Talk:Animal Farm: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Latest revision as of 17:16, 7 October 2024

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Animal Farm article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3: 31 days

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
February 15, 2008	Peer review	Reviewed
May 4, 2019	Peer review	Reviewed

Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on August 17, 2012, August 17, 2018, and August 17, 2023.

Animals in media (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Animals in media, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Animals in mediaWikipedia:WikiProject Animals in mediaTemplate:WikiProject Animals in mediaAnimals in media

Socialism Mid‑importance

	Socialism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Socialism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of socialism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SocialismWikipedia:WikiProject SocialismTemplate:WikiProject Socialismsocialism
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Novels High‑importance

	Novels portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Novels, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to novels, novellas, novelettes and short stories on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.NovelsWikipedia:WikiProject NovelsTemplate:WikiProject Novelsnovel
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Animalism (Animal Farm) was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 24 July 2009 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Animal Farm. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here.

Seven Commandments was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 24 July 2009 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Animal Farm. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here.

edit request on 12 Dec 2018

Think is important to note that it was written in 1943. Source could be JOURNAL ARTICLE Revolution on Animal Farm: Orwell's Neglected Commentary V. C. Letemendia Journal of Modern Literature Vol. 18, No. 1 (Winter, 1992), pp. 127-137 (11 pages) at https://www.jstor.org/stable/3831551 where at P. 132 quoting Orwell author reports ... he did not mean pigs and men to appear reconciled completely at the end of the book. On the contrary "I meant it to end on a loud note of discord, for I wrote it immediately after the Teheran Conference [parodied by the final scene in Animal Farm] .." CEJL, III, pp. 459-59

Link for Preface

Here is a link for the preface. Can someone add it to main article, so that people know where the quote is coming from. https://www.orwellfoundation.com/the-orwell-foundation/orwell/essays-and-other-works/the-freedom-of-the-press/

Stage adaptations of Animal Farm -- request for addition

I wish to note that the list of stage adaptations of "Animal Farm" in this article is incomplete. The first version, adapted by Nelson S. Bond and published by Samuel French, Inc. in 1964 (still in print) is still widely performed (example one) (example two) (example three)

"Classic"

"George Orwell's own Nineteen Eighty-Four is a classic dystopian novel about totalitarianism."

Is it ok to call something a "classic" as a factual statement in an encyclopedia? Or is it a subjective thing even in a case like "1984"? Isn't it against NPOV? I'm asking out of curiosity. Dornwald (talk) 00:18, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That seems a bit POV and also unneeded; I've gone ahead and removed it. DonIago (talk) 02:03, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Dornwald (talk) 02:18, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 15: / Line 15: @@
 |otd3date=2023-08-17|otd3oldid=1170842023
 }}
-{{WikiProject banner shell|1=
+{{WikiProject banner shell|class=B|vital=yes|1=
+{{WikiProject Animals in media |importance=high}}
-{{Vital article|class=B|topic=Art|level=5}}
-{{WikiProject Animals in media |class=b |importance=high}}
+{{WikiProject Socialism |importance=Mid}}
-{{WikiProject Socialism |class=B |importance=Mid}}
+{{WikiProject Novels |importance=High}}
-{{WikiProject Novels |class=B |importance=High}}
 }}
 {{British English}}
@@ Line 49: / Line 48: @@
 I wish to note that the list of stage adaptations of "Animal Farm" in this article is incomplete. The first version, adapted by [[Nelson S. Bond]] and published by [[Samuel French, Inc.]] in 1964 [https://www.amazon.com/Animal-Farm-Fable-Two-Acts/dp/0573605386 (still in print)] is still widely performed [https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1990-05-17-vl-374-story.html (example one)] [https://www.flocktheatre.org/animal-farm-2020 (example two) ] [https://www.facebook.com/events/104929599894765/ (example three)]
-== Inferences ==
+== "Classic" ==
+"George Orwell's own Nineteen Eighty-Four is a classic dystopian novel about totalitarianism."
-There are several cases where the reader of Animal Farm is clearly supposed to INFER something, but the book never explicitly says it, and one gathers that the animal characters in the book never do infer it. I think this is a very important part of Orwell's message: a lot of political lying is tacitly accepted without critical discussion. Occasionally Benjamin the donkey appears to see through the lying, but he never explicitly says anything about it, and one gathers that Orwell deliberately chose a donkey to symbolize the British liberal intelligentsia of his time.
+Is it ok to call something a "classic" as a factual statement in an encyclopedia? Or is it a subjective thing even in a case like "1984"? Isn't it against NPOV? I'm asking out of curiosity. [[User:Dornwald|Dornwald]] ([[User talk:Dornwald|talk]]) 00:18, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
-In Plot, at the end of the 3rd paragraph, the article says "In truth, Napoleon had engineered the sale of Boxer to the knacker, allowing him and his inner circle to acquire money to buy whisky for themselves." The book never says that Napoleon did this, only says that after Boxer's death, from somewhere or other the pigs found enough money to buy the whiskey.
+:That seems a bit POV and also unneeded; I've gone ahead and removed it. [[User:Doniago|DonIago]] ([[User talk:Doniago|talk]]) 02:03, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
-Under Animalism, the article says "Later, Napoleon and his pigs secretly revise some commandments to clear themselves of accusations of law-breaking." In each case, the book says that the non-pig animals had mis-remembered this or that commandment. [[Special:Contributions/64.179.154.8|64.179.154.8]] ([[User talk:64.179.154.8|talk]]) 19:16, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
+::Thanks [[User:Dornwald|Dornwald]] ([[User talk:Dornwald|talk]]) 02:18, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
-:If the article attributes things to the book that the book doesn't actually assert (i.e. if the article contains inferences), then those should either be backed up by [[WP:RS|reliable sources]] or ultimately removed as being [[WP:OR|original research]]. [[User:Doniago|DonIago]] ([[User talk:Doniago|talk]]) 19:59, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
-::I get what you're saying, but it is literature, it's not going to follow the same rules as a history book. If the author spells everything out like that, it'd be poor writing usually. We're allowed to follow the analysis of the mainstream of literary critics in our exposition, particularly if there are 0% dissenting.
-::Do you think that maybe Napoleon ''didn't'' sell Boxer to the knackers to get whisky money? Or that the writer didn't intend for the reader to infer this? If you do, you'd be essentially alone among the millions of readers of the book. If you can find one single critic with any kind of reasonable standing (some expertise in the subject, and not a fringe nutcase, semi-literate clack-box, or troll) who states that, possibly we could talk. [[User:Herostratus|Herostratus]] ([[User talk:Herostratus|talk]]) 04:16, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
-:::If critics have made these observations then it should be easy enough to provide sourcing for them, should it not? [[User:Doniago|DonIago]] ([[User talk:Doniago|talk]]) 06:02, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
-::::Not necessarily. It would probably be hard to find references for a number of things about the book, such as "the book is a three-dimensional object" or "the pages are made of paper". See [[WP:SKYISBLUE]].
-::::Part of Orwell's message ''is'' that a lot of political lying is tacitly accepted without critical discussion, but his mechanism for doing so is not making his descriptions vague so as to lead the reader to thoughts like "Hmmm, maybe the vet ''had'' recently bought the van from a knacker, and maybe Boxer ''was'' taken to hospital and cared for, and the pigs got their whisky money elsewhere, and Orwell, by giving a description that leads the reader to believe otherwise, is showing how this sort of thing works". You're way overthinking this. Again: if you can find one single writer saying this -- I'll loosen the criteria and say if you can find any human person saying this in print -- then we could talk, possibly. Can you? [[User:Herostratus|Herostratus]] ([[User talk:Herostratus|talk]]) 12:04, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
-:::::I don't think this article explicitly asserts either that the book is a three-dimensional object or that the pages are made of paper? However, if it did, I would imagine that you could find an appropriate source at [[book]] or probably just add a citation to a dictionary. In the end, providing a source is, in my experience, the path of least resistance, versus arguing over the need for one.
-:::::In any case, us posting things that we're "supposed" to infer, no matter how "obvious" we might believe them to be, without providing supporting sources, is the textbook definition of [[WP:OR|original research]]. [[User:Doniago|DonIago]] ([[User talk:Doniago|talk]]) 15:27, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
-:::::To add my 2c, to say something is inferred without providing any sources is the epitome of [[WP:OR]]. [[User:Doctorhawkes|Doctorhawkes]] ([[User talk:Doctorhawkes|talk]]) 00:12, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
-::::::Well, sure I can say it is a book and point to [[book]] as proof. I could also say the [[Queen Mary 2]] is a book and point to [[book]] as proof. [[Book]] says nothing about Animal Farm or the Queen Mary. [[Book]] just says that a book is "typically composed of many pages (made of papyrus, parchment, vellum, or paper) bound together and protected by a cover". Well that proves nothing. Perhaps ''Animal Farm'' is inscribed on clay tablets. Let us find a reliable source where a critic  says "''Animal Farm'' is an entity made of many pages made of paper bound together and protected by a cover". Sheesh.
-::::::Good grief. If you feel the need for refs for these sorts of things, [[WP:SOFIXIT|find them and put them in yourselves]]. Here's [https://www.cliffsnotes.com/literature/a/animal-farm/summary-and-analysis/chapter-9 the Cliffs Notes] for the event, which says "[Boxer] lives (and dies) for the good of the farm — a farm whose leader sells him to a knacker the moment he becomes unfit for work" and "The scene in which Boxer is taken to his death...", so at least Cliffs Notes doesn't think he might have been actually taken to the hospital. That's all the work I'm going to do for you, for the rest, well, get to work.
-::::::But wait. Is Cliffs Notes reliable? It's just their personal opinion, isn't it. "''Animal Farm'' is a [[book]]" is a statement of fact. It can be confirmed or falsified by getting a copy and looking at it and feeling it or subjecting it to number of reproducible scientific processes. "Boxer is taken to his death" is just somebody's opinion. It can never be proven or falsified. Apparently the fact we couldn't find even a dipsomaniac hobo or backward child who contests this doesn't seem to matter to you all.
-::::::If your answer is to throw up our hands and say "Cliffs Notes, Well jeez I've heard of them, so what they say must be objectively true", that isn't very satisfactory.
-::::::And so on with really anything that can't be scientifically demonstrated. John Rodden is used a ref here for some stuff. But who is John Rodden? An adjuct professor... ''[redacted].'' He doesn't have an article here, which we do have about two million biographical articles here so take that as you will. So what if he decides that Old Major is a metaphor for Karl Marx rather than [[Alexander Humboldt]]. I could wear a tweed jacked with leather elbow patches and puff on a pipe and say the opposite. It's just something that can't be proven either way. So why are we taking this thing that might be true or might not, and saying that it is true. And so on.
-::::::But if you ''do'' have the personal opinion (again: opinions!) that for some reason what flows from Rodden's pen is objective truth, I'm sure he has something to say about Chapter 9 one way or the other. I don't have Rodden's book, but you all are the ones exercised about all this, so it's on you to go get a copy and figure out what the objective truth is about what happened to Boxer. [[User:Herostratus|Herostratus]] ([[User talk:Herostratus|talk]]) 06:41, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
-:::::::Is calling us the ones "exercised" about this after you've posted a message like this one intended to be ironic? [[User:Doniago|DonIago]] ([[User talk:Doniago|talk]]) 15:01, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
-::::::::No it is not, because you all started it. Anybody can cause cause other people to get irritated by starting a thread taking a position like the one you all have, and sticking to it. Tell you what though. I'm not terribly interested in this turning into an insult party, so let's back off here. I'll come back in a while to look at the article and if anyone has done anything untoward to it, we'll take it from there. The article is what matters. Or, if you want to go on, we could have a [[WP:RFC]] I guess and get more eyes on it. You'll come prepared with evidence that you've sought instances of some person with reasonable standing indicating the Boxer was murdered and, after reasonable diligence,  have been unable to do so, but that you did find at least one carbon-based life form which agrees with your proposition that Boxer having been murdered is dubious. Fair enough I guess. [[User:Herostratus|Herostratus]] ([[User talk:Herostratus|talk]]) 17:22, 24 September 2023 (UTC)