Talk:Animal Farm/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Under the header Napoleon - Jessie and Bluebell

It says that Napoleon took Jessie and Bluebell from their parents as puppies. But in fact they are the parents of the puppies he did take, which is actually mentioned later on in the article. This needs to be edited. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.198.72.254 (talk) 13:01, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Mr. Frederick

I noticed, as another person has, that it doesn't state anywhere that Mr. Frederick is an allegory for Germany. Since he doesn't have a page of his own, it would make sense to add this to his description. I'm not allowed to edit the page, can someone do it for me? Thanks. 72.93.241.60 (talk) 21:54, 19 April 2010 (UTC) I should also say that Mollie represents the Russian aristocracy. 72.93.241.60 (talk) 22:02, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Do you have reliable sources for this information, or is it original research? Doniago (talk) 12:35, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Well a source for Mr. Frederick is here: Appreciating Animal Farm in the New Millenium, by John Rodden. I can't find a source for Mollie, so I'll let that go. 72.93.241.60 (talk) 23:32, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

He's a farmer with a German name who supposedly throws his dogs into furnaces and launches the second invasion of the farm... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.16.85.100 (talk) 00:17, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Manor Farm/The Manor Farm

Napoleon doesn't revert the farm back to it's old name (Manor Farm) but to "The Manor Farm". In the closing paragraphs of the book (emphasis added):

"Mr Pilkington had referred throughout to 'Animal Farm'. He could not of course know - for he, Napoleon, was only for the first time announcing it - that the name 'Animal Farm' had been abolished. Henceforward the farm was to be known as 'The Manor Farm' - which, he believed, was its correct and original name. (...) "Gentlemen, here is my toast: To the prosperity of The Manor Farm!"

I am going to be bold and change it. HylandPaddy (talk) 14:04, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Archiving

I've turned on automatic archiving of this talk page...people keep replying to very old conversations that the original authors are unlikely to be watching anymore. Let me know if anyone objects or if the settings should be changed. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:47, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

This Page is Truly Disgraceful

This page is the reason that teachers, scholars and many other detest Wikipedia. Whoever is in charge of editing this page must truly either not care for literature or is deliberately misinforming the readers of the significance of this literary work. There is virtually no description to the allegories (Germany, Poland, WWII etc.) that dominate this book, nor is there sufficient mention to the significance of the characters and events portrayed in this book. Whoever is in charge of this page, maybe you do not care for this book, but to mislead the less-than-educated masses that read this page is very wrong. SHAME ON YOU. Worst wiki page ever.

-Anonymous — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.152.79.118 (talk) 07:03, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Maybe you don't realise, but there is no single person 'in charge' of a page. If you believe this page is incorrect or misleading, then maybe YOU could try to remedy the situation. --15turnsm 23:19, 17 March 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 15turnsm (talk • contribs)

other things alluded to probably include the show trials, Bavarian Soviet Republic, Hungarian Soviet Republic Permanent Revolution versus Socialism In One Country, the 1933 famine in Ukraine, Hitler-Stalin Pact, collectivization and muzhik reponse - need to find good sources. Sayerslle (talk) 16:06, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree. In its enthusiasm to pin Orwell's allegory exclusively to a critique of Stalinist Russia, it makes some very crude statements. Try revising the page and see how far you get though! I think you'll find the orthodoxy police arrive very quickly! LaFolleCycliste 09:14, 28 October 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by LaFolleCycliste (talk • contribs)

orwell wrote in a preface, 1947, for a Ukrainian edition 'for the last ten years i have been convinced that the destruction of the Soviet myth was essential if we wanted a revival of the socialist movement. On my return from Spain I thought of exposing the Soviet myth in a story that could be easily understood by almost anyone and which could be easily translated into other languages. pretty bloody crude statement - but there it is . and in a letter to gollancz , '- 'But I must tell you that it is - i think - completely unacceptable politically from your point of view (it is anti-Stalin) - ' etc etc, and AF attacks propaganda and power-worship generally i guess - what, according to you, is it really a critique of? the BBC? - like 1984- thats really a critique of the tyrannical BBC also??as you and the daily mail know. revise the page, with reliable sources, - make the article better - why not? its very vague to just say 'crude statemants blah blah' - which? - 'its enthusiasm to pin Orwell down' - oh yeah, pinning him down, with his own comments about the work - you want the freedom to improvise your own explanation for his words but with freedom to sidestep and ignore what he himself said? - like conservapedia? - etc etc Sayerslle (talk) 12:19, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

An writer's own interpretation of his work is certainly a pertinent thing to consider; but it will hardly be the last word on the matter for any significant literary work. Reception theory? Hermeneutics? I am planning an assault on the over-narrow interpretation of Orwell's great works, well-exemplified here, but it's not for wikipedia. In the meantime, yes, this page reads like a crass crammer. LaFolleCycliste 19:48, 16 November 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by LaFolleCycliste (talk • contribs)

bit pompous. - if the over-narrow interpretation is criticised in RS why not add it? sounds like you can't be bothered to cast your pearls of wisdom before swine - its all talk, really, or OR - which is not allowed. Sayerslle (talk) 20:14, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

also , sorry to go on again but slagging people off as 'orthodoxy police' is a bit annoying really - if you think readers are being misled with a crass misrepresentation of the book then you have a moral duty imo to improve the page , not just appear, slag it off, and then bugger off again - its more like editors who add stuff, are like Boxer, on the farm, working on it, and then like the raven,yu show up and sermonise, oh its all pointless, theres Sugarcandy Mountain, thats the point, perfection, like the perfect prose that gets produced by reception theory and hermeneutics? -explaining the broad correct interpretation of the book, - and then flying off again, with all the ethereal wisdom locked away for the elect. thats how I see it. there is no 'orthodoxy police' - thats all flapdoodle and nonsense. Sayerslle (talk) 21:33, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 19 March 2012

Update the dead link under "References" labeled Moran, Daniel. Critical Essays – Animal Farm and the Russian Revolution. CliffsNotes. p. 39. Retrieved 31 August 2008.[dead link] to http://www.cliffsnotes.com/study_guide/literature/Animal-Farm.id-12.html Because the existing reference points to broken URL that was not redirected properly. Dreisch (talk) 13:59, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Done I used a slightly different link to get to the essay directly. Thanks, Celestra (talk) 01:38, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Animalism - small problem

Where is:

1. No animal shall sleep in a bed with sheets. 2. No animal shall drink alcohol to excess. 3. No animal shall kill any other animal without cause.

should be:

5. No animal shall sleep in a bed with sheets. 6. No animal shall drink alcohol to excess. 7. No animal shall kill any other animal without cause.

FernandoOliveiraMartins (talk) 15:06, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Why Is It Not A Short Story?

Animal Farm is only as long as between 20 and 40 pages when printed on standard paperback pages with standard paperback formatting. By using extra small pages and double-spacing, it's only padded to 140 pages, but this only increases the number of pages, not the length of the story. For these reasons, I suggest that, in order to reduce the incredibility of Wikipedia, Animal Farm be referred to as a short story. 50.130.10.152 (talk) 18:52, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

On the other hand to call it a short story without valid sources would be Wikipedia:No original research and erode the credibility of Wikipedia. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 19:49, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Suddenly, using established definitions is considered original research? Suddenly, we need a source beyond the dictionary? Animal Farm is a short story by definition. But, I guess definition means nothing to Wikipedia. If I could find an official source that called it a ham salad, that would satisfy that it was one? This is "Grover Cleveland was two people, and I need a source to prove otherwise" all over again. This is why nobody trusts Wikipedia and nobody ever will.50.130.10.152 (talk) 20:01, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

The "established definition" of Animal Farm is a novella, according to all the literary scholars who have ever written about it. See the definition of novella: "A novella generally features fewer conflicts than a novel, yet more complicated ones than a short story. The conflicts also have more time to develop than in short stories. They have endings that are located at the brink of change. Unlike novels, they are usually not divided into chapters, and are often intended to be read at a single sitting, as the short story, although white space is often used to divide the sections. They maintain, therefore, a single effect." Accedie^{talk to me} 21:15, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

First of all, you're wrong about the definition of "animal farm." Second, that's irrelevant as the definition of the words in a title were never in question. I just thought that calling your credibility into question was prudent, considering how often Wikipedia's credibility is in question. A fact which is known to everyone except Wikipedians. The definition of, "short story," is what I'm calling to. By the way, you're citing Wikipedia as your sources for definitions, and I would be remiss if I didn't remind you that this is a violation of your original research policy of which you seem so proud, let alone begging the question. Why don't you open a dictionary once in a while? I'm moving on now because, I have more important things to do than correct Wikipedia (a feat which I could be doing my whole life without ever completing even without Wikipedians fighting me), like rearranging my sock drawer.

But, you probably get this all the time. Wikipedians aren't exactly known for their critical thinking skills.50.130.10.152 (talk) 21:48, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Why is it not a short story? Why is it not a novel? At c.44,000w in length, it qualifies for novel, not novella. Short story you're looking at under c.7,500w. There's your answer, so would someone please correct 'novella' to 'novel' please, as per the definition contained in this encyclopaedia? --82.41.251.96 (talk) 18:39, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Where is your reliable source that says it is a novel? CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 09:36, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

I changed it last night because I saw the IPs remark and looked at the back page blurb of my Penguin Classics 2000 reprint of the 1989Penguin Classics edition and it says " Orwell wrote the novel at the end of 1943, but it almost remained unpublished." I have never heard it called Orwells short story. Ive seen it described as a polemic, and an 'allegorical pamphlet' (by Cyril Connolly, - and if Accedie says a novella is not normally divided in chapters , well Animal Farm' is - it seems like not a very important thing really, but if Penguin Classics call it a novel, then thats good enough for me. WP:COMMONNAME or whatever the correct policy is called. Sayerslle (talk) 09:50, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

I would agree that Penguin is a reliable source. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 12:20, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 2 February 2013

Under Stage Adaptations, I would be grateful if you could include Guy Masterson's solo adaptation of the book. Very faithful to the original, the play is now the most highly performed solo show in the English language having played over 2500 times around the world since its premiere at the Traverse Theatre, Edinburgh, January 25th, 1995. 212.159.93.239 (talk) 10:37, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

I added it - theres a musical, Hong Kong version too- I've seen photos of the production - looks good too. Sayerslle (talk) 14:51, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 14 February 2013

I feel as if it should be noted somewhere (e.g., the allegory or character section) that Mr. Jones and his initial control of the Manor Farm represent Tsar Nicholas II and the Tsarist regime as a whole. Although several other comparisons (e.g., that of Mr. Frederick to Germany and Mr. Pilkington to Britain) lack citations, a quick Google search would undoubtedly locate an abundance of sources supporting the assertion. Pragmatic Idealist (talk) 08:40, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

If an abundance of sources are available, you're welcome to be bold and add the information with the appropriate citations! The unsourced ones should and will be removed as original research, as we've gone through this before. Doniago (talk) 17:19, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Gertrude Elias influence?

Recently, in the Morning Star some Communists have written generally slagging off Orwell, and a couple of them, Jeff Sawtell and Graham Stevenson, - [1]- have said Orwell stole his idea for Animal Farm from Gertrude Elias who had sent the idea for a cartoon film featuring animals to represent Nazis, to the BBC.

"Gertrude sent the portfolio to the Ministry of Information, suggesting a film cartoon based on the ideas in the form of a fable, intended as a kind of story board. After a few weeks they were returned to her with a rejection slip via the BBC, where Orwell worked. Having claimed to her that there was not much call for her idea, disappointing her into further inaction, Orwell later changed the pig-nazis to Communists and made the Soviet Union a target for his hostility, turning Gertrude’s notion on its head. (Gertrude illustrated a children’s novel in 1943, `Secret Service!’ and went on to become a clothes designer)[2] - "

Is there an RS source , does anyone know for this assertion. Is it true that Orwell saw this work of Elias. in the above, from Stevensons blog, when it says "Having claimed to her that there was not much call for her idea, disappointing her into further inaction,", is that saying Orwell personally told her that? Or the BBC. To me it seems odd that Orwell would have been the recipient of ideas for cartoon films. Are there sources for Orwell having seen this work at all I wonder? Sayerslle (talk) 13:35, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Adaptations

Resolved

Since it is 2013, was any adaptation released in 2012? If one has please add a reference. If not, that part should be removed.

Nothing appears to have been released according to IMDB. It looks like the Andy Serkis project is slated for release in 2014 but the IMDB article is quite bare. With the new Hobbit movies still in production, seems hard to believe it will be released on time. I removed the speculative sentence. Jason Quinn (talk) 04:12, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Removed indef semi protection / increased move protection to admin only

I have removed this article's indefinitely long semi-protection. (I have read the old talk page discussion "Permenant semi-block needed!") I have added this page to my watchlist and will keep an eye on it for a long-term pattern of vandalism. I think it's important to keep Wikipedia as open as possible. As of now, I don't think the article's quality is so high that it requires anything but the usual revert method of protecting it from IP vandals. If indeed IP vandalism is still a overly-bothersome issue (say more than about 50% of all IP edits are destructive in nature), then I can restate the protection. I have kept move protection (in fact I increased it to admin-only). It seems clear that any move would require a discussion. Jason Quinn (talk) 04:42, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Stalin era

Should this article be included in Category:Novels set in the Stalin era? Yes, it is a satire of the Stalin era, but it is set in the British countryside, and made no reference to the politics of the world at large (the only thing outside of the animal farm, as far as the plot is concerned, are wild animals, other farms still run by humans, and the knacker) Cambalachero (talk) 17:13, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

The category itself specifies that the works are set in Russia; I'd think it fails on that ground, but perhaps the category itself could be modified. Just my thoughts. DonIago (talk) 17:37, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

IP edit analysis

User:Sayerslle posted this thread on my talk page expressing concern that the IP vandalism rate is very high since I unprotected the page. I just did a quick analysis of edits since the new year. (I protected the page on 26 August 2013 so this is only about a quarter of the potential data.) Using the personal classification system (and my personal opinion), here's how the IP edits break down:

vandalism OR malicious OR cleary "bad" edits (10 total)

[3], [4] + 2 more, [5] + 1 more, [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11] + 5 more, [12]

Helpful edits OR neutral but well-intended OR Unhelpful but good faith edits (16 total)

[13], [14] + 1 more, [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28] + 1 more, [29], [30]

Unsure (2 total)

(empty)

I don't claim this analysis to be perfect but it only needs to be "good enough". There are been 83 edits since December 31, 2013. The ratio of "vandal edits"-to-"total edits" is 10/83 or about 12%. This is higher than the expected rate of about 5% (see Wikipedia:Rough guide to semi-protection). I prefer to look at the "vandal"-to-"helpful" IP edit ratio which is about 10/28 or a bit over a third. This is high enough to be concerning too. There are however some rather good edits in the "helpful" category. (There are also a number of poor but good faith edits.) On the other hand, the page has 297 watchers so at less than one IP edit per day to check, the work per page watcher seems okay. Of course, I have no idea how many of those are active page watchers. This page is also a popular article (ranked 2334 on English Wikipedia) and it seems as if popular articles attract a bit more vandalism.

I didn't go back very far. It would be good to do this for the other 6 months of data. If this subset is representative of the whole, I would say that a third of IP edits being vandalism is "fair high" vandalism. I usually consider a IP vandalism rate above 50% to be very high.

It really helps if other editors comment on talk page issues. Nobody commented when I removed the page protection. How do you other page watchers feel about the protection status of this page? Do you feel "watch page fatigue"? Do you feel the IPs are doing more harm than good? What should be done here? Would you support semi-protection? Not support it? Jason Quinn (talk) 16:31, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

I favor protection; there have been 3 trifling vandalism events in less than a month. I'd guess these are from students assigned to read the book. We don't really need to let them do that. Yopienso (talk) 16:37, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protecting page

As the analysis given in the IP edit analysis thread suggests a fairly high level of consistent vandalism above the level required for action and that all other parties participating (sadly just two) believe the page should be semi-protected, I am going to semi-protect the page indefinitely. Hopefully it will ease the burden of page watchers while simultaneously preserving the integrity of the content. It's a shame that for such an important book there's so few watchers actively participating in the discussion. Jason Quinn (talk) 03:16, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

 Done Jason Quinn (talk) 03:23, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

FWIW, this active page watcher was on vacation when this discussion occurred. My main concern regarding the page is the frequent amount of OR added to the article (generally alleging what historic individual each character is intended to represent); if semi-protection cuts down on that, I'm happy. DonIago (talk) 14:41, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Proposed addition to the Pilkington description

Pilkington and his farm is missing what he is an allegory for. I'd like "Pilkington represents western capitalist countries, specifically the sprawling British Empire which was crumbling during World War II." added as the final line to his description. 115.166.28.125 (talk) 07:38, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable source that makes this claim? If not it is original research and inappropriate for inclusion. DonIago (talk) 12:43, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Peter Smollett

The page is protected, so I cannot change it. But, the piece on Smolett/Smolka is not strong enough. It merely notes:

It may reasonably be assumed that the 'important official' was a man named Peter Smollett, who was later unmasked as a Soviet agent.[34] Orwell was suspicious of Smollett/Smolka, and he would be one of the names Orwell included in his list of Crypto-Communists and Fellow-Travellers sent to the Information Research Department in 1949. Born Hans Peter Smolka in Vienna in 1912, he came to Britain in 1933 as an NKVD agent with the codename 'Abo',[35] became a naturalised British subject in 1938, changed his name, and after the outbreak of World War II joined the Ministry of Information where he organised pro-Soviet propaganda, working with Kim Philby in 1943-45.[36] Smollett's family have rejected the accusation that he was a spy.[34]

The closing sentence is gratuitous. It is quite plain the individual involved was the person who blocked publication of Animal Farm, and that he he was a Soviet spy. It is a pity he is no longer alive so he could be strung up by his testicles for blocking the publication of a book which exposed such a filthy fascist regime as the Soviet Union. In his absence (I do not know where his grave is so I cannot spit on it) may we please omit the craven nonsense? Whether his relatives like it or not this man was a Soviet propagandist who blocked one of the greatest books against murderous Sovietism there is. Please unprotect so he can get his just deserts. Wikipedia does not say Goebbels was a nice man whose propaganda was misunderstood. 89.242.28.61 (talk) 19:40, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

The article relates what can be stated based on reliable sources cited in the article. If you have other reliable sources at your disposal that would support expansion of/changes to the comments concerning Smollett/Smolka, please note the changes/additions here on the article's Talk page along with citations of those sources. We cannot change this content without citations of reliable sources that support the changes. Dwpaul ^Talk 19:47, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

You say "The page is protected, so I cannot change it" but you can change it. You just need to create an account. It's as quick and easy as creating an account on any website. Jason Quinn (talk) 01:41, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Benjamin (Animal Farm)

None of the characters currently have anything to establish independent notability. Anything on the analysis of the characters will likely fit within the main article without issue, so there is no need for the summary to be repeated eight times over on the other pages. TTN (talk) 20:51, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Would you keep the current listing of characters and add details later in separate paragraphs, or what? Yopienso (talk) 21:08, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

It would probably mostly a straight redirect at this point. There are a few references that may need to be merged if they're not already in the article (and they would likely fit within the current list if they need to be added), but the majority of the information is simply unreferenced plot summary. The current character section appears to do its job well enough in conjunction with the plot section, so there should be no major changes. TTN (talk) 21:28, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

I meant the layout of the article itself. Where would the info on each animal be inserted? Yopienso (talk) 01:39, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Anything being merged over would go either into the character or analysis section depending on relevance. There shouldn't be a need for any major changes given that the amount of incoming information probably amounts to a paragraph or two at most, assuming anything ends up needing to be merged at all. TTN (talk) 18:13, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree these characters should be merged into the book's main article. None of the individual characters have distinctly entered the public's interest or taken on a life of their own beyond the book. Davydoo (talk) 19:19, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

I have no strong opinion, but support any editor who is improving the encyclopedia, which seems to be TTN's goal. Yopienso (talk) 04:47, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Strong agree. I think that all the characters should be merged into the main article. None of the characters merit their own page in my opinion. SmokeyTheCat 08:30, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Oppose "None of the individual characters have distinctly entered the public's interest"

Is that now our definition of WP:Notability? That characters must not merely be discussed extensively in relevant and reliable sources, but that they must also enter "the public interest"? Goodbye Wikipedia, hello Bieberpedia. Viam Ferream (talk) 12:32, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Strong disagree. Each of these characters allegorically represents certain characteristics or classes in Russian society, and the sub-articles disuss this to varying degrees. I am no radical inclusionist, but to me this smacks of unnecessary reductionism. This book is a very important classic and articles about individual characters are more than warranted.jackbrown (talk) 19:37, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

...the linked article itself has no sources other than the original book. If the sub-articles discuss the allegorical aspects of the characters then such analysis should be reliably sourced. Until then it's original research and fair game for merging/deletion as far as I'm concerned. DonIago (talk) 20:03, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

• Redirect here: The article is only plot and original research. Cambalachero (talk) 14:11, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

The OR aspect is far from original. It needs sourcing (any high school student notes edition will do), but that's cleanup, not a reason for deletion. Viam Ferream (talk) 15:21, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Oppose - I don't believe that Benjamin should be merged with this article. For one thing, there is no good wa to integrate that article into this one. It would appear cumbersome and unwieldy. For another, in contrast to SmokeyTheCat, I think that some of the characters DO merit their own pages. Obviously not Benjamin or Jesse (the dog) but definitely Boxer, Napoleon, Snowball, etc.

Have a nice day! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.159.209.15 (talk) 03:14, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

External link

Not a major change, but in the "External links" section there is the link to an audio version of Animal Farm. When I listened to it and tried to follow the book, I realised that the audiobook is not complete: a lot of passages miss and also some characters are completely ignored. I think that it is not supposed to be an audiobook, but just an adaptation. We should correct the link on the article. 93.148.153.68 (talk) 15:26, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 November 2015

George Orwell edited The tell tale heart and becaoz of that he had a little more experience in the situation Asiya12 (talk) 20:44, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

 Not done The Tell-Tale Heart is a short story by Edgar Allan Poe. General Ization ^Talk 20:48, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Animal Farm in popular culture

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Neither of these articles really is significant enough for their own article. The popular culture article can cut a good chunk of the minor references to leave a solid couple paragraphs. Any relevant references from the anthems can go into the Analysis section. TTN (talk) 22:01, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

• Support. I agree, and a merge was suggested 5 years ago at Talk:Animal Farm in popular culture#Merge with no one expressing opposition. Should have been done already. --RacerX¹¹ Talk to me^{Stalk me} 22:26, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

It is disingenuous to say that "no one expressed opposition" to a merge in July 2009. That merge discussion overlapped with an AfD on it and 11 editors voted to keep it as a separate article.

Of course, it's ironic that a discussion on Animal Farm should so easily change history and how many commandments there were previously! Viam Ferream (talk) 12:44, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Wow! I wasn't trying change history! I was unaware of the AfD. Sorreee! My support still stands. --RacerX¹¹ Talk to me^{Stalk me} 04:03, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

It's very easy to see how an editor might have been unaware of the AfD discussion, Viam Ferream, which in turned caused the misleading remark. Please, remember Wikipedia:Assume good faith before using a word like "disingenuous" which implies some ill intent. Thank you though for mentioning that discussion and linking to it. Jason Quinn (talk) 05:08, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

• SupportThere aren't that many references on this page, and therefore the two could be merged.--Riadse96 (talk) 07:45, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose This is one of the major novels (British / English language / 20th century / take your pick). There is scope here for a whole suite of articles - and there are already any number of books of lit crit or political theory on Animal Farm, let alone the countless doctoral theses. It has been hugely influential beyond its own pages. The idea that 9 related articles should be bulk deleted, and for reasons like "There aren't that many references on this page" is pathetic. Get out there and do some constructive editing.

Does Wikipedia still have any goals of comprehensive encyclopedic coverage? Viam Ferream (talk) 08:54, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose Of course one of the world's most famous books is significant enough for its own article. Absurd to claim otherwise.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:57, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose - The suggestion that an encyclopedia could be improved by having one article instead of two and by the reduction of the total information on the combined article seems more than a little wrong. JesseRafe (talk) 12:23, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

• Support - Most of the entries at the "in popular culture" article are trivial and should be removed anyway. The article that would come out of it would be too small to justify being a stand-alone article. I wonder if some info of that article can be reworded to create some actual paragraph... Cambalachero (talk) 13:07, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Which is it? Up the page there is a call to delete Benjamin on the basis that it has not "entered the public's interest". Yet we also see references to popular TV's use of Animal Farm being removed. I'd agree with removing that from Animal Farm itself as being WP:UNDUE, yet this is why having a separate "in popular culture" article is justifiable for a big topic like this. It gives us just the space needed to record and discuss these uses without cluttering up the lead article.

We can't though strip popular uses of Animal Farm themes from inclusion, then start deleting articles because they're not covered by popular use and the "public's interest". Viam Ferream (talk) 13:28, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

The removed item linked above didn't include any sourcing establishing that that reference garnered any attention from third-party sources. Consequently I'd be inclined to agree with its removal per WP:IPC. Mention of pop culture references should be limited to those that received attention from independent publications. DonIago (talk) 13:36, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

• Support - Article would go nicely if merged with Animal Farm, I find no use in the article itself unless merged with the Animal Farm article. A new section could be created for it. HackedBotato (talk) 11:24, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

• Support - Huh? This article should no longer even exist. Everything that it contains has already been copied to the Animal Farm main page. BigRift (talk) 01:06, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose. "In popular culture" articles and sections always tend to devolve into trivia lists, and thus pose special problems (like, needing editors who actually write articles and use sources instead of making random lists based on primary sources). The main Animal Farm article needs a summary section that describes in prose (not a list) how influential this work has been on popular culture. The article Animal Farm in popular culture has sufficient scope that to develop the topic in the main article might create problems of balance and proportion (per WP:DETAIL). As it stands, the section is just a list, and should therefore be treated as a standalone list article under the existing title Animal Farm in popular culture. I find the following statement in the nomination puzzling, to say the least: Neither of these articles really is significant enough for their own article. Really? Animal Farm isn't significant enough for its own article? That is a badly flawed premise, and raises questions about whether the nomination is properly informed by literary history. Cynwolfe (talk) 13:53, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose"" AFiPC is a trivia magnet, but better there than on main article. Sparafucil (talk) 02:08, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose per arguments presented by Cynwolfe and others. Dwpaul ^Talk 02:54, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose - and yes millions of pieces of trivia do not belong in the main article. Qwertyxp2000 (talk) 06:39, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose, in popular culture pages, especially longer ones like this, accent and positively add to the overall coverage of the item on Wikipedia. Randy Kryn 12:34, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose - Notable enough for a separate article. Don't turn this article into a trivia magnet!--Glory of Space (talk) 02:15, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Semi-protected edit request on 16 May 2016

Books: THE BATTLE OF THE WEASEL AND THE HEN,published 2016, written by Shahram Parvin, an allegorical Satire about the current financial system. VVM (talk) 14:50, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

 Not done we only include notable books that already have their own Wikipedia article and which are considered relevant to Animal Farm by reputable critics. The book you mention appears to be a self-published kindle issue. - Arjayay (talk) 17:04, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

German Wikipedia (dominated by russians?)

In german Wikipedia "Animal farm" is called a propaganda novel on the article. In the discussion the user "lectorium" calls Orwell a "Denunziant", und sets up the theory, as he had worked for intelligence, that the novel was ordered by western intelligence services. If one criticizes this aproach it ends in being kicked out and the article is shut down for editing.

The Article on George Orwell and on his Novels animal farm and 1984 seem to me to be edited in the way the ministry of information edits history. Hints to the USSR are shoven in the background, instead it is tried to emphazise e.g. influnce like the atmospphere in BBC being similar to that in WInston Smiths workplace. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.244.174.143 (talk) 23:48, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello! While I personally find notes on the German article interesting, this talk page is intended for suggestions about improving the English article. The various language versions of Wikipedia are independent. Engaging editors on the German article talk page may be productive. YoPienso (talk) 06:59, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

The various language versions of Wikipedia are independent of course. But is it a great show for the principles of wikipedia and the purpose one wants to achieve by these principles, if these independent versions run far away one from another in their contents? Anyway, i wouldnt have molested anyone here before tyring out other things. 46.244.188.47 (talk) 23:21, 21 August 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.244.188.47 (talk) 23:19, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Stalin held in esteem

It is true that some left wing members of the British intelligentsia held Stalin in high esteem. But I am not sure that it is true that "the British people and intelligentsia held Stalin in high esteem". Most British people in 1945 were anti-communist, unlike today.Royalcourtier (talk) 22:18, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

If this is stated in the article, then probably the russians are active here in english wikipedia too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.244.189.68 (talk) 00:02, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Animal Farm. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090630061940/http://www.theatretoursinternational.com:80/PastShows/PSDomestic/PSAFgm.html to http://www.theatretoursinternational.com/PastShows/PSDomestic/PSAFgm.html
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://lccn.loc.gov/46006290
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051024060250/http://www.netcharles.com:80/orwell/essays/letters-agent-af.htm to http://www.netcharles.com/orwell/essays/letters-agent-af.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:40, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Pilkington (Animal Farm)

Consensus against merger. SSTflyer 15:06, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

These characters have no reason to be separate at this point. This is a singular novel, and these characters have no cultural impact outside of the analysis of this novel. Almost anything that can be said about the characters will be mentioned within the overall discussion of the analysis. Most of the content in the character articles are unsourced, so not much needs to be merged. There are a few actual sources here and there, but some of the pages should be straight redirects. TTN (talk) 19:36, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose (any characters, including the pigs) to Animal Farm, but might support a merge to a List of characters... article.

However I see more need to expand these character articles, not to find reasons to delete them. This is one of the most important novels of the 20th century and certainly one of the most studied and analysed. There is plenty of material out there to support substantial articles on any of the main characters and even an adequate stand-alone article on the human characters (a "Human characters in Animal Farm" article might be a reasonable scope). Andy Dingley (talk) 19:56, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

• @Andy Dingley:The primary thing that I see about these characters are that there are only two sets of information they can possible have: plot information and analysis. Take out the analysis, and the characters are pretty bare-bones as far as characteristics go. The little blurbs in this article really summarize them as much as they need. The rest of the analysis is going to be overlapping, the same articles mentioning the same analysis over and over. I think any potential work would be best put into the analysis section, which if fully fleshed out, would likely contain the same information as in the hypothetical fleshed-out character articles. Splitting off the analysis into its own article would make much more sense. But either here or a character list would be fine if the consensus comes out as such. TTN (talk) 20:11, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

• So what's the problem with analysis? The characters in AF are both highly allegorical and heavily studied. We can and should expand the analysis: Why did this allegory delay wartime first publication? How has the book been edited since for local editions and local sensitivities? There's a lot of material, and sourcing, to make use of. We might well get better coverage by covering all the horses or humans in one group (the sheep and dogs are individually indistinguishable) but for the pigs we could justify individual articles, or we might yet get a better reader experience from a "Pigs in Animal Farm" overall treatment. But we shouldn't limit characters to just tiny list entries. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:37, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

• Looking at it from the perspective of "all articles being in the state of Featured Articles", there's going to be a wide overlap of content. There's certainly the basic "character X stands for Y", but when discussing things like the pigs' treatment of Boxer you're going to have that information in the main article, Boxer's article, and the pigs' articles. There are certainly different sides to the analysis that can be emphasized, but the overall content is going to be largely similar. Ultimately, this is taking the current view of the articles, which is poor for the most part, and then trying to speculate as to the best possible state of the article. Different people will see different things, but I see the best possible path as bringing everything back in and then working back out. If the analysis section grows and favors the pigs or humans with too much weight, such splits as you have mentioned would certainly not be bad. TTN (talk) 20:58, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose Some animals are more equal than others. And why would we merge them into a farmer? This proposal seems quite broken. Andrew D. (talk) 20:19, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
  • What are you talking about? --Bod (talk) 21:45, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
    • I imagine he's talking about my having started the merge tag process with the singular article listed in the header above. That is a generic title produced by TW, although he seems to be taking it at the value of suggesting everything be merged into that article. The real purpose is to indicate merging that article into this one, so I don't see any real issue. TTN (talk) 21:55, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose I was originally going the other way, but then I realized how long the Animal Farm article already is. Suggest splitting off the character list that is part of the article and merging all the separate character articles with that one. --Bod (talk) 22:22, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose. There is far more than enough informed critical commentary on this novel, its themes, its characters, and its impact to sustain more than a single article. Given Orwell's impact overall, a "fully fleshed out" article on the novel would at least approach the length of the work itself, if not rationally divided. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 11:18, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose. This article is long enough. Jim.henderson (talk) 14:23, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Semi-protected edit request on 11 November 2016

In the last paragraph of the plot summary, it says that "besides boxer, many of the animals who participated in the revolution are dead....". Boxer has already died at this point, Clover, Benjamin, and Moses the Raven are the animals alive and it stats that in the book.

71.171.97.16 (talk) 23:13, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Done I have modified the sentence to provide more clarity. Topher385 (talk) 10:57, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

The sheep were representations of state controlled press

This was taught quite commonly when I studied the book at college. Their constant bleating of "four legs good, two legs bad" was used by Orwell as a device to drown out any opposition. Analogues can be drawn to simplistic headlines used in printed media of the age. Towards the latter section of the book, Squealer (the propagandist) trains the sheep to alter their slogan to "four legs good, two legs better", which they dutifully do. Symbolizing the state manipulation of media. For a reference to this interpretation see Professor Robert Colls (Cultural History, De Montfort University) contribution to BBC In Our Time's episode on Animal Farm

Peterai (talk) 16:02, 27 December 2016 (UTC) peterai - 27 Dec 2017

Additions to "Popular culture"

There is currently no references to any movies under "Popular culture". The 1968 movie "Planet of the Apes" makes a reference in a scene, where the lead actor says, and I quote: "Some apes, it seems, are more equal than others". It is under my opinion that this should be added to the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2002:81F1:88D5:A:20A0:5527:D647:8706 (talk) 12:12, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps also a reference to Primus Inter Pares (First among equals). Peterai (talk) 16:07, 27 December 2016 (UTC) peterai

Addition for television

Animal Farm was reference in the animated series "Archer" in a season 4 (I think) episode where the ISIS team flies into space to retake a space station. At first his teammates think Archer really thinks Animal Farm is about real animals, but then he gives a one sentence correct analysis.

I don't know how editing Wikipedia works. Please someone clean up my text. Make the necessary footnotes, whatever. I am but a humble reader. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8800:5380:563:8C47:D5B9:9206:7DC7 (talk) 01:18, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Spelling correction needed

Under the section "Horses and donkeys", for Benjamin, the spelling of 'sceptical' should be corrected to 'skeptical'

That's the British spelling; Orwell was British. It's fine. Thanks for trying to help. You can/should sign your name by typing the tilde key 4 times. YoPienso (talk) 04:04, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Animal Farm. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.theatretoursinternational.com/PastShows/PSDomestic/PSAFgm.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160301002442/http://music.cbc.ca/#!/blogs/2013/6/Rear-view-Mirror-Who-was-Suzanne-and-why-did-Leonard-Cohen-make-her-famous to http://music.cbc.ca/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120425080127/http://monsterpiggymonkeybubble.com/animal-in-man-dead-prez/ to http://monsterpiggymonkeybubble.com/animal-in-man-dead-prez/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110913181848/http://www.sexandthecityscripts.com/S04E09_Sex-and-the-Country.php to http://www.sexandthecityscripts.com/S04E09_Sex-and-the-Country.php
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://lccn.loc.gov/46006290
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060531095056/http://bailey83221.livejournal.com/83481.html to http://bailey83221.livejournal.com/83481.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051024074027/http://www.netcharles.com/orwell/essays/ukrainian-af-pref.htm to http://www.netcharles.com/orwell/essays/ukrainian-af-pref.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.netcharles.com/orwell/essays/letters-agent-af.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:37, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Close merger proposal - Anthems in Animal Farm

A merge tag dated July 2014 was added to Anthems in Animal Farm proposing a merger to Animal Farm, with discussion pointed to Talk:Animal Farm. As far as I can see the merge tag was not added to Animal Farm or, if it was, it was subsequently deleted. Animal Farm is already a very long article (250k readable prose) and since a merge in of Anthems in Animal Farm would make it even larger, I oppose the merger. I have removed the merge tag. Any editor is free to propose such a merger again under the procedure at WP:MERGE. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 16:11, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Animal Farm. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150924000458/http://www.endlessgroove.com/issue6/nwgal01.htm to http://www.endlessgroove.com/issue6/nwgal01.htm
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://lccn.loc.gov/46006290

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:22, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Line to add to 'popular culture'

I would like to suggest adding an episode of 'Archer' S03E11' in which Animal Farm is explicitly mentioned.

"Animal Farm, is a book." "No, it isn't Lana. It's an allegorical novella, about Stalinism, by George Orwell, AND SPOLIER ALERT, IT SUCKS!" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.86.234.202 (talk) 14:13, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 September 2017

Please consider adding the video game version of Animal Farm into the 'Adaptations' section.

I'd like to suggest the following copy if I may: "Video Game A video game version of Animal Farm has been announced in August 2017. Fully authorised by the estate of George Orwell, Animal Farm is created by an independent team formed specifically to deliver Orwell’s vision in an interactive format. The team includes Imre Jele (founder of Bossa Studios), Andy Payne (founder of Just Flight and AppyNation and ex Mastertronic), Georg Backer (A Brave Plan, Fable series), Jessica Curry (Everybody's Gone to the Rapture, Dear Esther), Kate Saxon (Mafia III, Alien: Isolation, Witcher 3) and others."

Here're a couple of articles covering the announcement and listing the above mentioned facts about the adaptation: https://www.engadget.com/2017/09/06/george-orwell-animal-farm-video-game/ https://www.polygon.com/2017/9/6/16262886/animal-farm-video-game-george-orwell http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2017-09-06-official-animal-farm-game-is-an-adventure-tycoon http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2017-09-06-the-animal-farm-game-were-adapting-one-of-the-most-important-literary-works-of-human-history

And here's the game's website: http://animalfarmgame.com/

(Full disclosure: I'm Imre Jele and I'm involved with the project.)

Thanks for your kind consideration. ImreJele (talk) 17:17, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Partly done: I wasn't able to include the list of developers on the project nor the game's website, but everything else is okay. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 19:11, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

The Daleks' Master Plan

In the section Television under Popular Culture, The Daleks' Master Plan should be in italics, not quotes. It is a multi-episode serial, not a single episode. 5.151.0.114 (talk) 00:53, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

 Fixed DonIago (talk) 18:14, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Significance and allegory

The text contains the following sentence: "In the Eastern Bloc, both Animal Farm and later Nineteen Eighty-Four were on the list of forbidden books until the end of communist rule in 1989, and were only available via clandestine Samizdat networks.[citation needed]".

I would propose adding to that the following: "In March 2018, just days after the Chinese Communist Party announced that presidential term-limits would be abolished, The China Digital Times reported that government censors had removed from Chinese websites references to Animal Farm and Nineteen Eighty-Four, among other deletions.

Citation: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/china-animal-farm-ban-censorship-george-orwell-xi-jinping-power-letter-n-a8235071.html

Jandesmoines (talk) 21:56, 5 March 2018 (UTC)Jandesmoines

Popular Culture / Television / Archer

There's a reference in the season 3 finale of Archer, Space Race, in which one of the astronauts says "I didn't sign up for 'Animal Farm' in space!", prompting a discussion of the book. Seems notable to me. Googling "animal farm in space" turns up multiple references to the episode. 50.24.51.203 (talk) 18:53, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Literal/animal readings

Re recent partial reversion: I added context from the McHugh source (now linked) making it clearer why these critics cite the Ukrainian preface, as well as what Orwell was saying. The source quality here is pretty good—McHugh is a literary scholar describing a school of Animal Farm criticism, with historical analysis and citing names, dates, and publications that amply support the existence of this school (and therefore its deserving mention here). I named two more notable critics she puts in this camp per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV; I don't think it's necessary to add the primary sources in which they actually advance their argument, since we have the secondary source, but don't feel strongly about that.

It's a bit awkward to reference the preface anecdote in two places, #Origins and #Significance and allegory, but I think it makes sense because they're doing different work: in #Origin, it's relatively neutral and for historical interest, while in #Significance it's being cited by scholars trying to advance an argument about ways to interpret the book. FourViolas (talk) 16:00, 26 March 2018 (UTC)