Talk:Politics and the English Language

Jargon

I've moved this sentence to the discussion page:

"In his admonition against foreign terms and in favor of everyday English, Orwell breaks his own rule by using the French term 'jargon.'"

The Shorter Oxford English Dictionary says jargon comes from the late Middle English word iargon, which was adapted from the Old French jargoun. Jargon has been in use in English for around 300 years.

So it seems unlikely that Orwell was using the word with the thought that it was a foreign word, any more than people now think that, for example, envelope or hotel are foreign words.

If an authoritative source can be cited to show that Orwell intended the word to be taken as a foreign one, the sentence could be reinstated. Adrian Robson 08:10, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Orwell's rules have been reworded

It seems from looking at the history of this article that Orwell's rules have been rewritten. So it doesn't make sense to have a paragraph putting forward the argument that Orwell didn't stick to his own rules, based on text re-written by Wikipedia contributors instead of Orwell's original. So I've removed this paragraph:

"Then, by actually breaking all of these rules in the essay itself, Orwell attempts to jostle the reader out of mental sluggishness. For instance, the admonition against wordiness, "Always cut out a word if it is possible to do so," is itself wordy, and can be expressed more succinctly as "Cut out unneeded words." In his admonition against common and overused figures of speech, Orwell uses the common and overused figure of speech "figure of speech." Orwell's essay is replete with ironic rhetorical subtexts such as these."

If anyone knows what Orwell actually wrote, I'd suggest that it would be more authoritative to use that rather than the current text which has been modified from his original. Adrian Robson 08:43, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

What a weird situation. (reminds me of Animal Farm) My edit just now changed all the re-wordings back to Orwell's originals. Take note and take care! Ashibaka tock 02:03, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for making these changes. I've made one further change to remove the word "voice" from the phrase "Never use the passive..." I'm fairly confident that this is likely to be right as all the internet sources I can find phrase it like this. However, I'm unable to find Orwell's original essay and all the sources are simply quoting from it with some variations. For example, one says: "...cut it out" instead of just "...always cut it out". So if anyone has an original copy of the essay, perhaps they could confirm here that the text is now correct. (Or, of course, change it if it's not!) Adrian Robson 09:21, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Response?

Has there been any historical rebutal of Orwell's contention? Am I alone in not being completely convinced? I am not suggesting "original research" or any of that, but if something is out there, I think Orwell himself would approve of its presentation.

Not that I know of. Organisations like the Plain English Campaign seem to show that this attitude has caught on somewhat. The problem is still there, but nobody is defending it. Robin Johnson (talk) 09:50, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Lingua Franca ran an article a few years ago contrasting Orwell's views on language with Theodor Adorno's. The latter believed that "clear" language only served to reinforce common sense, and was therefore just as poisonous as anything else that discourages critical thinking. I'll try to find the article. That said, I admire both writers, and really don't think they're talking about the same thing at all. Adorno certainly wouldn't have defended the kind of language Orwell criticizes.L Glidewell 01:59, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Found the article, http://linguafranca.mirror.theinfo.org/9912/writing.html

also, I'm working on a major re-write of this, won't be ready for a couple weeks. 137.112.141.152 12:27, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Applicability

It is gruesome. I needed to read the "I returned and saw under the sun, that the race is not to the swift..." part three times to understand it, while "Objective considerations of contemporary phenomena compel..." was clear to me immediately. insane.--ExplicitImplicity 14:36, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, that's sad for you. Part of his point, there, was that the older text is written in archaic diction, but its meaning is clear (even if it takes a couple reads). The "modern translation" is vague, and makes claims (e.g., "objective considerations") that would take a huge amount of evidence to even begin to support. The first is presented honestly as an interpretation of the world, where the second is falsely presented as an expert observation. L Glidewell 01:59, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

That says something about the further decline of English that some people consider the latter selection to express clear and specific meaning. Also, you are missing the point about vivid imagry being a vital part of good prose; while the former section uses clear images to illustrate its point, the latter one adds many words to make a simple idea sound profound. 137.112.141.152 12:33, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Congradulations on being living proof that Orwell was right. Really tragic.89.243.137.109 15:52, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, three years after, I must say I had exactly the same impression as ExplicitImplicity: I had to revert to the "modern English of the worst sort" to understand what the hell King James' translation was talking about... Admittedly I am not the ideal "human guinea pig" for testing Orwell's point: my mother tongue is Italian, hence, in my case, all those latinate words in the "modern" version help understanding, rather than hampering it. Yet, this testifies that Orwell's linguistic views were definitely oversimplified, to say the least! 82.119.193.179 (talk) 15:26, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

The original makes claims that are strictly wrong--the race is not to the swift?--but are ignored because they're imagery; in fact it's so befuddled with imagery that it's hard to tell what the real claim is. The original also uses a phrase "under the sun" that was probably cliched when the Hebrew was written and adds nothing to the statement. It's a great example of how pretty phrasing obscures real meaning.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:05, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikiquote?

Don't get me wrong, we should have an article on this topic, but much of the current article consists of quotes that should probably be transwikied. JChap2007 20:54, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree - there is nothing in this article at present except a sort of re-telling of the points of the essay, so you may as well read the essay itself. I don't know what the solution is though. Robin Johnson (talk) 11:32, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Explaining the background to the essay (what inspired Orwell to write it) and its impact would be useful. His discussion of the "private definition" of words is frequently discussed, as are his rules and his rewriting of the verse from Ecclesiastes. JChap2007 15:49, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Full text link

Isn't the current link the most miserably formatted of the available HTML versions of this essay? I easily found better ones here (the best looking) and here (which would seem the most interested in being authoritative). MJ 21:48, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Go for it. --User:Krator (t c) 08:03, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

New text link - Slightly reformatted version

I have come across a version of Orwell's essay that has been reformatted for easier online reading, although only mildly. Given the subject matter of the essay (ie clarity), I'd like to think Orwell might approve, even though it moves away from the print versions in terms of formatting. It seems to be an advertising free site etc., so would it be useful to add? It also prints well. (I'm new to Wikipedia, so not sure of what's acceptable.)

Article here: Politics and the English Language by George Orwell

or here Politics and the English Language (links updated Pincrete (talk) 12:53, 7 August 2015 (UTC))

Caesar0 11:23, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Update

No feedback from anyone, so added link to main article. I hope this is acceptable. Link is better than some of those already there.

Caesar0 19:18, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Orwell Awards

I think something should be added about the Orwell and Doublespeak awards, given every year to both one piece of work or entity that follows orwell's rules, and one that breaks them. You can find more info by simply googling "orwell awards". lalalapilly 16:30, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I've only just realised that this only came up on my watchlist because someone tidied the spelling. Anyway, the awards don't belong here, but I have added them to 'see also'. Pincrete (talk) 11:15, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Removed blog as reference

Have removed the following:

Linguist Geoffrey Pullum has criticized the essay for "its insane and unfollowable insistence that good writing must avoid all phrases and word uses that are familiar." (Ref) Pullum, Geoffrey (August 31, 2008). "A load of old Orwellian cobblers from Fisk". Language Log. Retrieved December 28, 2008.

Blogs are, at the time of writing, not accepted as references. --Technopat (talk) 23:22, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

And why not? :) Skomorokh 23:31, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Personally I think that editors' consensus should decide which blogs & forums are acceptable or not as references at Wikipedia. They are increasingly being used by the scientific community, for instance, as an interchange/exchange of knowledge among experts. However, this discussion page is not the place for proposing future consensus :) or my personal opinions... sigh! --Technopat (talk) 00:18, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Policy is pretty clear that experts self-publishing in their field are reliable; G Pullum is a Professor of linguistics and this is a linguistic article so it looks like you've fallen on the wrong side of consensus on this one. Not to worry, there are plenty of non-blog sources on the essay out there you can use to overwhelm our one blog! Skomorokh 00:21, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that - replying on your talk page. --Technopat (talk) 00:33, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Being very bold...

With all due respect to the effort made by a recent editor to reduce "prolixity", the article - admittedly in need of serious cleanup - is now far harder to read and understand than it was before, whatever its faults then. I have therefore reverted these edits.

I realise that my "bold" revert might seem "aggressive" but the aim of an encyclopedic entry at Wikipedia is to explain things to the general public in easy-to-understand terms and I feel that the opposite has been occurring with this article. I would appreciate some constructive feedback on this, and if consensus is that I have put my foot in it, I apologise. --Technopat (talk) 23:07, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Summary section

The summary section simply parrots what Orwell was saying, whereas the rest of the article actually explains it. I believe that the redundant summary should be excised. BillMasen (talk) 14:52, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

That is why it is a summary! It needs to be there for people who want a summary of the essay rather than all the explanation Motmit (talk) 18:37, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

But this is only a description of what he wrote. Either people want to know what he wrote first hand, or they want it explained to them in someone else's own words, not a cut down and less clear version of O's words.

I notice that Motmit wrote this summary. Is there anyone out there who feels it should stay, apart from the man himself? Does anyone else, like me, feel that this summary does not contribute to the article and would be of little use unless the reader had read Orwell's essay first?BillMasen (talk) 19:21, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Someone should, at the very least, edit the summary so that it is in active voice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.237.46.134 (talk) 10:58, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

the summary just seems redundant. it basically reiterates what was said in the preceding section, giving the reader, or me, at least, a sense of deja vu. if, as one person suggests, a summary should be there to help the reader who has no interest in reading the whole article, then it should be earlier in the entry, so that this imagined hurried reader doesn't have to bother delving into the entry to find it. at any rate, it could be compressed. … … …left unsigned by 108.34.49.193

108.34.49.193 , some of it isn't redundant, but some is and perhaps 'examples' would be better up with 'Ecclesiastes', want to try fixing it?Pincrete (talk) 21:50, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

I've tried to do a general fix, removing repetitions and OR (and quite a few unnecessary words, subordinate clauses etc.).Pincrete (talk) 14:49, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Pullum / Language Log

The harsh criticism of Orwell, cited to Geoff Pullum at various Language Log postings, has been removed over and over again for years(!), always on specious grounds. Wikipedia has never adopted a blanket ban on the use of blogs. The actual language from WP:SPS (and this is pretty stable over time IIRC) is:

Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications.

Pullum clearly meets these criteria. Further, Pullum's criticism of Orwell on Language Log has been specifically cited four times by three different mainstream news outlets.[1]

Pullum's LL postings on Orwell are reliable sources and should be included. 205.211.141.50 (talk) 18:43, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Yeah; Orwell’s making all these bold claims, many of which are falsifiable, and I’m like, OK, what do linguists have to say about this? But under “critical reception” no such expertise is considered. —Wiki Wikardo 20:28, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Replying to original note two years later: No "specious grounds" whatsoever. It is clear that "...may be considered reliable" (current wording of the corresponding Wikipedia policy) is not the same as "...are considered reliable". However, I did suggest on a previous occasion that that particular blog could be included or not depending on the consensus reached on this talk page, but I don't see you particularly interested. Meanwhile, the default setting is that blogs are not considered reliable (remember that cute little "may" in the current Wikipedia policy?). --Technopat (talk) 19:03, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Just to point out that whilst Pullum is very critical of this essay, he is generally a great defender of Orwell's writing. I have no opinion as to whether Pullum's blog should be 'allowed', perhaps a slight feeling that it should, largely on the grounds that Pullum himself writes so vividly.Pincrete (talk) 14:19, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

If nobody objects, I'm going to restore Pullum quotes, along with advise from Pullum and examples of Pullum praising Orwell as a writer, a Prof. of Linguistics, with a passion for good, clear writing and a detestation of 'poppycock' has to be a reliable source, regardless of being (technically) a blog.Pincrete (talk) 21:32, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Update, nobody did object, so I restored Pullum … there is a second GLORIOUS 'P & the Eng Lang' article on the LangLog site by another linguist - I think these are RSs for our purposes, and what both Pullum and the other piece are emphathic about is that Orwell is a great writer, but only Orwell's rule 6 is worth worrying about. Pincrete (talk) 14:16, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Which five ?

I've just done a general tidy-up, intended to remove some of the more tortured phraseology and some repetitions. One thing I couldn't amend was Orwell mentions that each of the five is used by people who believe in barbarous things but must communicate them to a civil society. Five what ? Is the meaning meant to be each of the first five rules ? The sentence 'sounds like' a quote, but is not attributed.

This sentence is preceded by The writer should not use the English language to manipulate or deceive the reader. I presume this thought should be credited to Orwell (rather than being stated as a general truth).Pincrete (talk) 21:32, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

The five refers to five pieces of text that Orwell decided to use because they "illustrate various of the mental vices from which we now suffer."TranquilHope (talk) 00:48, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

TranquilHope, do you agree though that present wording is unclear where it is and is poasibly a quote. The relevant text is at the end of '6 rules'.Pincrete (talk) 07:42, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

The five are mentioned in more detail in the "Summary" section, so I do not think it is necessary there. I also agree that the sentence that precedes it should be credited to Orwell.TranquilHope (talk) 21:57, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

What should be in the lead

Re this, firstly, these segments are not attributed as quotes, if they had been I might have pruned, but would not have altered text. Secondly, if they are ALL quotes they could be copyvio, but definitely should be clearly marked as quotes. I acknowledge that if the majority of sources DO counterpoise individuality with conformity, we should use that word, but other than that, I don't know how I changed meaning, it is our job to summarise content. IMO, the text had unnec. repetitions. Please ping or go to talk if you wish to reply.Pincrete (talk) 16:17, 7 August 2015 (UTC) … … ps this is the lead, shouldn't it summarise the balance of critical thought, rather than the content of one study and maybe that particular study deserves more coverage in 'criticism'? Which is fairly thin for such a 'milestone' work.Pincrete (talk) 16:41, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

You certainly did change the meaning; I don't see how you can dispute that. Just for an example (among other things), encouraging individuality is completely different from encouraging originality. But that aside… Did you look at the original cited work to compare what its author wrote to the language you changed and the language you replaced it with? If you did look at the cited biography and the original language did not reflect what the biographer wrote then you were right to get rid of it. But replacing it with your opinion of Orwell's work is not appropriate. It would be appropriate only if what you wrote is actually a quotation (or at least a very close paraphrasing) of what the author of the biography actually wrote. Remember, that part of the article is reporting on what that particular source (the biography) is saying. What you just wrote above indicates to me that what you wrote is based on "the majority of sources" – which, if that's what you're doing, is wrong for two reasons. First, the citation is to a particular source and therefore should reflect that single source. Second, and more importantly, writing something you say is based on "the majority of sources" is either a personal opinion (which is not allowed) and/or individual research on your part (which is definitely not allowed). - Embram (talk) 16:56, 7 August 2015 (UTC) '

Sorry, can we both calm down, a) this is the lead, the place for a summary of critical opinion, not the place for one commentator unless he is VERY CLEARLY the sole or primary authority, (or unless his words reflect the balance of opinion) … b) I have already acknowledged that if the balance of critics speak of 'encouraging individuality', or similar meaning, then the term should be used. My suspicion/memory is that they do not, Orwell himself tends to contrast 'real thought' with 'mechanical thought', (encouraging 'individuality', is very post-WWII and is in many ways the antithesis of his kind of disciplined mind). Yes, my use of 'originality' was a bit synth, but I couldn't think of a better summary word for 'non-mechanical', 'non-hackneyed' etc.

IF that part of the article is summarising only one source, it should say so (and probably shouldn't be in the lead), if any of these are quotes, that should be made clear. That one word is not worth arguing about, and I apologise if it was synth, but still think there is a better way to summarise the balance of opinion, which is what the lead should be doing, rather than just reporting one opinion. (ps … please name me or take this to talk, I never watch user pages) Pincrete (talk) 17:56, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

I think I'm being perfectly calm. If it seems I'm not, then I apologize for that. Now, as to the topic: First, a statement cannot reflect "a summary of critical opinion" if it is followed by a citation of a single reference. That indicates that what was written is a restatement of what that single reference said. Second, as I understand the rules, the only "summary of critical opinion" of a work allowed in a Wikipedia article is a summary that was published in some single reference, and then it is that reference that must be cited. Wikipedia editors cannot take it on themselves to give what they think is "a summary of critical opinion" of a work based on their own readings and knowledge because that would be either personal opinion or independent research, neither of which is allowed. Do you see what I'm saying? [I will put this on your talk page as well, as you request.] - Embram (talk) 18:07, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

(continued from user TPs)

Embram, I think this is a case of we are both right, but arguing from different bases. The lead is normally a summary of what is in the article, except in very controversial articles, refs are not normally needed in the lead as every claim is within the article, text is therefore often a 'general summary', though brief. (that is where I am right, I think)

What you are concerned about is the fidelity to 'your' source, and everything you say about that is true. However I think it should be in a relevant section (critical reaction?) and should be credited to the author (rather than 'fact'). It may well be that it could be expanded there.

This has been my experience of working on 'creative subject' articles. I've quickly checked WP:Lead, and WP:LEADCITE, I think I am broadly right Does this help?Pincrete (talk) 18:38, 7 August 2015 (UTC) … … ps since we already state the 'broad outline' of the essay in the lead, and list its impact etc. Do we need more there to introduce the subject?Pincrete (talk) 19:08, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't disagree with your conclusions (I take no position on that) and I'm not really sure what you mean by the "fidelity" of a source. I'm concerned here with only two things: (1) when content of a cited reference is described it should be done without changing the meaning of what the reference is saying, without regard to what the editor thinks about whether it is right or wrong; and (2) personal opinion and independent research (by the editor or un-cited sources) should not be part of a Wikipedia article. I'm sure you don't need me to link to those two well-known guidelines for Wikipedia editing.

So it doesn't matter whether you're "right" or not. Your (or my) opinion does not belong in a Wikipedia article. The lead should contain only statements that are not open to interpretation and are not a matter of opinion, but un-contestable, undisputed facts. Opinions, analysis, and characterizations of an author's work should come only from published sources which should be accurately cited. - Embram (talk) 13:02, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

By 'fidelity', I meant exactly what you are saying, that we should accurately reflect a source and nothing more. I think the only 'misunderstanding' (on my part originally, for which I apologise), was that the opinions of an individual commentator (which I did not notice they were, because they were textually un-credited and in the lead), shouldn't be in the lead unless they are clearly representative of the broad consensus of scholarly opinion. My suspicion (I haven't checked yet and it is harder to look for a negative), is that most would NOT say Orwell contrasts 'individuality' with 'political conformity'. This source's opinions clearly should be in the article, should be credited and possibly expanded, but should be in 'critical response'. I was initially wholly wrong because I did not realise that these were the views of this individual source, rather than a summary, which as I say above, may anyway not be needed. Pincrete (talk) 13:51, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Proposed re -ordering of content

When I have time, I intend to re-order/ce the content/summary section such that it mirrors the topic order in the essay ie Orwell's general intro, 5 samples, bible rewrite, 6 rules. Pincrete (talk) 09:06, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

The Harold Laski Quote

Where does Orwell get the Laski quote from? Orwell cites "Freedom of Expression" but that isn't enough to locate it. Is it well hidden in a collection of Laski's essays or in an anthology because, as far as I can tell, it's not a title of any work attributed to Laski. Is it really by Laski at all; worse: did Orwell just invent it? If not, it would be nice to see the quote in Orwell's essay in its proper context.91.125.46.55 (talk) 13:00, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't know, but the whole text appears to be available online (external links), so it probably says there. Pincrete (talk) 14:23, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Text Links Jan 2020

Somebody should probably clean out the 2008 chat about text links, above.

Of three links I have just tried, the one to Wikilivres, at the bottom, is dead.

The one at the site Orwell.ru is excellent. Well-formatted html that adjusts its own width nicely. Handsome typeface. Good work Orwell.ru, and thank you from throughout World Orwell!

The reference to Researchgate gets me a sign-up page, not a download of the Orwell. It may very well be inside someplace after you've signed up as a member or something, but as it stands the URL is plain dishonest.

Prunefaced Grammarian (talk) 11:08, 18 January 2020 (UTC)