Talk:List of Newspeak words

This article was nominated for deletion on 16 May 2018. The result of the discussion was no consensus.

This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList articles

Glossaries (inactive)

This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Glossaries, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.GlossariesWikipedia:WikiProject GlossariesTemplate:WikiProject GlossariesGlossaries articles

Constructed languages Low‑importance

	Constructed languages portal This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Constructed languages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of constructed languages on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Constructed languagesWikipedia:WikiProject Constructed languagesTemplate:WikiProject Constructed languagesconstructed language articles
Low	This redirect has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Books

This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate in the project, please visit its page, where you can join the project and discuss matters related to book articles. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BooksWikipedia:WikiProject BooksTemplate:WikiProject BooksBook articles

Thoughtcrime

"Thoughtcrime" should be removed from this page, since it's an English word in 1984, not a Newspeak word. The Newspeak equivalent is "crimethink". (In Newspeak, "think" serves as both noun and verb, so the word "thought" is unneeded and is abolished.) I'm also fairly sure that "vaporize" is a standard English word in 1984, not Newspeak, though I'll double-check that in the book tonight.

One thing to keep in mind--just because an odd expression is used in 1984, does not mean that the expression is necessarily Newspeak. Newspeak is the official language of the Party, but it is not, at the time of the book, the dominant language; its official adoption date is set for some seventy years later. As is noted in the book, many of the party's slogans would not actually be renderable in Newspeak; one could not translate "Freedom is Slavery" into Newspeak, since there is no Newspeak word meaning "freedom". — Narsil 23:46, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Section on 'the problematic Doubleplus'

I'm not sure that the section on 'the problematic doubleplus' is appropriate for this article. Firstly, while the article itself is a discussion of reasonably important Newspeak words, this section is a discussion of how effective a particular word (or prefix) happens to be; and more generally, the section is not so much a description of Newspeak as a critique of whether the language actually functions in the way Orwell/Ingsoc intended it to.

As it happens, I think the critique is itself mistaken. The purpose of Newspeak, as stated in the book, is not "to make it impossible to think unorthodox thoughts", but, rather, to make it impossible to express unorthodox thoughts in any coherent way (or to think them coherently, insofar as thought depends on language). It would always be possible to phrase crimethinkful opinions--if it's grammatically possible to say "Goldstein is ungood", it's possible to say "Ingsoc is ungood". But what is impossible, in Newspeak, is to explain why Ingsoc is ungood; the language simply does not have the ability to articulate arguments against totalitarianism.

But that's beside the point. It might be that this discussion (whether Newspeak actually succeeds in making it impossible to articulate ungoodthinkful ideas) is appropriate to the article on Newspeak as a whole; but I don't think it makes sense in this article, intended just to be a list of the more important Newspeak words. Narsil 23:35, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think Newspeak is intended to do both. Certainly, it is intended to prevent people from having a vocabulary in which to express rebellious thoughts, but also to prevent the rebellious thoughts themselves as much as possible. Orwell himself writes it elsewhere in the appendix: "There were also certain irregularities in word-formation arising out of the need forrapid and easy speech. Aword which was difficult to utter, or was liable to be incorrectly heard [my emphasis], was held to to be ipso facto a bad word. Occasionally, therefore, for the sake of euphony, extra letters were inserted into a word or an archaic formation was retained". It just did not occur to Orwell that this applied very much to the difference between "Doubleplusgood" and "Doubleplusungood". But I think that to to the Party it would have occured long before the completion of worl on Newspeak in 2050, and that they might well have decided that this justified the retention of an archaic word like "evil" or the like. Adam keller 06:07, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've been bold and removed the section. It was not well-written, and the speculation about "un" (not doubleplus) being problematic was entirely unsourced (WP:NOR again). Robin Johnson (talk) 10:40, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I somehow got from somehwere the impression that the purpose of having a discussion in Wikipedia is to reach a consensus before taking that kind of action, but it seems I was wrong. Adam keller 04:24, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Scratch Goodsex?

Should goodsex be on the list of other Newspeak words? It has a paragraph with sexcrime earlier on the page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.69.137.6 (talk) 02:49, 9 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Duckspeak

I’ve added a quotation from Orwell’s appendix, “The principles of Newspeak”. To avoid redundancy I wonder if it wouldn’t be pertinent to remove this ―:

Syme, who works on the Newspeak Dictionary, tells Winston:

“

There is a word in Newspeak, I don't know whether you know it: duckspeak, to quack like a duck. It is one of those interesting words that have two contradictory meanings. Applied to an opponent, it is abuse; applied to someone you agree with, it is praise.

”

―and instead fill the gap in the brackets of the appendix quotation (in bold type below)?

“

Ultimately it was hoped to make articulate speech issue from the larynx without involving the higher brain centers at all. This aim was frankly admitted in the Newspeak word duckspeak meaning to quack like a duck. Like various words in the B vocabulary, duckspeak was ambivalent in meaning. Provided that the opinions which were quacked out were orthodox ones, it implied nothing but praise, and when the Times referred to one of the orators of the Party as a doubleplusgood duckspeaker it was paying a warm and valued compliment.

”

―Cesar Tort 19:59, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Other Newspeak words"

A lot of the items in this section are part of the internal ministry jargon, which Orwell describes as being influenced by Newspeak, but not fully Newspeak. AnonMoos 15:10, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Words w/ their own article

Words that have their own article should just redirect to the corresponding article. For example, "Minipax" should just redirect to "Ministry of Peace" right away. Anyone for making this change? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.228.245.174 (talk) 03:18, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

sex crime

"all other forms of sex" links to "extra marital sex" but that's hardly accurate, since "all other forms of sex" could include the following non-extra-marital acts: -masturbation -female orgasm -oral sex -anal sex -sex with a contraceptive —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.170.84.2 (talk) 00:51, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2013

Hi, I'm in a group of students at The Evergreen State College in Olympia, WA (USA). For a project in our Linguistics course, we're editing, cleaning up, and enhancing the Wikipedia page on Newspeak. I'm wondering if I can add some of the vocabulary and descriptions on this page to the main Newspeak page. Does anyone have any concerns or objections? Thanks, KadoruKadoru (talk) 19:15, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi and welcome to Wikipedia. I've added a canned welcome message to your talk page. Please feel free to improve Wikipedia according to its agreed standards (See links in the welcome block). If you have any questions about editing this page, this is the right place to ask. You can also ask on your own talk page, please put {{Helpme}} with the question so it gets flagged to a reasonably sized group of people who help out new editors. You're also welcome to ask me general questions on my talk page but please be aware that I'm in New Zealand and at GMT+13 so you may find my answers aren't timely. Kiore (talk) 06:09, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

merge?

I think that this page should be merged with the Newspeak page, the page already has a list of all the words mentioned on this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.87.196.87 (talk) 18:43, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in favour of such a merge: List of Newspeak words does not sound like an encyclopedia article title to me. Furthermore, it will be simpler to maintain translated pages --Cinlloc (talk) 13:58, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

we have plenty of glossary pages (Category:Wikipedia glossaries), but this one was a hybrid of an article page and and a glossary. I've cut it down to a pure glossary, all article like sections were duplicates, with added coatracking, of existing articles and sections, and where these exist these have been linkjed.--KTo288 (talk) 02:07, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Badthink

This would seem like the natural antonym for goodthink does anyone know if the novel or its adaptations ever use it instead of crimethink as an opposite? Ranze (talk) 03:01, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

First off, the opposite of "good" is "ungood" (see appendix). "Ungoodthink" would probably be an allowable word, but the two words "Crimethink" and "Oldthink" seem to be used instead... AnonMoos (talk) 13:12, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of Newspeak words. 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/20071025064347/http://www.newspeakdictionary.com/ns-dict.html to http://www.newspeakdictionary.com/ns-dict.html

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: 5 June 2024).

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) 16:29, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge with Newspeak

It appears that many of the Newspeak words' pages (e.g. "doubleplusgood") redirect to Newspeak; plus, a glossary could be added there. This page has minimal additional information and could be merged easily. Hdjensofjfnen (♪ Oh, can I get a connection? Alternatively, trout me.) 03:14, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support Makes more sense to have this list part of the Newspeak article as a glossary, rather than a stand-alone list. The context and rules for creation of the coined words is explained in the Newspeak article, but isn't clear from the current article containing just the list. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 17:34, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose Doesn't really make sense to me. A merger of a list with an article is bound to lose information or clutter the article. I'd rather see the two pages be split more, so to say. ShindoNana ^talk? 10:00, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support I believe merging 'List of Newspeak Words' with Newspeak would be a wonderful idea. As Glane23 stated above, the words aren't explained in the list as they are on Newspeak, and thus a merger would be preferred. And to oppose the opposition (ShindoNana,) I don't think it would clutter the article. Many books have glossaries at the back of the book, and they don't clutter. As long as the glossary is put in at the bottom, I think it would be a good idea to merge. TheTeaDrinker (talk) 16:14, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I've been thinking about this since the AfD. That article should have a list instead of a subsection for every word. Words' meanings are complicated in Newspeak, and provide important information and examples to the article. wumbolo ^^^ 17:00, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

– by TheTeaDrinker (talk) 13:39, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Proposal

Following the merging of List of Newspeak words and Newspeak, I highly suggest that we delete this. Opinions? — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheTeaDrinker (talk • contribs) 15:37, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]