Talk:The Theory and Practice of Oligarchical Collectivism

(moved some chatter to another section JoeHenzi (talk) 02:44, 18 November 2010 (UTC))

O'Brian, maybe a sociopath?

I added this section in here but I think the style might contrast a bit with the main article. I think the points are valid, especially the comparison with Igantius. I welcome anyone else here adding to or clarifying my edit.

Another theory is that O'Brian is sociopathic in nature. The average moral person holds great store in the idea of the truth and the idea that there is an objective reality. O'Brian, if he is a sociopath, has no special affection for "truth" since what is important to him is his place and position within the Party. The idea of an objective reality would be no more important to him than the preservation of works of art from the prior society. This makes the character all the more horrific to the reader since one assumes there is an intrinsic value in truth and O'Brian, as an intellectual, should appreciate it. No doublethink occurs with O'Brian since there is never the internal conflict between those opposing ideas in the first place. [Ignatius_of_Loyola], founder of the [Jesuits], was a Catholic proponent of doublethink. In his own words: "I will believe that the white that I see is black if the hierarchical Church so defines it."

--72.144.27.94 21:29, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Present = 1984?

It should be noted that the year is repeatedly stated to be 1984 in the Newspeak Appendix as well, and this appendix clearly reflects the omniscience of the author rather than the limited perspective of his protagonist.

"since the present is supposed to be 1984, the implication is that the war began at the end of the fifties -- and to make room for the "decade of confused fighting", Oceania and Eurasia must have come into being virtually immediately after Orwell published his novel in 1949"

But it's also mentioned that the date may or may not actually be 1984. It's 1984 according to the Party story, but that's all we know.

Since Winston has memories of a revolution during the the late fifties, and is apparently middle-aged, the date seems within the realm of credibility. -Peter

(Moved these here from top of talk page JoeHenzi (talk) 02:44, 18 November 2010 (UTC))

Is the content section a copyright violation?

This book is copyrighted, and a direct reproduction of the text of the book—10% of the novel—seems a little illegal to me. Just a little.--

• • This is NOT a "direct reproduction of the text of the book", except for a relatively few direct quotes. It is a synopsis or summary of a portion of _1984_, which is quite legitimate in terms of copyright. Countless books and movies have their plots summarized in various Wikipedia articles.

HereToHelp (talk) 22:13, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

What a weird comment to make on the topic.

I doubt there is any violation... http://www.ipo.gov.uk/copy/c-manage/c-useenforce/c-useenforce-use/c-useenforce-use-exception.htm are some UK copyright exceptions. Wikipedia probably falls under "Criticism or review, reporting current events".

The above link has been moved to http://www.ipo.gov.uk/types/copy/c-other/c-exception.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.67.2.22 (talk) 16:43, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

War & Peace: an interesting sidenote

Although a valid and interesting section, this appears to be original research, along with other bits and pieces throughout the article. Can anybody come up with some reputable sources? Failing that I may do some pruning...Tellkel 17:41, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Book's name...

Is indeed The Theory and Practice of Oligarchical Collectivism, stated with the story. The page should be moved and name adjusted so as to denotate that title. --Chr.K. 20:08, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. If we have a title, the article should be located there. -Elmer Clark 02:19, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Referencing

We really need sources for any analysis of the text or inferences drawn from it; otherwise, we are carrying out original research. Johnleemk | Talk 09:05, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

• • The bulk of the article is simply a synopsis of the relevant portion of the novel. A few reflections and comments on this material are appended, but calling this "original research" seems to stretch the definition. The "source" is obviously the novel _1984_ itself.

Alternative Theory on the Origin of the book

Could it be that O'brien was merely lying and that Goldstein, the Brotherhood, and the Book are both real (within the story, of course). The Inner Party might have set up a psuedo-Brotherhood to ensnare potential recruits for the actual Brotherhood. When he told Winston Smith that he was part of a commitee that wrote the book, he could just be taking credit for the book to break Smith's hope.70.172.198.145 06:25, 2 September 2007 (UTC)Mike Reason

If so, then Winston will never know. In any case, the "Goldstein" seen in the Two-Minute's Hate videos is definitely not the real Goldstein... AnonMoos (talk) 14:50, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Not necessarily. We know that Goldstein was originally a big wheel in the Party; so there could well have been surviving footage of him speaking directly to camera. The vile invective he spews is only referenced in the most general terms. He could originally have been talking about the Party's enemies—no-one is actually listening to what Goldstein is saying; much as Adolf Hitler's speeches were reproduced in their angry, rhotic, Austrian, barbarous-sounding original for the British and American public to jeer at; rather than actually translated into eloquent, persuasively rabble-rousing English.

Nuttyskin (talk) 15:52, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Fantastic article

This article was a pleasure to read. Thanks all for the great work. wilymage 22:55, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Funny, because I came to this talk page, against my better judgement, to say just that - and this is three years later. Wikipedia, this is one of your/our finer articles. Most importantly because it simply states the ideas behind the book-in-the-book and some of the book's ideas in a manner which doesn't dispute them, but uses the language it should (i.e.; it's not stating that any of the political theory therein is sound or not - it just states it). JoeHenzi (talk) 02:49, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Later Chapters

It is interesting to note that the external link at the end of the page leads to a site which expands on some of the missing chapters originally cited by Orwell's [i]Nineteen Eighty-Four[/i] to have been written by Goldstein in his book. This expansion is however not the work of Orwell himself, but the creative construct of another author in much the same style. These expansions include the written analysis of the party slogan "Freedom is Slavery" as well as the addition of 2 other chapters not originally in [i]Nineteen Eighty-Four[/i]. It is a very interesting read and a fruitful effort on the analysis and expansion of The Party's theories and Orwell's ideas. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.79.41.152 (talk) 03:54, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

It's a good read though. Let's keep it around, even if not in the article. --John Moser (talk) 03:10, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

• The Theory and Practice of Oligarchical Collectivism at Not Bored!, including chapters 1-3 excerpted from Nineteen Eighty Four

- I think the "why" behind oligarchical collectivism is not explained via a particular chapter in the Goldstein book, but is delivered through the dialogue of O'Brien. I forget which page it is on (but it is during Smith's brainwashing in the latter third of the book), but O'Brien just explains that the "why", the reason for the quest for power IS TO HAVE POWER. That the structure necessary to maintain it in its current form is the perpetual conflict between the super-states is explained in Chapter 3. There is no unanswered question in the book. This part of the answer is given by the dialogue between Smith and O'Brien. The Goldstein book is a book within a book, one of whose chapters is in the outer book (1984), and the outer book (1984) is itself the Goldstein book in ... what we call the world today. Look at foreign and domestic policies of the US (and other major countries) and their relation to economics and the network of corporate ownership. Argantael (talk) 16:01, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

this article is a masterpiece of OR

No citations, tons of speculation, much better than most wikipedia articles because of it.P4k (talk) 04:38, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Russell

I've removed speculation to the effect that the title of this fictional book might be based on the similar title of a book on bolshevism by Bertrand Russell. While that isn't implausible, the speculation is unsourced and as such, has the appearance of original research. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 08:39, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

fanfic?

i'm removing the link to the "chapters 1-5" of the "book". it doesn't seem that fanfic belongs in the article, and particularly not in this case where the substance of the additions are in such stark contrast with the work which it is building over. and it's amateurishly written. it's just not worth including. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.178.66.32 (talk) 04:05, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

It's not a "fanfic," it doesn't contain the author as another Sayajin with SSJ38 who was offworld when Frieza blew up the planet. --John Moser (talk) 03:11, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Uh, yes, what John says. Not Bored! is a notable Situationist publication, not some random website, and there is no problem linking to it as long as we do not misrepresent the link as the actual book. the skomorokh 03:21, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Outer Party = Middle?

Although it's natural to see three groups in The Book and three groups in Oceania's society and link them, there's no reason to assume the Outer Party is analogous to Goldstein's "Middle". As Goldstein describes it, the Middle is engaged in a perpetual struggle to displace the High, even occasionally recruiting the Low to that end, The Outer Party, in contrast, consists of stooges doing the bureaucratic gruntwork of Ingsoc. Any sufficiently ambitious member of the Outer Party is promoted, neutralizing them, and the occasional Prole who could prove troublesome is quietly eliminated. The practice of the Inner Party is not to allow the formation of a new Middle. 24.202.251.225 (talk) 04:17, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

As both ideas are original research, I don't think either can be included in the article. Mr. Granger (talk) 02:50, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Original Research?

It seems to me that nearly all of the section "The True Authorship" is original research. Unless someone has an objection, I'm going to remove the section. Mr. Granger (talk) 02:55, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Chapter 3 description doesn't mention war as sanity device

I've noticed that notably, the description of Chapter 3 does not mention Orville's view of war as a sanity device. The chapter itself describes how under normal circumstances, war prevents a society from completely detaching itself from reality -- delusions that impair military efficiency will inevitably lead to military defeat and a harsh end to such delusions -- and how eternal war eliminates the need for military efficiency and therefore the need for any attachment or perception of reality. This article's description of the chapter fails to mention such stuff. The omission is understandable, however -- the description is quite lengthy, and much of it is quoted verbatim from the source material, so it would make sense to leave such a point out for the sake of brevity. 68.48.239.52 (talk) 23:15, 8 September 2009 (UTC) (DavidJCobb on Halopedia)

Secondary sources

I introduced a few secondary sources to the article, but it's still lacking. Honestly, I wasn't even intending on editing this page, but I found enough promising results from a few casual searches that it seemed like an easy enough undertaking. Well, it wasn't. It's time consuming to read through literary analysis, paraphrase and convert it to the plain language of an encyclopedia, and try to maintain the same amount of coverage such that I'm no longer worried that someone will revert my edits with an edit summary like "the old version was more informative". Yes, it was rather informative, but it was original research.

Once I've had a bit of a rest and edited a few mindless pop culture articles, I may return and try to add more sources. I'm aware that the article is rather heavily biased toward a single source right now (the Ian Slater book). However, rather generous sections of the book are available on Google Books, and it's well written. I suggest doing a Google Books search on "oligarchical collectivism", which is how I found the sources that I added. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:25, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

"Once I've had a bit of a rest and edited a few mindless pop culture articles" so I'm not the only person who does this to relax Btljs (talk) 20:39, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Who is "J. B. E. Goldstein"?

I recently spotted the existing of a 334 pages old French book printed in 1948 and titled "Theorie et pratique du collectivisme oligarchique" (Theory and Practice of Oligarchical Collectivism), which would be the translation of a Russian book by "J. B. E. Goldstein" published in 1944. Does this ring a bell, anyone? LouisFarget (talk) 01:16, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

The whole thing reeks 'fake' to me. It's way too neat - written by the same author and published in 1948? It even has the 'Ignorance is Strength' slogan. Can someone confirm? Btljs (talk) 07:12, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

"The recent discovery of a copy in French of this book, bearing the date 1944, in Belgium, seems to have proved them right. For it bears the title Theory and Practice of Oligarchic Collectivism , and its edition is dated 1944, that is to say a few short years before George Orwell began to write on paper the first lines of 1984 . And in addition, it is signed JBE Goldstein." (Google translation of the promotional text) That said I agree that it feels like one of those "gag" books (like the copies of the Necronomicon that are floating around]).--2606:A000:7D44:100:3C20:A360:4BFB:96FC (talk) 14:07, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

OR in the article The Theory and Practice of Oligarchical Collectivism

Dear Colleague Coretheapple

Please, be specific and give examples (section, subsection, paragraph, line) of where my editorial contributions constitute original research. The encyclopaedic presentation is according to the facts already in the article.

If you might, let me know, in the article's talk page.

Regards

Chas. Caltrop (talk) 23:33, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

The entire article is a dense word stew. Is that specific enough for you? It requires a complete rewrite to bring to Wikipedia standards. Coretheapple (talk) 23:37, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

A reply

Again, be specific about where? and what? That is all you must do to prove your point. The article contains the relevant names, dates, times, and places to substantiate the statements in the text. Let me know.

Thanks,

Chas. Caltrop (talk) 00:00, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

To be frank, original research is probably the least of this article's sins. If an article is otherwise written decently and has OR that is not a terrible thing. It can be tagged or fixed. The primary fault of this article is that its writing is horrible. So please forgive me if I can't be more helpful on the point you wish me to address, dear colleague. Coretheapple (talk) 00:18, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

A reply

Why are you dodging the Wikipedia rules that ask you to be specific and give examples that substantiate your claim of OR? That is all you must do, per Wikipedia.

Regards

Chas. Caltrop (talk) 00:23, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

The article was pretty well-sourced before Chas Caltrop's edits. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:01, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

NinjaRobotPirate Yep, you're right. I didn't check the history. Then I would suggest rolling back to a prior version may be the best solution. Also I see that the previous versions cure the stylistic and writing issues I am seeing currently. Coretheapple (talk) 16:13, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Str1977 I see you're actively working to improve this dog's breakfast of an article. Do you concur that a rollback to a prior version may be a good way of commencing a cleanup of the article? Coretheapple (talk) 16:17, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Let's put it that way: I would not object but the rolled-back version would need a lot of work. Frankly, the opening paragraph in the earlier of these two versions reads terrible. Str1977 ^(talk) 16:25, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

I agree. Is this any better? [1] Perhaps the solution is to roll back to some earlier version (I am not sure which one) and take it from there. Coretheapple (talk) 16:34, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

It varies. Some passages read better but the changes are full of unnecessary, circumstantial wordings and the apparent wish to pack as much information as possible in every single sentence (even if that means e.g. we get more than enough info about Trotsky, sometimes over and over again). Str1977 ^(talk) 16:41, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

PS. I misunderstood your reference to "this". In the version you linked to the first paragraph is an improvement while the second has POV issues. Goldstein's depiction by the Party as well as the Book's description by rumours are portrayed as facts. Str1977 ^(talk) 16:47, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

The bottom line is that this article is a gawdawful mess and needs a total rewrite. Whatever is necessary I will support. Coretheapple (talk) 17:18, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

I stumbled upon this article after editing the one on a film adaptation, and was appalled by the opacity of the writing. I am not a subject matter expert but I know mush when I see it. As a reader I found this article totally unhelpful. Coretheapple (talk) 17:21, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

• I've reinstated the "contents" section as of 15:14, 31 October 2019‎ as it is far superior in clarity. Coretheapple (talk) 18:11, 1 December 2019 (UTC)