Orwellian Bullshit, and how to abuse a source...

[AndyTheGrump]

Lacking anything better to do with my time, I've recently taken a look at Wikipedia's article on Bullshit (T-H-L). And regretted doing so. Like most such overextended dictionary-definition articles, it exhibits many flaws. What stuck out most though, to me at least, was this dubious-seeming assertion:

In Down and Out in Paris and London, George Orwell writes that the insult "bullshit" stems from "Bolshevik", and that the association with communists is the source of the word's insult.

Hang on a minute, I thought, surely George Orwell, master of the English language as he was, can't have been that stupid? Did he really source the etymology of the word to Russian revolutionaries and their allies, rather than say to something emitting from the nether end of a male Bos taurus? Given that the source cited was Down and Out itself, it surely wouldn't be hard to check. Sure enough, the entire text is available online, and the relevant part was located as soon as I figured out that Orwell considered it two words:

Leaving the spike, we all started southward, a long slouching procession, for Lower Binfield and Ide Hill. On the way there was a fight between two of the tramps. They had quarrelled overnight (there was some silly casus belli about one saying to the other, 'Bull shit', which was taken for Bolshevik--a deadly insult), and they fought it out in a field. A dozen of us stayed to watch them.

So, does Orwell suggest that 'bull shit' stems from 'Bolshevik'? Of course not. A tramp mishears one phrase for another, starting a fight. Wikipedia's assertion to the contrary is in of itself pure and unadulterated BS. Or rather, contributor G.W.Kyte (T-C-L)'s assertion is BS. Quite possibly unintended BS, but, BS nevertheless.

In of itself, this abuse and/or misreading of a source is clearly nothing unusual. And nor is the fact that nobody seems to have queried it since. A random contributor, with few edits to their name, can easily do this sort of thing, especially if they cite what seems like an authority on the subject. Who is going to doubt Orwell? Which led me to wonder just how much else Wikipedia was misquoting, misunderstanding, or outright misrepresenting poor long-gone George? I had to do a little more searching. And found a few more gems. From Notes on Nationalism (T-H-L)

Orwell discusses nationalism and argues that it causes people to disregard common sense and to become more ignorant towards facts.

Um, what? 'Ignorant towards facts'? Learn to fucking write, as Orwell may well have been inclined to say in his Politics and the English Language (T-H-L), though no doubt tact led him not to.

Next, not misrepresentation, just random citing-Orwell-because-we-can, in the Gauloises (T-H-L) article.

George Orwell tells of how he "squandered two francs fifty on a packet of Gaulois Bleu" in his 1933 book Down and Out in Paris and London.

Yup, it's in Down and Out. So what? A passing comment, not a fucking endorsement. And if you read on, Orwell quite likely wishes he'd hung on the the two francs fifty.

I seem to have fallen down an Orwellian-bullshit rabbit-hole here, since there is evidently quite a bit more of this sort of cite-Orwell-because-it-sounds-good nonsense on Wikipedia. And elsewhere too, since citing Orwell for things he didn't say has been in vogue almost since the day he died, if not before. I'll report back only if if find more on Wikipedia though, since I don't want to drag Wikipedocracy too far off-topic.

[AndyTheGrump]

Jeez. It gets worse...

From the lede to Fascist (insult) (T-H-L):

The widespread use of this term as an insult was noted as early as 1944, when British writer George Orwell commented that "the word 'Fascism' is almost entirely meaningless" and that "almost any English person would accept 'bully' as a synonym for 'Fascist'"

The source of the Orwell quotes is a short piece from the Tribune, available online in it's entirety. Rather than selectively quoting it again, I suggest that anyone interested should read it. link

See the problem? Yup. Orwell has been cherry-picked to supposedly claim that "the word 'Fascism' is almost entirely meaningless", when the surrounding context makes it entirely clear that he believes nothing of the sort. To Orwell, the scatter-gun usage of the word ("applied to farmers, shopkeepers, Social Credit, corporal punishment, fox-hunting, bull-fighting, the 1922 Committee, the 1941 Committee, Kipling, Gandhi, Chiang Kai-Shek, homosexuality, Priestley's broadcasts, Youth Hostels, astrology, women, dogs and I do not know what else") has rendered it 'meaningless', but underneath lies "something cruel, unscrupulous, arrogant, obscurantist, anti-liberal and anti-working-class" that needs describing. "Fascism is also a political and economic system". A system that Orwell finds difficult to define precisely, but nevertheless considers a valid term for analysis, with "a certain amount of circumspection and not, as is usually done, degrade it to the level of a swearword".

If one were to be kind, one might note that the Wikipedia article in question later provides a little more context, but to my mind, the damage has already been done, and it still fails to make clear why Orwell considered fascism to be more than an 'epithet'. In the lede though (which is all that many people will read, I suspect) Wikipedia isn't just selectively quoting Orwell for something he didn't say. They are outright misrepresenting him to state the exact opposite of what he actually wrote. Oh, the irony. The fucking irony.

The past was alterable. The past never had been altered. Oceania was at war with Eastasia. Oceania had always been at war with Eastasia.

George Orwell, 1984.

[Moral Hazard]

In the Spanish Civil War, Orwell fought against fascists and Communists.

Since 1931, communists have smeared opponents as "fascists", before persecuting them.

[jf1970]

This is what happens when people cite to primary instead of secondary sources. Anything written by Orwell is a primary source for Orwell's opinion. If a Wikipedia article says, "According to Orwell, ...," it should cite to some work other than Orwell: to a secondary source that says "According to Orwell, ..." By citing to the secondary source (someone writing about Orwell) instead of the primary source (Orwell himself), we ensure we don't fuck up the context. It's the source that is making the claim about Orwell, rather than some Wikipedia editor engaging in original research. But good luck getting most Wikipedians to understand this. It's a very widespread problem on Wikipedia, despite core content policies squarely addressing this.

[AndyTheGrump]

In the Spanish Civil War, Orwell fought against fascists and Communists.

Since 1931, communists have smeared opponents as "fascists", before persecuting them.

Both statements are true, though the first is rather an oversimplification. Neither has much to do with the intended topic of this thread.

[AndyTheGrump]

This is what happens when people cite to primary instead of secondary sources. Anything written by Orwell is a primary source for Orwell's opinion. If a Wikipedia article says, "According to Orwell, ...," it should cite to some work other than Orwell: to a secondary source that says "According to Orwell, ..." By citing to the secondary source (someone writing about Orwell) instead of the primary source (Orwell himself), we ensure we don't fuck up the context. It's the source that is making the claim about Orwell, rather than some Wikipedia editor engaging in original research. But good luck getting most Wikipedians to understand this. It's a very widespread problem on Wikipedia, despite core content policies squarely addressing this.

As a general principle, you are right - Wikipedia contributors shouldn't be selecting from a primary source that way. Unfortunately, in Orwell's case, there is no lack of secondary sources that have already selectively-'quoted' him in a manner that makes their use as sources dubious - but only if you are sufficiently knowledgeable about Orwell himself to spot the obvious BS. Which most Wikipedians almost certainly aren't. I'd have to suggest that, for an 'anyone-can-edit encyclopaedia', the best option is not to cite Orwell at all, unless you have a clue. And can control for any obvious agenda.

[Poetlister]

This is what happens when people cite to primary instead of secondary sources. Anything written by Orwell is a primary source for Orwell's opinion. If a Wikipedia article says, "According to Orwell, ...," it should cite to some work other than Orwell: to a secondary source that says "According to Orwell, ..." By citing to the secondary source (someone writing about Orwell) instead of the primary source (Orwell himself), we ensure we don't fuck up the context. It's the source that is making the claim about Orwell, rather than some Wikipedia editor engaging in original research. But good luck getting most Wikipedians to understand this. It's a very widespread problem on Wikipedia, despite core content policies squarely addressing this.

That reminds me of a story about Philip Roth (T-H-L). He once wrote to the WMF complaining about an article about one of his books. The WMF said that this was not a valid source for amending the article. He wrote a letter to the New York Times, which published it. That then became a reliable source. If Orwell were still alive and wrote a letter to a newspaper (other than the Daily Mail, which of course he'd have shunned) about some of the stuff in this thread, would it be a reliable source?

[AndyTheGrump]

More cite-Orwell-because-we-can stuff. The Dumb insolence (T-H-L) article, in its entirety:

Dumb insolence is an offence against military discipline in which a subordinate displays an attitude of defiance towards a superior without open disagreement. It is also found in settings such as education in which obedience and deference to a teacher is expected but may be refused by unruly pupils. For example, a pupil may suck their teeth, sigh or walk away while being spoken to.

The Totalitarian regime depicted in George Orwell's Nineteen Eighty Four has a criminal offence called "Facecrime" - i.e. to show by one's expression, though without expressing it in words, that one does not fully believe in the official ideology.

I dare say the connection between 'dumb insolence' and 'facecrime' is a reasonable enough one to make. Though per the comments above, Wikipedians shouldn't be the ones making the connection. Without Orwell, the 'dumb insolence' article would be even more of an obvious dictionary-definition stub than it is now. Citing him to pad an article out seems to work...

[AndyTheGrump]

From the In popular culture' section of Wikipedia's Big data (T-H-L) article:

Nineteen Eighty-Four is a dystopian novel by George Orwell. In the novel, the government collects information on citizens and uses the information to maintain a totalitarian rule.

Leaving aside the question of whether the novel Nineteen Eighty-Four is really 'popular culture' (I suspect a lot more people claim to have read it than actually have), one might wonder what exactly was the point being made here? Neither say Hitler's Germany nor the Soviet Union under Stalin required the complex analytical systems dependent on information technology which are the supposed subject of the article, and unless one is of the opinion that all governments are 'totalitarian', 'collecting information' need not necessarily imply totalitarianism. Citing Orwell to make some sort of point or another that doesn't really belong there at all.

[Ming]

Ming also notes that the article claims that Gauloises "is a brand of cigarette of Polish manufacture." Perhaps so now, but....

Curiously, the French article begins the same way. Ming would think they might know better.

[AndyTheGrump]

Two for one. From Hock (wine) (T-H-L)

H. G. Wells refers to "good hock" in A Modern Utopia, Chapter 6, Section 1. George Orwell writes in Homage to Catalonia Ch. XII in 1938 that "It has four crenellated spires exactly the shape of hock bottles", referring to Sagrada Família.

I dare say if I were to look, I'd find more evidence of H. G. Wells-random-quote-abuse too. Sticking with Orwell, his comment on the spires might possibly be worth mentioning in the Sagrada Família (T-H-L) article, but here? cite Orwell, because we can, yet again?

[AndyTheGrump]

Light relief, from Stand-up comedy (T-H-L)

Hack
A hack is a pejorative term for a comedian with rushed, unoriginal, low-quality, or clichéd material. One proposed amelioration to hackneyed material is an essay by George Orwell called "Politics and the English Language: The Six Rules"

Um, yes, I can think of one or two 'comedians' who might benefit from reading Orwell, but I don't think he wrote his essay (or the six rules, which aren't part of the title) for the benefit of hack stand-ups. So who exactly is proposing the 'amelioration'? A comedian named Logan Murray (T-H-L), apparently, in Be A Great Stand-Up (2nd ed.). Throw poor old George in there, just because we can, and possibly to promote the book...

[AndyTheGrump]

Here's another throw-Orwell-in-because-we-can moment, from Aldebaran in fiction (T-H-L):

References to Aldebaran not as an astronomical location in space or the center of a planetary system include:
...
Down and Out in Paris and London (1933), semi-autobiographical novel by George Orwell.

So what does Down and Out have to say on Aldebaran? For context, Orwell is talking with Bozo, a pavement artist or 'screever' he has recently met. As they cross Lambeth Bridge, Bozo stops, and looks up at the night sky:

'Say, will you look at Aldebaran! Look at the colour. Like a--great blood orange!'

From the way he spoke he might have been an art critic in a picture gallery. I was astonished. I confessed that I did not know which Aldebaran was--indeed, I had never even noticed that the stars were of different colours. Bozo began to give me some elementary hints on astronomy, pointing out-the chief constellations. He seemed concerned at my ignorance. I said to him, surprised:

'You seem to know a lot about stars.'

'Not a great lot. I know a bit, though. I got two letters from the Astronomer Royal thanking me for writing about meteors. Now and again I go out at night and watch for meteors. The stars are a free show; it don't cost anything to use your eyes.'

And that is all that is said regarding Aldebaran. Now, I'm not even going to attempt to try to figure out what Wikipedia actually means by "not ... an astronomical location in space", but instead merely point out that (a) 'Bozo' is pointing to a real star, and (b) to assert that Down and Out is fiction runs contrary to what Orwell himself stated. Opinions on this differ, but it certainly isn't Wikipedia's job to cherry-pick random passing references to a star in the work in order to pad out an article that doesn't need such padding, regardless of whether Bozo actually existed, or actually said it. The article would be a darned sight better if it confined itself to discussing (via secondary sources) fiction where Aldebaran puts in an appearance a little more substantial. There's no lack of it.