. Cheers!--Technopat (talk) 09:47, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Nice work. A claim like that needs a very strong citation. Nick-D (talk) 11:25, 14 November 2008 (UTC)]

The claim was made in a book titled 'The Larger Evils: Nineteen Eighty Four – the Truth behind the Satire,' published in 1992. The blog was, I believe, referencing the book. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.118.209.242 (talk) 05:46, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

2014 - pre-GA peer-type review

What about a pseudo-peer review of George Orwell to get the article up to snuff for a GA candidacy? Seems like effort to rationalize citation/reference style, and address the unexpected and abrupt "jump back" in chronology in the final third of article where it goes back to his personal life could go a long way towards prepping for FA-status as well. JDanek007^Talk 01:06, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

To get to GA status, it would need either an editor with access to all the relevant texts referred to, since a good number of references do not include the page numbers for sourced information; or else, IMHO, the article will need to be fully overhauled to remove poorly cited material and replace it with full citations to reliable sources. Jdanek007, are you volunteering to take charge of this? I would certainly be happy to give feedback, but I haven't the time or immediate access to sources to implement such feedback. Alfietucker (talk) 10:08, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

216.58.29.4

This person should be kept an eye on for changing the categories etc. to a version strikingly similar to the Conservapedia version of George Orwell. I've since fixed it, since somehow their data survived for quite a ridiculous while being wildly inaccurate. Karin Anker (talk) 05:49, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Life vs. Personal Life

Why is his biography split between two sections widely separated? I saw a note from the person who apparently started the "Personal Life" section to add personal details, but why hasn't anyone integrated them? Is there some reason not previously made explicit? ~ MD Otley (talk) 04:34, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Year in parentheses

62.235.237.206 (talk) 14:38, 14 July 2015 (UTC)Just to remark that an error has occurred in the text : each time it's written "Nineteen Eighty Four", the year written between parenthesis "(1949)" isn't correct ; it should be 1984 I hope somebody will be able to correct it :)

The year in parentheses is the year the book was published. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:04, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Adoptive son

Is anything at all known of his adoptive son Richard Horatio Blair? He is hardly mentioned in the article. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:09, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on George Orwell. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080914180341/http://www.iht.com:80/articles/2007/09/07/opinion/edorwell.php to http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/09/07/opinion/edorwell.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081208143658/http://www.vqronline.org:80/articles/1982/spring/meyers-wintry-conscience/ to http://www.vqronline.org/articles/1982/spring/meyers-wintry-conscience/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:20, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Personal Life

It sounds like someone uploaded an elementary essay of Orwell's personal life under the section. The language is all very informal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jammiez (talk • contribs) 08:35, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

I tried to start a discussion about it, but it seems the section was archived. :-/ ~ MD Otley (talk) 18:11, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Anti-nationalist

Was Orwell an "anti-nationalist"? If he was, shouldn't the article text make this clear, before the Category:Anti-nationalists is added? I don't see him listed at Anti-nationalism. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:08, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

I am wondering if the addition of the category is based on his essay Notes on Nationalism? AusLondonder (talk) 23:10, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

That would probably be a good source on which to base such a classification. And a quote from a respected commentator or critic, supporting such, shouldn't be too hard to find. But I think it might be better to establish his credentials in the article before just blindly adding the Category. Surprising that essay is linked only in the footnotes. But is it agreed that those views, written in 1945 and born out of his experience and a World War are representative of his in lifelong views in general? Maybe we don't have to. Animal Farm is not a million miles away, is it. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:20, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure Orwell was an anticommunist.

Thing is, Eric Blair sided with the libertarian communists in the Spanish civil war. At least, he did in retrospect. His works are entirely critical towards Marxist-Leninist Vanguardism and similar derivations, as opposed to communism as a whole. I mean, he focused on the social structures of the Soviet Union, which is entirely irrelevant to communism. Due to how communism is strictly defined as an economic framework that may be used as an ideological component.

To lump him in with anticommunists seems a bit disrespectful to his memory. Since, from what I've read, he hated those guys. He wasn't a supporter of Franco, or Pinochet, or Diem. He was just critical of a certain type of communistic ideology. He wasn't fighting the concept as a whole. He didn't mind libertarian communists. So how can he be an anti-communist if he's fine with the majority of communist thinkers? Just because Rosa Luxembourg and Buenaventura Durruti aren't as popular in mainstream history as, say, Lenin or Stalin, doesn't mean that communism just has one singular definition.

At least, that's my impression.

So, to clarify, I think Eric Blair was critical of communism, but I don't think he rejected it wholesale in an absolutist polarised type of way like he rejected fascism. It's important to remember how these things are a bit relative, and how you can't use language to paint things black and white all the time. That's what his writing was all about. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.227.83.117 (talk) 12:38, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

In 1946, he said everything he wrote was in support of 'democratic socialism' so that seems a good way to describe what he was for, without qualification. If he wrote in favour of Rosa Luxemburgs version of Communism say, then that would be important to add - like a lot of what you say above, it kind of sounds very plausible, but without reliable sources it shouldn't be added nonchalantly that he was not an anti-communist. Dd he write anything setting out a communism he was in support of? Where does he write that he 'doesn't mind libertarian communists'. I mean, certainly having fought with the POUM in the SCW he became supportive of their situation, but how far that was because he was outraged at the lies of the Stalinists about POUM, rather than completely sharing their ideology, I don't know.92.3.14.31 (talk) 18:32, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Novel × Novella

According to its article, Animal Farm is a novella, but according to George Orwell#Bibliography and George Orwell bibliography, it is a novel. I'm leaning towards novella, but I won't make changes (I am not an expert in the field). Can anyone look into this? Filipkovarik (talk) 12:59, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on George Orwell. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100715144246/http://www.mtholyoke.edu:80/acad/intrel/orwell46.htm to http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/orwell46.htm

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) 04:33, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Can https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Freshacconci Please Stop Breaching NPOV?!

Trying to undo NPOV corrections and then accuse the corrector NPOV is not Wikipedian; please stop it.

Not sure what that garble is supposed to say, but claiming an edit is NPOV while promoting your own incorrect POV is more than a problem and should be reverted. To be blunt, Orwell was certainly not anti-socialist and you will need some damn good sources to establish that he was. As for the other change, he was more specifically anti-fascist. And stop accusing editors of being NPOV as you push your own POV. Thank you. freshacconci talk to me 19:49, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Orwell died in 1950; his works should ALL be Public Domain—the article says MOST. Why isn't 1984 or Animal Farm available free?

Since Orwell died in 1950, his works should ALL be in the Public Domain. The article says MOST are. So, why can't I find 1984 or Animal Farm for free? 98.14.15.215 (talk) 17:37, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

It's a good question. UK copyrights can be renewed for an additional 20 years (so 50 years after the author's death plus an additional 20). As those are Orwell's most well-known books, the copyright may have been renewed by his heirs and/or publishers. It's just a guess. freshacconci talk to me 19:42, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Per List of countries' copyright lengths, the United Kingdom (like most of the European Union) maintains copyright for the entire life of a writer and 70 years following his/her death. Orwell died in 1950, so the copyright should last until 2020.

According to 2016 in public domain, the works that went into the public domain in Europe this year are those whose writers/creators died in 1945. It is a bit too soon for Orwell's works. By the way, H. G. Wells' works are still under copyright and will not enter the public domain until January 1, 2017. He died in 1946. Dimadick (talk) 17:54, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

I don't know if this helps, but in Australia the rule is "alive in '55". Orwell was dead in '55, so his work are in the public domain...--Jack Upland (talk) 14:38, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

The short answer to this question is that every country has different copyright laws. As a result Orwell's works are (generally?) out of copyright in Australia, but still covered by copyright in some other countries. The University of Adelaide has a page explaining this briefly, as well as links to PD-in-Australia copies of the books [1]. Nick-D (talk) 22:01, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

The copyright is not owned by the publisher, but by the author, or if deceased, by his or her nearest living relatives or estate for the remainder of the copyright period, and the same apples if it is renewed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.172.141 (talk) 10:21, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Split

Seeing the size of the article, would it make sense to split some of the literary career and legacy section out to another article. (i.e. Reception of Goerge Orwell or something similar? Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:18, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Moustache in Burma

At first glance his moustache during his time in Burma, one might easily assume that is must have been as in the passport photo i.e. a toothbrush moustache. But the image here suggets that he may not have had one at all, and that the fashion was for a full flowing moustache. However a related photo here suggests the fashion was for very full moustaches? Martinevans123 (talk) 17:44, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Martinevans123: He definitely sported a moustache. Finding George Orwell in Burma tells us that when Orwell was told an elephant escaped and it got hunted down, he (who was thought to be an animal lover) responded by showing "little emotion other than stroking his toothbrush moustache." Earlier in the book we learn that he actually got the 'stache to emulate British officers who had been posted there years before. In Burmese Days There are multiple people with prominent facial hair, including a 'beefy' Mr. Lackersteen who sported an 'ingenious face, with a toothbrush moustache. In his essay, "A Hanging", however, a prisoner is described as having "a thick, sprouting moustache, absurdly too big for his body, rather like the moustache of a comic man on the films." This may imply that Orwell changed his views on the toothbrush moustache, and should likely be the subject of millions of dollars of research. He did keep the stache for the rest of his life, as Anthony Powell writes, saying "He wore a narrow moustache, neatly clipped, along the lower level of his lip. The moustache, as long as I knew him, was always bit of a mystery to me. I never quite had sufficient courage to ask about it... Perhaps it was his only remaining concession to a dandyism that undoubtably lurked beneath the surface of self-imposed austerities." I'd like to see a new article George Orwell and Moustaches. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 00:33, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

I'd like to see one too. But I'm a bit scared. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:34, 25 April 2018 (UTC) p.s. I think we can safely assume that Eric didn't "do a Friedrich".

Lead image

A very good image was recently added by Koafv here. Would this not make a better lead image than the existing black and white press card one? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:14, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Political Views

I think the introduction needs modifying. It calls Orwell an outspoken supporter of democratic socialism, and cites two references by Orwell himself. Orwell may have thought of himself that way, but 1984 and Animal Farm clearly show his strong aversion to communism, and belief that it inevitably leads to totalinarianism. I don't see how this can be reconciled with a strong belief in any form of socialism, although Scott Fitzgerald wrote that a genius is someone who can hold two opposing views simultaneously, and still function.Nigelrg (talk) 03:52, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

@Nigelrg: Before this section gets closed for WP:NOTFORUM, I just want to say, please make good use of Wikipedia. Especially the page Democratic socialism, and especially this line:

Political historian Theodore Draper wrote: "I know of no political group which has resisted totalitarianism in all its guises more steadfastly than democratic socialists".

DSA website is a good place to start, too. Tsumikiria (T/C) 07:05, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

@Tsumikiria:I'm not sure I follow you. I agree that true democratic socialism resists totalitarianism, but I argued that Orwell didn't share this viewpoint, and therefore couldn't be considered a democratic socialist, unless he was a genius :-).Nigelrg (talk) 14:40, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

@Nigelrg: While the distinction between "democratic socialism" and "communism" could be cleared up pretty quickly with the link offered above or any routine use of a search engine, I recommend you read this essay to better understand Orwell's political leanings (https://www.orwellfoundation.com/the-orwell-foundation/orwell/essays-and-other-works/the-lion-and-the-unicorn-socialism-and-the-english-genius/).

Nomination of Portal:George Orwell for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:George Orwell is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:George Orwell until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:44, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 July 2019

In the section called "Life" in the George Orwell article, it is stated that "Eric had two sisters: Marjorie, five years older; and Avril, five years younger. When Eric was one year old, his mother took him and his sisters to England". There is a logical error there. If Blair was only 1 year old he would only have had 1 sister, as his other sister would not be born for another 4 years. So, it should read "When Eric was one year old, his mother took him and his sister to England". 82.26.127.90 (talk) 13:22, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

 Done. Thanks. I have changed it to "his mother took him and Marjorie to England." Martinevans123 (talk) 13:41, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Switching to "Blair" to "Orwell"

As it currently stands, the article (and quite awkwardly) switches from "Blair" to 'Orwell" without any explanation (the last mention of "Blair" is the last paragraph before "The Road to Wigan Pier"). I know typically we use the birth name until the subject starts using the pen name, but we need to at least devote a line to how/when/why Blair began using "Orwell." hbdragon88 (talk) 15:40, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Under the "Teaching career" section, the article says this: "He finally adopted the nom de plume George Orwell because "It is a good round English name." Down and Out in Paris and London was published on 9 January 1933 as Orwell continued to work on Burmese Days. Down and Out was modestly successful and was next published by Harper & Brothers in New York."

Is that not sufficiently clear? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:03, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

That works. The article occasionally mixes "Blair" after that point before the section "The Road to Wigan Pier" when it only begins using "Orwell." Should we switch those to Orwell, then? hbdragon88 (talk) 16:50, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

I'm really not sure. A slight mixture might be unavoidable. Obviously to his fellow staff and pupils at Frays College in Uxbridge, he would have been known as Blair. Am open to suggestions. I guess with a literary nom de plume, the use of parallel names, one for writing and the other for "real life", often continues for a long time. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:30, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

References

The Polish writer

The Polish writer Wladyslaw Reymont wrote the book “Revolt” about the animals which made a revolution. It is a similar subject as Orwell’s “Animal farm” written 20 years later. The book “Revolt” was also based on the Russian revolution. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.177.2.232 (talk) 01:56, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

14th or 15th arrondissement?

I recently read Orwell's essay entitled 'How the poor die', (from a Penguin Great Ideas book of collected essays called Books v. cigarettes) in it Orwell writes that the hospital was located in the fifteenth arrondissement and was called 'Hôpital X'

The Wikipedia article says that he stayed in the Hôpital Cochin in the 14th arrondissement, a free hospital where medical students were trained.

I'm wondering if this is an error in the Wikipedia article?

RobDemeyFinlay (talk) 18:55, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

I see the same claim is made at Hôpital Cochin, but without any source. The essay article How the Poor Die says clearly it was in "rue Faubourg Saint-Jacques, in the 15th arrondissement." However, looking at the fr-wiki article for fr:Hôpital Cochin that says equally clearly it is in the 14th; there is no mention of Orwell at that article. I think we need a good source that ties 'Hôpital X' to Hôpital Cochin? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:06, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

RobDemeyFinlay, Seems to me that Orwell did this deliberately. That's a guess but consistent with his obfuscation of some personal details and the fact that he calls it "X". ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:36, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Ah yes, I never thought of that. I think you are probably right, Justin. He was fond of doing that. Annoyingly. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:05, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

A digitally coloured photo should not be acceptable

It is altering the historical record, surely something Orwell had a thing to say about. There's nothing wrong with a black and white photo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.29.164.137 (talk) 21:56, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 May 2020

Change characterised to characterized in the first paragraph 107.12.190.130 (talk) 19:37, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

 Not done OED's lexico has "characterize (British characterise)". Martinevans123 (talk) 19:48, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 June 2020

Add “Cause of death” to personal details info box under “Died.” Add “tuberculosis” as cause of death. 173.66.164.65 (talk) 14:06, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Also, not notable for his cause of death so no reason to include it in infobox RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:38, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

To label Orwell is to weaken him

To describe Orwell as the equivalent of a modern "democratic-socialist", both terms being vague and perhaps oxymoronic today, and then to provide a deep link to it as well, is to heap irony upon irony regarding his legacy. By his young end, Orwell was at most a political idealist critic who was trying to force foreboding cautionary insight upon a vastly-changing and idealist world that doesn't stop to think. He was an evolving man struck dead in mid-life. To label him with such now-bastardized terms is to do him a disservice, and worse, make him fodder for scattershot propagandistic ne'er-do-wells. And that would be tragic.

Edmond Wilson, in his introduction to Orwell's current edition of "Animal Farm" points out (italics added): "Already Orwell has launched the long-haul of wrestling back some of those cardinal, once meaningful, words like "equality", "peace", "democracy", which have been fraudulently converted into shibboleths of political warfare; and already it is impossible for anyone who has read Animal Farm (as well as those who have not) to listen to the demagogues' claptrap about equality without hearing the still, small voice that adds: "... but some are more equal than others."

Orwell should remain keenly prophetic, rather than someone's political, ideological deity. Virtualkelly (talk) 15:06, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes, well, this is an encyclopedia. We don't really deal in the "keenly prophetic". We follow the sources. If reliable sources state that he is equivalent to democratic-socialist, we include that. I think the article is actually quite nuanced in its appraisal of Orwell and what he believed and what his legacy is. By the way, this isn't a forum. If you want changes to the article it's best to offer concrete suggestions for how the article can be improved. freshacconci (✉) 15:17, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Virtualkelly, I'm confused as to how this is actionable information on this article. What should we do differently? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:46, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Virtualkelly and suggest changing the second sentence of the article to "His work is characterised by lucid prose, biting social criticism, and opposition to totalitarianism." 173.77.153.52 (talk) 23:21, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

I would like to expand on my previous suggestion by noting that among the four citations given for the claim that Orwell's writing is characterised by outspoken support for democratic socialism, two of the citations are for the same essay "Why I Write" (currently [3] and [4]), and one of the citations, to The Guardian's page on George Orwell (currently citation [6]), does not contain any instance of the word socialism. Citation [5], on the specific page given, does not seem to mention socialism either (one can search the given book on Google Books with the keywords "orwell" and "socialism"). There is mention given earlier on Page 811, but it is merely another instance of the "against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism" quote found in Why I Write, and is followed by a second Orwell quote against socialism. Given that this article's current claim is arguably contrary to Orwell's worldview and is very poorly cited, I more strongly urge this page's editors -- particularly Justin (koavf) and freshacconci -- to make the change I suggested in my previous edit. 173.77.153.52 (talk) 13:30, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

The author explicitly saying, "Everything I have written for years is because of [x]" is poor sourcing? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 15:51, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Justin (koavf), I consider it poor sourcing when a single quote propagated across three or four (as I mentioned the Guardian source contains no mention of socialism) different places is counted as three or four separate sources. Particularly when two of those sources are the same essay printed in two different collections. Do you disagree? 173.77.153.52 (talk) 17:40, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes. If someone says "X" and then someone else confirms, "He said 'x'", then that is legitimate in principle. In this case, there are problems with the sourcing but there is not an inherent problem and the entire premise of this thread "to label Orwell is to weaken him" is frankly a joke. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:17, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Does your principle apply when person who says "X" has written it down in an essay which is widely publicly accessible? I do not think it should. I think that certain people apply a tactic on Wikipedia where they make a statement which they know will be controversial and so they safeguard it by adding many unnecessary citations. The lay-person reading the article sees that there are four citations and thinks "well, that is certainly airtight evidence", ninety-nine percent of the time they are not going to follow up on the citations and see that they all esssentially refer to a single paragraph in a single essay. One wonders what Orwell himself would have made of this technique.

There are problems that I have with this quotation itself. First of all, Orwell does not say everything he has written is "for democratic socialism [period]", he says "for democratic socialism, as I see it." Orwell being Orwell, every single phrase has been included for a reason. One would infer from the introduction to this article that George Orwell supports democratic socialism as envisoned in 2020, which I do not believe to be a substantiated belief. Moreover, the quote does not seem to be literally true, for example Politics and The English Language was written well after 1936 and it is hard to see how this essay is in "outspoken support of democratic socialism." The same goes for his two most notable novels. I think the most offensive part to me is the claim of being "outspoken support". The cited book (number [5]), on the page after they present the Why I Write quote, goes on to say "Orwell rejected political orthodoxies" as well as "Finally, Orwell crusaded for a socialistic society, yet he had strong reservations about socialism. He was confident that socialism would succeed, but he was not at all pleased with some of the corollaries of socialism. Socialism implied increased mechanization, but Orwell had an aversion to modern machinery. Socialism by its very nature would invade areas of life which capitalism does not invade. Because of this, Orwell had a nostalgia for nineteenth-century England, a time when life was simpler and freer in many ways than the society toward which he directed his energies." I would hardly call this "outspoken support"

In sum I do agree that "to label Orwell is to weaken him" is a mushy sloganistic statement and not a factual one, and I do think his democrat socialist leanings deserve to be discussed in the "politics" section, but they do not belong in the introduction to the article as they give a false impression of his body of work. 173.77.153.52 (talk) 18:33, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

It could not be less controversial to say that George Orwell was a democratic socialist writer opposed to totalitarianism. If you can make a very brief (not three paragraphs) and straightforward (not anything needlessly vague like "To label Orwell is to weaken him") proposal that is actionable, then I can help you. E.g. "Remove citation 4 and change 'Orwell was [x]' to 'Orwell was [y]'". Otherwise, I cannot. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:33, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

As in my edit on June 23 I suggest changing the second sentence of the article to "His work is characterised by lucid prose, biting social criticism, and opposition to totalitarianism." I have outlined my reasons for requesting this change in the three paragraphs above and earlier posts. 173.77.153.52 (talk) 19:38, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

So we should take out a sourced passage and insert an unsourced one? Should we keep the same citations? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:40, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

No, we should remove the part of the sentence referring to democratic socialism. All of the citations given for the sentence are for the democratic socialist part, they say nothing about lucid prose or biting social criticism and Orwell's opposition to totalitarianism comes through quite clearly in his two most known books. If you feel that the claim about totalianitarianism needs a citation, it should be one of [3], [4] or [5] ([6] should be deleted outright, or should be to an archived version of the page), with the other two deleted, although citation [5] is potentially useful in the politics section. But I do not agree that the totalitarianism claim needs a citation, much as the sentence "As a writer, Orwell produced literary criticism and poetry, fiction and polemical journalism; and is best known for the allegorical novella Animal Farm (1945) and the dystopian novel Nineteen Eighty-Four (1949)." in the following paragraph does not need a citation.

To sum up if this is too long, delete the clause about democratic socialism from the intro, keep one of [3],[4] or [5] if necessary (which I do not feel it is) and delete the other citations. 173.77.153.52 (talk) 19:48, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Okay, then we disagree. I don't think that saying, "He was really good at writing and disliked [x]" is as good an intro as "He was really good at writing and disliked [x], promoting [y] instead". ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:29, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Why do you think that? To me that phrasing suggests that Orwell's writing was just as known for its promotion of democratic socialism as much as for its cautions against totalitarianism. But this is just not true, Orwell's most famous two works in particular seem to have no pro-socialist message at all. If his writing were truly outspoken in its support of democratic socialism, there would be instances and citations that are not linked to one single passage from "Why I Write". 173.77.153.52 (talk) 21:40, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Because everyone is anti- a lot of stuff. Saying something that you don't believe in or don't support is not as meaningful as what you do believe in and support. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:56, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

It may be valid to note what public figures do believe in and support, but the sentence under question is not about Orwell's personal beliefs, it is about the content of his writing, which as I have said is much more openly anti-totalitarian than it is pro-socialist, a point you do not seem to disagree with.

It seems as though you did not read my paragraphs earlier so I want to clarify that citation [5] in fact says that George Orwell subscribed to no political orthodoxy and in particular his relationship with socialism was complicated. The exact quote is in my comment in this thread at time 18:33 on 25 June 2020 (UTC). You can verify this in Google Books, it is on Page 812. Again, this source, already cited, is in fact contradicting the claim in the sentence, so if anything the source should at least be removed.

I have no account here and am confident that any change I make to this page will be reverted, so I hope any higher-level editor reading these comments takes my concerns seriously and changes the second sentence to "His work is characterised by lucid prose, biting social criticism, and opposition to totalitarianism." 173.77.153.52 (talk) 22:07, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 October 2020

In the first sentence of the article, "characterized" is spelled incorrectly. Allofyoush (talk) 16:15, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

 Done. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 16:42, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Colorized 1940 picture: why so old looking?

The man in the colorized 1940 picture looks about late fifties, early sixties, not thirty-seven.

Did Orwell suffer from some sort of premature aging? Or maybe it was caused by the stress of war.

I found this article, "Aging Effects of War" by Miles Wooley: https://www.lewrockwell.com/2006/03/miles-woolley/the-aging-effects-of-war/

70.79.163.252 (talk) 01:08, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Needs paring down/rewriting

This article is far too long, far too personal and contains information more appropriate to a full autobiography. I doubt any reader requiring succinct and pertinent facts regarding Blair's life would require what is substantially a short book. Books on the subject serve this purpose, surely. Hanoi Road (talk) 01:01, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Hanoi Road, What, e.g. is "too personal"? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:52, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

What am I to infer from these monikers? Hanoi Road (talk) 11:24, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Hanoi Road, you answered a question with a question. I cannot understand you. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:42, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Take a look at the 'Hampstead' section, for example. This unverified, subjective essay contains almost no citations or verifiable sources. Where has all this come from? Hanoi Road (talk) 22:09, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Hanoi Road, You have moved the goalposts to a good place: unsourced info should be deleted. Good point. Now can you please give me an answer to the question that I asked? Also, please stop wildly indenting your comments: they have semantic value. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:45, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

I think we're done. Nice emojis, btw. Hanoi Road (talk) 06:51, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Hanoi Road, I don't think it's too much to ask you to give an example of what you claim is a problem or to properly indent your comments. We're "done here" if you refuse to do those simple things, I guess. I thought we were here to write an encyclopedia but what do I know? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:11, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

My contention is that the article is overly long (which it is), and far too personal (as evidenced by long, subjective and unsourced essays which are presumably the product of one man's interpretation and/or editing criteria). This isn't what we do. I've replied to this last posting as a courtesy. I'm not replying to any more. If you can't see the problem, I'm afraid I really can't help. Hanoi Road (talk) 07:27, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Hanoi Road, Being sourced or unsourced is wholly irrelevant to something being "too personal". I'd recommend you read WP:V. Also, please, I am begging you, correctly indent your comments. Why do you refuse to do this? I just don't understand what you stand to gain. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 10:28, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Is this a novel or a Wikipedia page? (This is not really a question. More a critique under rhetorical disguise.) --Dominique Meeùs (talk) 22:21, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

language

The article reads "Orwell was also openly against homosexuality, at a time when such prejudice was common. " To call this idea a "prejudice" instead of just an idea, is the kind of use of language that Orwell might criticize. --Guillermogp (talk) 05:23, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Years active 1928-50?

It's a small point, but just wondering whether Orwell actually produced anything in 1950, given that he only survived three weeks into that year and, as I understand it, was too ill to do any writing. Even in 1949 he only managed a handful of reviews, as opposed to his prolific output in the years before that. MFlet1 (talk) 12:23, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Cold and Damp?

cold and damp situations [...] as in Catalonia Cold and damp? -- Catalonia?? Nuttyskin (talk) 05:29, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

He was fighting in the mountains, from memory. Nick-D (talk) 05:38, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• George Orwell, c. 1940.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:54, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Bibliography: Nonfiction

I suggest the inclusion of the two essay collections Orwell produced during his lifetime under the nonfiction category. Inside the Whale, and Other Essays (1940) and Critical Essays (1946)

LukeW101 (talk) 23:08, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

""French Ursuline nuns, who had been exiled from France after Catholic education was banned in 1905 due to the Dreyfus Affair""

The convent Blair attended was set up in 1904, and Catholic schools were able to continue in France from 1905 if they conformed with the law. Apart from being inaccurate, what has this statement got to do with Blair's later life? Did it give him a hatred of Catholics, or of French secularists? Or is it completely irrelevant? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Belle Fast (talk • contribs) 16:40, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

As after 30 days nobody has defended this inaccurate and almost certainly irrelevant material, I've deleted it. Belle Fast (talk) 14:16, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Orwellian

The description of the concept Orwellian("Orwellian"—describing totalitarian and authoritarian social practices—is part of the English language')is incorrect and in contrast to the article on the phrase itself. It should describe specifically the reduction/policing of language. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chmalyn (talk • contribs) 13:16, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

The current definition is fine. cambridge.org defines it as "describing a political system in which the government tries to control every part of people's lives". The definition on lexico.com is "characteristic of the writings of George Orwell, especially with reference to his dystopian account of a future totalitarian state in 1984."

Perhaps a better definition could be "describing a totalitarian political system", which, though very similar to the current definition, is a little more accurate. PrinceTortoise (talk) 20:48, 22 February 2021 (UTC)PrinceTortoise

"Tory anarchist"

George Orwell
Subjects	Anti-fascism, anti-Stalinism, Toryism, anarchism, democratic socialism, literary criticism, journalism, and polemic

Surely if anarchism is being listed as a subject in Orwell's infobox on the basis that he described himself as a "Tory anarchist", Toryism should be too. 81.158.80.250 (talk) 16:17, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: Is it really an important characteristic of Orwell's work? "Subjects" is not for the subject's political inclinations, but for which topics where the subjects of his work. Which Toryism doesn't appear to be. Unless you can convince me otherwise by showing sources which describe how Toryism is also the subject of Orwell's work, not just that he described himself as a "Tory anarchist". RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:23, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 19 September 2021

I propose a footnote refering to a new publication. The second last paragraph in Chapter 1.10 Second World War and Animal Farm says:

"By February 1945 David Astor had invited Orwell to become a war correspondent for the Observer. Orwell had been looking for the opportunity throughout the war, but his failed medical reports prevented him from being allowed anywhere near action. He went to Paris after the liberation of France and to Cologne once it had been occupied by the Allies."

All these reports as war correspondent have been published recently in this book: Orwell, George (2021). Ruins. Orwell's Reports as War Correspondent in France, Germany and Austria from February until June 1945. Berlin: Comino. ISBN 978-3-945831-31-1

At amazon.co.uk you can have a look inside the book: https://www.amazon.co.uk/Ruins-Orwells-Reports-Correspondent-February/dp/3945831318 2003:E9:EF09:D5F6:E0DF:2EF8:9415:BC78 (talk) 09:04, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

That part is currently unsourced and this looks like a useful new addition. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:52, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 September 2021

Correction for Footnote 131 As one can see inside the book Ruins by Georges Orwell via Google Books the Publisher is not: BoD - Books on Demand, but Comino Verlag , location of the publisher Berlin. (BoD does not even list the book for sale) Adding the ISBN 978-3945831311 would help to find the book in libraries etc. 2003:E9:EF02:3549:3948:455:F860:104F (talk) 06:45, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

 Done Elli (talk | contribs) 16:38, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Lead definition

Orwellian is a term that refers to the practice of language manipulation. Ironically by this lead calling Orwellian authoritarianism, it is doing exactly what George Orwell himself warned about, the act of nullifying words and modifying them. Wrongly defining Orwellian is becoming a common practice on both the internet and in private conversations. Ted-Ed, an offshoot of the group that organizes Ted Talks published a YouTube video on what exactly Orwellian means and why I believe the lead's definition of Orwellian should be permanently modified to the revision posted before the reversions have taken place. I posted the link to the video if anyone is interested.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oe64p-QzhNE

Respectfully 21:41, 8 December 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by FictiousLibrarian (talk • contribs)

I can't help thinking that your definition of Orwellian is too specific, and that it's about more than just the perversion of language for political purposes, though of course that's a major part of it. The OED defines Orwellian as "characteristic or suggestive of the writings of George Orwell, esp. of the totalitarian state depicted in his dystopian account of the future, Nineteen Eighty-four (1949)." MFlet1 (talk) 20:30, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

The lead section says ""Orwellian"—describing totalitarian and authoritarian social practices—.."? I think that pretty accurate. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:00, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes, it says that now - it looks like FictiousLibrarian's changes were reverted. MFlet1 (talk) 09:42, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 January 2022

"Indian-born English novelist" 49.36.181.239 (talk) 00:20, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:25, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 January 2022

Diomotihari (talk) 17:08, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

File:Birth-Place-George-Orwell-House-Motihari-Bihar.jpg

Birth Place George Orwell, Motihari, District-East Champaran (Bihar)

Diomotihari (talk) 17:08, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

George Orwell Monument, Motihari, District-East Champaran (Bihar)

Sorry, it's unclear what change(s) you are suggesting. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:23, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:49, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 January 2022

I request to use the latest picture of George Orwell's birthplace at Motihari in India, which has been recently renovated. Pankajkdeo (talk) 08:52, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

 Done Image added. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:36, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 January 2022

67.254.241.160 (talk) 04:07, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:24, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Richard Horatio Blair

Shouldn't the full name of his son be displayed in the infobox instead of just the first name? Asabiyya (talk) 15:41, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: No, infoboxes usually only contain the first name of the child, if any name at all. See Mark Twain for another example of children's first names only being used.  BelowTheSun  (T•C) 16:00, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 February 2022

"He went to Paris after the liberation of France and to Cologne once it had been occupied by the Allies."

Comment: This sentence is misleading. Paris had already been liberated on 25 August 1944. Orwell did not visit only Cologne but other German cities and Austria as well.

I propose this sentence inluding quotation and source:

"He went first to liberated Paris and then to Germany and Austria where "he followed the troops closely, sometimes entering a captured town within a day of its fall" (https://orwellsociety.com/reporting-from-the-ruins/) like Cologne and Stuttgart. 2003:E9:EF1D:8630:EDF6:8D58:DA38:B3CF (talk) 08:12, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

I'd go further and suggest this: "He went first to liberated Paris and then to Germany and Austria, to such cites as Cologne and Stuttgart. He was never in the front line and was never under fire, but he followed the troops closely "sometimes entering a captured town within a day of its fall while dead bodies lay in the streets." Martinevans123 (talk) 19:18, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

 Done ––FormalDude talk 03:39, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

lede: expansion to include more biographical info in 3rd para

Hello,

I've added a new third paragraph the lede which includes more of the biographical information, to reflect constitutes the article better. The second and third paragraphs may need to be incorporated more. I've also reduced the list of words coined by Orwell in the fourth parapgrah as it somewhat overstates the case and these as little discussion of this further down. Thanks!Ktlynch (talk) 09:43, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Black block.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:51, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

POV violation re homosexuality

This sentence injects bias into the article: "Orwell was also openly against homosexuality, at a time when such prejudice was common."

It is improper to describe Orwell's beliefs about homosexuality as a "prejudice." It was an attitude. Prejudice implies he was wrong --and perhaps a bad person-- and it is not Wikipedia's business to pass judgment on his beliefs. 2601:14A:600:6E10:11E1:937D:BF77:DBFE (talk) 14:27, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

"Prejudice" is an acceptable term and has nothing to do with Wikipedia "passing judgment", any more than referring to a racist as being prejudiced would be. The section is sourced and it draws attention to prejudice against homosexuality being more acceptable in Orwell's time. That's just a statement of fact. Were he alive today and held those prejudices he would be rightly labeled a homophobe (if sourced properly). freshacconci (✉) 16:56, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Editorialised introduction

It seems odd to me to refer to the "clueless liberal intelligentsia". In general, the introductory paragraph seems rather editorialised? Clemens Deimann (talk) 06:33, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Seems that this user: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Wikifun12345 had edited it to include their pov. KaneLives2030 (talk) 12:06, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

artificial insemination?

In the section of sexuality it says: "Sexual politics plays an important role in Nineteen Eighty-Four. In the novel, people's intimate relationships are strictly governed by the party's Junior Anti-Sex League, by opposing sexual relations and instead encouraging artificial insemination." I recently re-read 1984 and I didn't notice anything about artificial insemination. As I understood it, couples (at least Party member couples) were encouraged to have sex, but without much pleasure or love, for the purpose of having children. But if artificial insemination was mentioned I missed it. Burgundy1983 (talk) 18:31, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Newspeak: ARTSEM.--Technopat (talk) 18:49, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. I guess I will have to read it again. :-) Burgundy1983 (talk) 18:51, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Great-great-grandfather

It would be enough to claim his great-great-grandfather was a slaveowing landowner. Talking about specific facts such as the number of slaves he owned and the compensation he got is too much a detail for such a distant ancestor. Knoterification (talk) 04:58, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

graphic novel on orwell

My addition of the graphic novel on Orwell’s life (Such, Such Were the Joys) keeps getting taking off by a bamstick called HP Dudley - stop doing that please! It’s a book just as valid as the others noted there, and officially sanctioned by the Orwell estate and his son, Richard. Topknot2 (talk) 23:31, 22 October 2023 (UTC)