Talk:Nineteen Eighty-Four

The Road to 1984 (1984)

Shouldn't we add a mention of the film The Road to 1984 (dir. David Wheatley, 1984)? ~2025-31208-44 (talk) 00:22, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

Forty Minutes: 1984: Voices in a City

Shouldn't we add a mention of the film Forty Minutes: 1984: Voices in a City (directed by Ted Clisby), which aired on January 5, 1984? This film compares life in Orwell's novel and the reality of life in 1984. ~2025-31208-44 (talk) 03:43, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

"Theatre 625" The World of George Orwell: 1984

Shouldn't we add a mention of the film "Theatre 625" The World of George Orwell: 1984, which aired on November 28, 1965? ~2025-31208-44 (talk) 04:32, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

Use of a large language model to produce text

@Morrisworm, please confirm whether you are using or ever have used a large language model to produce text to insert into this article or to edit existing text. May you please comment specifically on this diff and this one? Why are your edits inserting American English into this British English article and why does your text contain signs of having been AI-generated, including apparent WP:SUPERFICIAL analysis?

The use of large language models to generate text for articles is generally prohibited on the English Wikipedia. Please see WP:EPAI. Keeper of Albion (talk) 10:09, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

@Keeper of Albion No, I don't use LLMs, and I don't see any reason provided for coming to that conclusion. I write in American English because that's how I learned it, which is reflected in my editing style. I am quite active here (I've taken on the responsibility of improving this article's verifiability) and will continue to revise it as I have time. I'm not sure what you are trying to find in the diffs you mentioned, could you please clarify? You said "comment on those diffs"? Morris (talk with this worm) 10:49, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

I thought it would have been clear that I was asking you to comment on your insertion of American English and to explain why you introduced the new text.

"Julia: the 26-year-old female, contrasts sharply with Winston in her survival approach. A machine-operator in the Fiction Department, she expertly plays the Party’s game, using the Junior Anti-Sex League’s red sash and loud slogans as camouflage to avoid the Thought Police. Unlike Winston, Julia is a pragmatic sensualist uninterested in politics or history. Her rebellion is personal-seeking sex, luxury, and freedom-accepting the Party’s power and choosing to outsmart it rather than oppose it, living on her own terms beneath Big Brother’s watch." — from this diff.

What human would write a paragraph like that? "Her rebellion is personal"? And Winston’s isn’t? It‘s absurdly sensationalised and consistent with WP:RO3.

"Big Brother: the leader and figurehead of the Party that rules Oceania in George Orwell's 1984 is Big Brother." — from the same diff.

Why did you feel the need to repeat Big Brother’s name, as well as George Orwell’s name and the novel’s title? A human who understood the place of that sentence (halfway down an article) and the preceding context would never write that. Keeper of Albion (talk) 11:12, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

@Keeper of Albion Her rebellion is personal' means she is not interested in outward politics like Winston. She likes sex and other sensual things which are prohibited by the Party. If you have read the book, you would understand this. I don't think a human would never write something like this. I just don't have the time, or I could show you the worst examples of human hyperbole. As for the second reason: I cannot remember clearly why I wrote it that way, since I told you already that it's been more than a month. But I can guess the reason is that Big Brother was already there, but while forming the summary of his character, I might have rewritten it once again to specify. Morris (talk with this worm) 11:35, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

Why would you need to specify? What is there to specify? His name has just been mentioned (in a list format no less).

The only uncomplicated answer is that it’s a canned description, without the benefit of context, produced by a large language model and which you pasted into your edit. Keeper of Albion (talk) 11:43, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

@Keeper of Albion looks like you came to your own conclusion. Morris (talk with this worm) 11:50, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

So, based on my own conclusions, you are simply attempting to find minor details, regardless of their importance, to accuse me of using an LLM. That is all I can say for now. Morris (talk with this worm) 11:56, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

@Keeper of Albion Its Interesting that you brought more than a month old diffs. Morris (talk with this worm) 11:06, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

Why is this relevant? Keeper of Albion (talk) 11:12, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

@Keeper of Albion Neither is irrelevant. Anyway, I know what you are trying to say, and I have already clarified that I don't use LLMs. The text does contain some hyperbole (which you call superficial), and I take responsibility for that, but hyperbole wasn't invented by OpenAI. Also, in case you think I just copied an LLM, there are citations for EVERY SINGLE THING I added after that period. Every single one of them. All it takes is a pair of eyes. Morris (talk with this worm) 11:18, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

LLMs can also produce citations; their addition in your edits doesn’t prove anything. A check of your edits to this article (https://sigma.toolforge.org/usersearch.py?name=Morrisworm&page=Nineteen+Eighty-Four&server=enwiki&max=100) shows that you’re quite keen on adding citations. I may well take a look at them, too.

One could also ask why you chose the language that you inserted in this diff. Why do you feel the need to repeat the name of the novel multiple times? Why did you include Notes on Nationalism’s publication date only on its third mention instead of its first?

Why are your edit summaries in broken English but your edits are flawlessly written? Keeper of Albion (talk) 11:37, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

@Keeper of Albion I don't know if they can find citations or not. Is adding citations also a problem? For your information, I don't just add citations to Nineteen Eighty-Four; I have done fact-checking in many places and you can just look at my contributions. Also, regarding the Notes on Nationalism case: I really don't see how these subtle details make you think it was written by an LLM. Is my English broken here too? Morris (talk with this worm) 11:49, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

The subtle details make me think that because they suggest a lack of the care that any editor interpreting numerous sources and adding great swathes of text would generally show.

Your level of English on this talk page is superior to that displayed in your edit summaries. The discrepancy between these and your edits to the article is what concerns me, and you have failed to explain it. Keeper of Albion (talk) 11:56, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

It's probably because I don't take much care when writing my edit summaries? I'm not sure if I've mentioned this before, but I have a habit of typing very quickly because I use a lot of forums. That might be the reason for it. I know that using formal language is required everywhere in Wikipedia but I am new here and may need some time adapt the environment. Morris (talk with this worm) 12:02, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

Your use of an LLM is blatant and has been noted. You have been made aware of the English Wikipedia’s relevant LLM policy (WP:EPAI). If you continue to insert AI-generated text into any article, I will not hesitate to report you at WP:AIN without further warning. Keeper of Albion (talk) 12:11, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

Your targeting, lies, and disruptive edits have been noted as well. Did you even read what The Telegraph wrote? I removed it because it was not The Telegraph's own quote, and I wanted to edit it the right way, but you reverted it out of spite. Morris (talk with this worm) 12:16, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

I left a notice template at your talk page because doing so is a courtesy – not targeted harassment – and in order to create a record of this matter there.

I have a subscription to The Telegraph and can read the cited article. Murray himself is quoted thus: "You could call it one of the first landmark water cooler moments in British television." This isn’t quite the same as The Telegraph’s subheading saying that the adaptation "… became TV's first ‘watercooler’ moment". Keeper of Albion (talk) 12:49, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

I don't see much issue indicative of an LLM in the two diffs you provided. They didn't introduce counter-factual content and is technically correct (if not better suited for Simple enwiki).

WP:LLM is designed to protect the encyclopedia from disruption (aka. poorly made edits that are hard to clean up and where the citations don't support what they say and / or are hallucinated). Is there any disruption to the article that's bothering you? 海盐沙冰 _{/ aka irisChronomia / Talk} 13:16, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

Thank You. However, there is no need for this. I have already removed most of my edits. As my userpage notes I am in stress right now and can't handle these types of things. I give @Keeper of Albion there credits. I hope someone fixes all of the problems that are in the page, like I was trying to. I will still be active on some simpler pages or doing fact check. Have a nice day! Morris (talk with this worm) 13:25, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, I think this is a content disagreement. It's not appropriate to say something is LLM generated because one finds the content absurd / disagrees with its tone and its inclusion/omission of specific info. This thread should just be "hey, I think the tone is [adjective] and I think keeping the [source] is a better idea". 海盐沙冰 _{/ aka irisChronomia / Talk} 13:33, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

By the way, just so you know - you can reference another user by using {{noping|username}}.

For example, {{noping|irisChronomia}} would display as: irisChronomia.

I wish you a peaceful Wikibreak, and look forward to see you again. 海盐沙冰 _{/ aka irisChronomia / Talk} 13:34, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

I will. it has been quite a ride. Morris (talk with this worm) 13:44, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

About O’Brien, introduced in this diff: "His role highlights the Party’s use of deception and surveillance to maintain power." What sort of person would write about O’Brien’s role "highlighting" anything, particularly something so obvious? It’s exactly the kind of vapid, canned, insubstantial, superficial analysis typical of LLM output. Please see WP:SUPERFICIAL, as well as the rest of WP:AISIGNS.

The inconsistent proficiency in English, the deflection and the clamour to mention irrelevant citations should be suspicious enough; the bizarre phrasing and oblivious repetition in this diff and this one are what I’d call a smoking gun.

User:Morrisworm made their account on 3 June this year and immediately began experimenting with swathes of AI-generated text on their user page. It really shouldn’t be so surprising that they use it in article space, too. Keeper of Albion (talk) 13:35, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

Yes, agree that this is mildly concerning and reminiscent of 3R; but also, that's what the revert key is for. I have read the diff 1357873775 as you already provided them twice in your earlier replies. I agree that the tone is too trivial for ENwiki, but don't think it is indicative of LLM.

For the last two diffs – emdash – what others are doing in their own userpage should not be used as evidence of pattern of misbehaviour, unless it's mentioned in WP:UPNOT.

Lastly, note that you're dealing with an editor with only ~100 edits. We're required to not treat others horribly and not bite them, and in principle should only be stringent when a user is disruptive despite continued warnings. 海盐沙冰 _{/ aka irisChronomia / Talk} 13:52, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

It’s not just the em dashes; the cadence, tone and substance of all their added text (including on their user page) is distinctly AI-generated, and its proficiency in English is clearly incongruous with that shown by their comments here. It really is so breathtakingly brazen. Forgive me, but I’m not sure why you can’t see that.

I don’t believe I’m being horrible by pointing out the obvious, or that I’m biting by asking questions and telling them to knock it off before I or someone else inevitably escalates their LLM use to WP:AIN. Many of their added sources seem fine, actually. They should simply stop offloading the interpretation and authorship to a chatbot.

But happily this matter seems to be concluded. I’m going to revert the article to a stable version. Keeper of Albion (talk) 14:12, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

Note: Morris hasn't used any em-dashes.

It's a good idea to assume not-LLM and point out issues as one would against a human edit, until the point where every assumption of human editing has to be rejected. To explicitly warn another editor against using LLM should be used for cases where the issues were too plenty and holes are everywhere, when an editor's editing is overall disruptive. To assume LLM and look for affirmative evidence often gets one many false positives. 海盐沙冰 _{/ aka irisChronomia / Talk} 14:28, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

Morrisworm failed to answer why they introduced so much canned, oblivious repetition in their edits. If this were written by a human, it would have to be a human who was very insistent on needlessly repeating themselves and who seemingly had no idea where in the world their text was going to be; who had no idea that it would be halfway through a Wikipedia article and that therefore the context had been established. That seems a far less plausible explanation than simple LLM use.

Why do Morrisworm’s revised paragraphs (about the forms of nationalism) in that diff suddenly include repetition of the novel’s title? What human editor – one apparently competent and lucid enough to find and interpret sources – would ever make that decision? Keeper of Albion (talk) 14:42, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

Again, I agree with you that diff 1361798588 is concerning, and that's what the revert key is there for. 海盐沙冰 _{/ aka irisChronomia / Talk} 15:06, 5 July 2026 (UTC)