Talk:2 + 2 = 5

Original research in the lead

@Simpul skitsofreeneea: Since you apparently missed my edit comment asking for sources, let me be as clear as possible: Per WP:CHALLENGE, the following claims you made are challenged by me, and require citation to a reliable source:

1. "2+2=5" ... "the simplest and easiest logical error that is possible"
2. "2 + 2 = 4 is almost the most obvious mathematically determined truth"
3. "the most obvious being 1 + 1 = 2"
4. "The fact of falseness is determined by the existing established reality of the linguistic signifier 4 indicating the true quantity not the signifier 5."

Note that The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material.

Furthermore, WP:LEAD states that "Apart from basic facts, significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article." Which is the case with the above claims. Paradoctor (talk) 12:32, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

The lead paragraph before the recent changes seems better in that it appropriately focuses on the main use of the term, its well-known connection with Orwell's book. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:17, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

@Randy Kryn: Like life some things are more enjoyable than others, and if life were what we wanted it to be enjoyment could happen all the time, but the necessities of our circumstances here means the rules show the intro has to represent the contents of the article not the most important parts. I would say sorry I or someone else can't put it back to before; perhaps it is possible to make the intro include more Orwell, I don't know: it's just that when I read the article Orwell isn't the subject but the intro was mostly (but the political use of 2 + 2 = 5 is how Orwell knew about the use of the phrase). We have to keep in mind that reality decides what is the contents not our preferred version, or an expression of critical evaluation of the reality, as Orwell is. Perhaps there is a hidden reality in the pre-Orwellian use of 2 + 2 = 5 which Orwell is obscuring, as he represents a type of hero in our times, but perhaps he was a hidden spy and no-one knows (and if we look into history we will see a truer version of the problem of doublespeak or brainwashing political coercions (if you agree that the phrase means that to you, that is). That people know it well from Orwell doesn't matter as much as the subject is all the things. To focus on one thing if the others exist distorts the reality. Orwell helped people to see 2 + 2 = 5 as a bad reality, which empowers people, but the presumed bad people are humans also, how they got to be bad at all, for example, is a suject also: is just my opinion, since not responding to your suggestion isn't possible. If you can think of a contrary argument that is convincing that would suffice to consider your position, but preference isn't a proof of need. I would need to know a reason to concur. Simpul skitsofreeneea (talk) 09:28, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

If it were that Orwell were the verdict (in our favour) and the history of 2 + 2 = 5 were the evidence of the crimes against us, the verdict cannot be proven without the evidence, irrespective or how despicable the evidence could be for mental process; we shouldn't shy away from looking at the dark history. Simpul skitsofreeneea (talk) 09:41, 21 December 2023 (UTC)