Talk:Animal Farm

The Cat

Now I don't pretend to be an expert (which is why I'm not writing it myself) but the Cat, a key character, gets no mention - could anyone correct this please? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.23.119.152 (talk) 21:01, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment

If Orwell was a member of the Labour party, a citation is needed. He was very outspoken against communism and many of his politics while left leaning were not socialist or communism in any way, so rather than this be what we hope his politics to be, how about we cite what his politics actually were! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.132.79.42 (talk) 21:10, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

From "Why I Write", written by Orwell in mid-1946:

"Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism, as I understand it"

How plain do you want it? Anyone with even a cursory functioning knowledge of Orwell knows he was a committed socialist. Some of his admirers, especially in America, have great problems reconciling this with their approval of his attacks on Stalinism given that any form of socialism is conflated with hard-line communism in the popular discourse of that country. Paddyboot (talk) 19:15, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Old Benjamin

Why is there no mention of hey Old Benjamin? JohnFlaherty (talk) 03:08, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Old Benjamin is an important character and had I believe Orwell had some meaning to the character. This needs to be included.

Alex —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.65.43.168 (talk) 01:54, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Trading

Hello, could it be that the trading between Pilkington-Frederick and the Animal Farm may be seen as the (future) Soviet Union trading oil for the necessary food in the Cold War? I know that Orwell couldn't have known that but perhaps he foresaw the stuff that was to happen in the next decades after WW2? Greets from Estonia--62.65.192.85 (talk) 21:30, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I believe the only purpose was to represent the Moltov-Ribbentrop pact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.65.43.168 (talk) 01:52, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

What is Animal Farm?

Animal farm symbolizes one of many things. It is related to World War One and the Holocaust. In animal farm the pigs create something called animalism. Animalisn represents imperialism and nationalism. These two words mean that one person or country thinks that they are better than all the other one. Relate it to todays world. If you dont get along with someone and you accidently bump into them they think its a threat on them. So they challenge you to a fight after school. You as the smaller person know that this big kid can squish you, so what do you do? You get two other small kids. Its 3 vs 1 right? So this other kid is outnumbered and finds out. Basically more and more people will join each side and they will be fighting other peoples battles. This is what started world war one. Relating back to animal farm, the pigs are like a country thinking they are better at first, knowing all the animals will agree with them. Similar to the stoy " The Terrible Things" one group of animals will disapear more and more. All 2 legged animals will be discriminated by. The dogs puppies (Americas children) will be BRAINWASHED saying how imperialism is a good thing. Young children dont understand life nor see how this is wrong. In the end of the story it says and I quote "Twelve voices were shouting in anger, and they were all alike. No question, now, what had happend to the faces of the pigs. The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which." On another note does anyone realize what a squealer is? Someone who starts propaganda and likes causing all types of trouble. His name foreshadows all types of trouble. In conlusion, I hope this helps you understand the book a little bit more. If you still need help try sparknotes.com! This is an non copyrighted submition and yes i put this in the discussion board-sQuEe

what is going on —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.99.228.160 (talk) 18:08, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

This statement is so wrong it is hard to know where to start. 1)The book has nothing to do with the holocast. Orwell states that he “did not write it out till 1943, for I was always engaged on other work”. The holocaust was not even known to the general public in Britain in 1943(including Orwell). 2)Animalism represents communism in the soviet union it has absolutely nothing to do with imperialism and nationalism and Napoleon's interpretation of animalism(Stalin's interpretation of communism-Stalinism). 3)By the war just a small history lesson about world war one, although the actions of the politicians can be(in MPOV) related to school children, It is very debatable that you can call it three smaller kids against one big kid. Britain and Germany were two very major opposing powers. 4)As I said before Animal Farm has nothing to do with Imperialism but Communism and Stalin's interpretation leading to a dictatorship. The puppies are brainwashed into think Napoleon as the dictator and his view of 'all animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others'(the dogs and the pigs). It is related to the luxury the communist party members lived in compared to the low standard of living for the rest of the population in the soviet union. 5)Squealer symbolizes Stalin's use of propaganda to win over the soviet population and elevating himself to a god-like figure during his dictatorship and as the main article states reflects Vyacheslav Molotov . 6)I have not read 'The terrible things' so cannot comment on the truth of its relation to animal farm. Most other statements you have made I find hard to understand and fail to counter. -Alex —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.65.35.92 (talk) 23:10, 8 August 2008 (UTC) what about jessie and bluebell, they could represent some kind of school back in the cold war

I think your both analizing it too much. It's just a kid's story about a bunch of farm animals, no need to read all this political stuff into it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.167.172.83 (talk) 14:26, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I think some people do analyse it too much, but it is not a kid's story. Orwell was making a political point after his experience in Spain. --Bduke (Discussion) 21:09, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

You can read it as a kids story about animals and understand just that much, but you can also look at it as an allegory, which is what Orwell intended for it to be. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.229.176.5 (talk) 00:23, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I find it difficult to believe that a "kid's story" without any political commentary would have as much opposition from supporters of the Stalinist Soviet Union. There is no doubt that Orwell merely used indirect allusions to that which he criticized to provide an alternate perspective. -- Dromioofephesus (talk) 16:23, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm moving this down here so it might get a bit more attention. Please be aware of the following paragraph:

"Per our policy on original research, please do not use Wikipedia for any of the following:

Discussion forums. Please try to stay on the task of creating an encyclopedia. You can chat with folks about Wikipedia-related topics on their user talk pages, and should resolve problems with articles on the relevant talk pages, but please do not take discussion into articles. In addition, bear in mind that talk pages exist for the purpose of discussing how to improve articles; they are not mere general discussion pages about the subject of the article, nor are they a helpdesk for obtaining instructions or technical assistance. If you wish to ask a specific question on a topic, Wikipedia has a Reference Desk, and questions should be asked there rather than on talk pages. Wikipedians who wish to hold casual discussions with fellow Wikipedians can use the IRC channels, such as #wikipedia. Note that this is an IRC channel, not a message board. There are also a number of early-stage projects that attempt to use a wiki for discussion and debate."

Thanks,
OBM | ^{blah blah blah} 20:09, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

How can articles be improved in less we talk about different viewpoints? I was simply summarising the book's intented meaning(as I see it) by Orwell. I believe this is relevant and some more about this needs to be placed in the article. Alex —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.65.43.168 (talk) 01:49, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Finally, animal farm displays a serious intented message, almost everything in the book and any text written by Orwell had a message. That is why he wrote, "Why I write", to emphasise the importance of subtle details in his text. I believe some more of Orwell's intented meanings need to be included in the text. "that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism, as I understand it"

Honestly the Terrible things has NOTHING to do with Animal Farm. It is related to the Holocaust and like alex said the Holocaust was unknown at the time. The Terrible Things is a story about "Hunters" Coming and capturing one type of animal, and no other animal did anything about it. They came back until there was one species left and they weren't able to defend themselves. So as you have read this honestly has nothing to do with Animal Farm. And Animal Farm appears to me as it can't be over analysied unless you analyse false statements. -Spencer

Pigs and censorship

Possible addition to the section on censorship. I was reading the preface that was deleted and it said that in a letter he received form the Ministry of Information stating that part of the reason the book should not be published is because the "representation of Stalin as a pig can be considered offensive." Perhaps this information deserves to be included? Considering the transformation to animals is key to the allegory, and this is a worthwhile piece of info to contribute to the currently short section on censorship. I would do it myself, but I don't really know how, and cannot source it properly... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mithead (talk • contribs) 08:42, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Well I am sorry if people find it offensive of Stalin being compared to a pig but I have no doubt that was Orwell's intention and he was a pig. He killed millions of people(even his own communist party members and many innocent soviet citizens). He did what he could to retain his hold on power and claimed credit for others successes. -Alex —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.65.35.92 (talk) 23:08, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

My point was not that Orwell should not have characterised Stalin as a pig, but rather that it is an amusing piece of censorship, and one that should probably be included. - Mithead —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.172.35.238 (talk) 11:31, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Somewhere, I i think in his letters, it is mentioned it was suggested he change the rulers to animals other than pigs. I have no Orwell now I got rid of my paperbacks expecting to get a nice Collected Works, but that never happened, so am going from memory. It would be I guess in Collected Journalism (etc) late vol 3 or early vol 4. It may not have been for the UK edition (perhaps the French?) you can tell I am a bit vague on this. It may have even be suggested by Gollancz, but I think Gollanz didn't want to touch it with a bargepole from the outset. SimonTrew (talk) 17:42, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

The tv screen, and the censored news feeds from the pigs.

I would come to think that the censored news and the television with only certain information may represent the radios that the government allowed people to own. And since the radio was fairly cheep, most all people bought them. The trick was that the radio only had one channel, the governments channel, they would only hear what they wanted them to hear. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.83.132.52 (talk) 23:09, 7 October 2008 (UTC) --Jakecohen (talk) 23:14, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

What has this got to do with Animal Farm? No radio or television is mentioned. Radios were *not* cheap at the time the book was written-- Orwell himself used to go to the pub to listen to the radio-- and of course televisions rarer (and there was no UK television service from 1939 until, I think, 1947). All radios could pick up stations other than just the BBC. Ever heard of Lord Haw-Haw? SimonTrew (talk) 17:45, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

[citation needed]

Animal Farm = Russian revolution

Many of the animals in animal farm represent a certain character or class during the Russian revolution they are:
Mr. Jones- Tsar Nicholas II
Mrs. Jones- Tsarina Alexandra
Old Major- Karl Marx
Napoleon- Joseph Stalin
Snowball- Trotsky
Molly- Middle Class people
Clover & Boxer- Working class people
Moses the raven- Priests
Dogs- Secret Police
Cat- a privelidged class
Old Benjamin- Sceptics
Squealer- government media —Preceding unsigned comment added by Melandri (talk • contribs) 09:15, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

[citation needed] Beasts Of England-Das Kapital. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.243.128.41 (talk) 12:52, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Socialist

The intro's statement that he was a democratic socialist is fact-tagged. His article says:

"Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism, as I understand it," he wrote in 1946.

Can someone find the source and add the citation to replace the annoying fact-tag? Tempshill (talk) 04:28, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Done. --Technopat (talk) 22:55, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Dleted controversial & unreferenced statement in lead

As the lead to an article should not, in my opinion, contain any controversial - and unreferenced - statement, I have deleted the following tagged statement:

..., and is one of the most famous satirical allegories of Soviet totalitarianism

If anyone can reference it, please do so and return it to article. --Technopat (talk) 22:53, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Bluebell, Jessie, Pincher, the cows, and the ducks

The three older dogs who raised the puppies first might represent some school or orthodox during the cold war, and the cattle could represent those in need, and the ducks and geese might represent some airforce, or calvary, it could be true —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aslan10000 (talk • contribs) 04:48, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

[citation needed]

Old Major and Christopher Hitchens

I'm a bit confused by what the Hitchens quote is doing in this article. When I first saw it it seemed to be expressing two elements of Hitchens' opinion on Animal Farm - first that Old Major didn't represent Lenin, and that Lenin either appeared partially in the popularly recognised Trotsky surrogate of Snowball, or was entirely absent - and second, that Animal Farm is casting the original aims of the Russian revolution in a positive light (with a strong implication that Hitchens believes this portrayal is neither justified by history, nor Orwell's true opinion of Soviet Communism.)However, the quote seems to have been changed so that it's no longer saying what it used to say. I don't have a copy of Hitchens' book - my only source for the quote is this article, so I don't know what the original quote was and can't put it right. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.56.48.90 (talk) 17:22, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

The main similarity between Old Major and Lenin, as far as I can tell, is that Old Major's skull is put on display for ceremonial reverence, as was Lenin's body. I've added the appropriate comment. 132.205.94.73 (talk) 20:33, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Mr Whymper

I'd like to make minor edit but I can imagine this page is busy enough it will get slapped.

Why is 'Mr Whymper'this written (in single quotes)? No other character is. I think they should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SimonTrew (talk • contribs) 04:08, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Mr Whymper did not fill a public relations role. He was an intermidiary between the Animal Farm and the Farms of the East and West. His primary purpose was to facilitate commerce between the farms. - Preceding comment added by JamesMuccio (talk • contribs) 13:26, 12 April 2009

democratic socialist

Orwell always wrote it as democratic Socialist (i.e. lower case d, caps S). Should we change it?

SimonTrew (talk) 07:09, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

[citation needed]

Latest edit Molly vs Mollie

I thought it was Mollie. I don't have a copy with me right now. I guess it varies but we should go with the first British version? Refrained from changing it, for now.

SimonTrew (talk) 20:01, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

superb and a must read book —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.52.246.36 (talk) 11:52, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

[citation needed]

NKVD/POUM

Saw a reverted edit here today where someone had substituted POUM for NKVD (with a pipe).

One's initial reaction is to vandalism, but proably it was made in good faith. There should maybe be a mention of POUM somewhere (the brigade Orwell fought for in the Spanish Civil War) particularly because he got disillisioned that it was taken over by Communists (especially Russian Communists), though not as much as the International Brigade etc. Somehow I think we should briefly work it into the article just so it doesn't seem like deliberate omission, though I am not sure where to put it. SimonTrew (talk) 20:41, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

URSA

The singular of "bear" is Ursus, it is I think first declension so Ursa Major (dative) and so forth are the conjugations. This is no big deal, and we don't want to get into a Latin lesson, but for the sake of correctness I wonder if it should be mentioned somehow that Ursus is the singular. It's always tricky to incorporate these things and I am not sure how to do it, but I think, if it could be done elegantly, it would be worthwhile.

SimonTrew (talk) 23:05, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Cleave v cleft

It is a cleft hoof. But there appears no good link on Wikipidia so I have left it as cleave. Suggestion?

SimonTrew (talk) 03:10, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

French translation

In my French version of Animal Farm, Napoleon is called Napoleon and not Cesar. (Edition Gallimard, collection Folio, ISBN 978-2-07-037516-5, translated by Jean Quéval). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.184.50.101 (talk) 11:05, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Added ref. SimonTrew (talk) 12:04, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I didn't say so before but I also noted the distinction between Napolean and César, that is to say in different editions. SimonTrew (talk) 02:01, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

See French Wikipedia.

Article protection/vandalism

This article is vandalised almost daily. Should we go for some kind of protection on it?

I don't know much about Wikipedia's protection but I think there is something called semi-protection where only registered users can edit? I think that would be about right. But I don't know how to go about it, and anyway it should be a consensus with the other regular editors of this article (and I imagine would fail anyway if I just asked for it unanimously).

btw I think this article is now looking pretty cool. Expect to see it on school desks during this year's exams :) SimonTrew (talk) 19:14, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Is something wrong with this article? It hasn't been vandalised today, which must be the first day in forever. Sheesh hardly supports my argument. SimonTrew (talk) 01:59, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Clarifications

One publisher he sought during the war, who had initially accepted Animal Farm, subsequently rejected his book after an official at the British Ministry of Information warned him off[16] — although the civil servant who it is assumed[by whom] gave the order was later found to be a Soviet spy.[17]

Deleted: The citation later in the sentence clearly states that it is assumed by Taylor, the author of the letter that is cited.

The same "voluntary" system still exists with the DA-Notice.[clarification needed]

Really? A link to a clarifying article isn't clarification enough? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.215.54.87 (talk) 02:47, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

It wouldn't surprise me if I added the CN myself for DA-Notice from hypercorrection or just jumpiness as I added it in-- this article does get pounced on a lot. I agree with you it would seem quite enough to have a link. Unless anyone else objects, just remove it. SimonTrew (talk) 03:04, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Ah I see why I added it now-- I'd left it it in the comment right there. I was not entirely sure that the DA notice was the same, for the purposes of this article, as the old D notice. I've removed it now. SimonTrew (talk) 03:11, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

The Animal Farm Flag

Although there doesn't seem to be an actual representation of the Animal Farm Flag, the one shown is clearly of a horn and a pig's hoof. To accurately represent a hammer and sickle the hoof should not be from the ruling class, rather the hoof should more appropriately be from a horse. Boxer most closely represented working class labour. - Preceding comment added by JamesMuccio (talk • contribs) 13:26, 12 April 2009

I am not sure I agree. Originally I did, but now I'm wavering.

First, at the start, the pigs were part of the working class (everyone was), so to choose their hoof would not, of itself, be a borgeois act, any more than adding a hammer to a sickle. And, "by hoof or by horn" (reverse?) is by an allusion to the socialists (esp. Labour party's) slogan to support those who work "by hand or by brain".

Second, since as the caption says this is an imagination of the flag, (I think it needs a reference (in which case it can stand) or be considered WP:OR. I could probably draw another with a horse's hoof but that would definitely be WP:OR. I am not sure that a horse's hoof would work too well considering usually they are shod.

Third, I am very vaguely concerned that the flag uses a green background. Green is often associated with Islamic flags (Libya's being the ultimate example). While I doubt it would upset any Muslims, I don't think we'd want to imply to anyone, however vaguely, that the flag alluded to Islamic politics/philosophies. I think simply to expand the cap to say (as the book does IIRC-- I haven't it here) that it's green for fields (or whatever) etc and white for whatever that's for, I think that would be good.

By the way can you please sign your comments. I've signed them from the history log. Use ˜˜˜˜ to have Wikipedia put in a signature for you. SimonTrew (talk) 14:36, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

My cover of the book has a nice illustration of the hoof and horn flag.. is that of importance? Micro01 (talk) 01:10, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Citation for Napoleons description

There is a "citation needed" for Napoleon in section 2.1

The actual quote is in the first paragraph of chapter 2, page 13 in the 50th anniversary edition:

"Napoleon was a large, rather fierce-looking Berkshire boar, the only Berkshire on the farm, not much of a talker but with a reputation for getting his own way."

Scrame (talk) 06:58, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

wow, this is quite POV

"While this novel portrays corrupt leadership as the flaw in revolution (and not the act of revolution itself), it also shows how ignorance and indifference to problems within a revolution allow the horrors to happen."

The authors of such sentences better supply sources and consensus (that say "revolution is bad m'kay"). --AaThinker (talk) 12:38, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Did you read the book? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.174.227.233 (talk) 19:33, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Characters and their possible real-life counterparts

I propose the deletion of all unsourced material in this section. Thoughts? Donethatmovedon (talk) 06:15, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

ILP

orwell was a memberof the ILP in the thirties but not at the time he wrote the novel. he also had a big fall out with many socialists and he fell out with is publisher victor gollancz (read 3rd vol of his collected essays and journalism). I am not sure it is fair to say in the heading he was a member of the ILP, though true he was not at all at the time he wrote the novel or published the novel. What do we do about tha-is? SimonTrew (talk) 14:31, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Purchased copies remotely deleted from Kindles

I went ahead and copied this from the Kindle article:

• On July 17, 2009, Amazon began "retracting" (ie. removing without prior notice to customers) previously purchased books from individual Kindles. The first books removed were George Orwell's Animal Farm and 1984.

Needs to be written better though.--Occono (talk) 22:25, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

The news story I just read [[1]] says its because the person who was selling them, didn't have the rights to sell them, and those with the rights contacted them to point that out to them. There was no censorship. Dream Focus 23:38, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

What should be done with this article?

Currently, there are far too many articles for this one book. It would be best to try to combine everything into this and then split out one appropriately sized article if it proves to be too large. I assume that would either be a character article that details the characters and the people or ideals that went into making them, or an article like "Themes of Animal Farm" that takes care of those details, as well as other themes. I'll probably start a merge discussion after the current AfDs are over, but it would be helpful if anyone with a real interest in getting this to FA status could comment now. TTN (talk) 20:18, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

An entire section needs to go?

Regarding Animal_Farm#Characters_and_their_possible_real-life_counterparts, which has been tagged as needing citation and being original research for some months now, I suggest it be removed completely by the end of the month if it is not properly cited. Perhaps there are critics out there who have made these suggestions, but as it stands, this section gives undue weight to one set of theories. It needs fixing. ++Lar: t/c 23:11, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

The article itself says he wrote it based on Stalin's communist Russia, and that the reason it was originally rejected for publication. Which parts of it specifically do you believe unreasonable and in need of proof? Dream Focus 23:32, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Each character/subsection in that section needs to go unless it is specifically tied, with a cite, to the claims that subsection makes as to real life individuals or groups the character is modeled after. Please review WP:OR and especially WP:SYNTH. Given it's been tagged for months, if the issues are not corrected by the end of this month, removing the entire section seems the right way to go. ++Lar: t/c 06:31, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

"Battle of the Windmill" merger

It appears to me that the plot of AF is already discussed sufficiently in this article, including the "battle" in question. The only content I see worthy of merging is the sourced material. Ideally, it would be best if the user with access to these sources wrote about the allegorical interpretations as a whole as those sources do, rather than cherry pick the allegorical correspondence of only this battle. Savidan 16:43, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

the amazon bit in the references section

I don't see anything wrong with this as such, but suggest it could be houst out of the refs? SimonTrew (talk) 13:34, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

[citation needed]

Antisemitism

Some people have claimed that the book Animal Farm has a secret antisemitic code, because Orwell apparently associated Communism with a hidden Jewish cabal. I'm not sure about this, but it would certainly deserve more adequate research if it is shown to be notable. [2] [3] [4] ADM (talk) 17:03, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

The only one of those links worth reading is [5] and it says he had dozens of Jewish friends. So he wasn't antisemitic, he apparently just made a few comments in his books here and there, such as wondering why Jews didn't press down their noses if they could afford it, etc. Doesn't exactly sound racist to me, he just stereotyping all Jews as having a certain type of nose, perhaps because those he knew had that, and if he saw anyone who didn't, wouldn't know they were a Jew. If someone made a passing joke about a redneck's stupidity or suggestion of inbreeding, would you say they must hate all Southern white folks? If you can find a quote of everything he ever said which some consider evidence, and someone debating it who has read the books, then it'd be something to add on his article page if legitimate. I can't imagine having dozens of Jewish friends if you secretly hated them, that just not making any sense at all. Dream Focus 02:00, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

[citation needed] Secret? Wikipedia does not support minority views. 71.118.39.165 (talk) 08:03, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

• He wrote against antisemitism! http://www.george-orwell.org/AntiSemitism_In_Britian/0.html Dream Focus 02:22, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I concur. Unfortunately I gave away all my cheap Orwells in the expectation of getting a nice collected works, which never materialised. I think it is arguably the case that in his early writings he is vaguely anti-semitic, as many of his generation and background were at that time, up to say the time he went to the Spanish Civil War. For example he uses the word "jewess" which while not itself antisemitic we would probably not use today simply to mean a female jew, it has overtones of antisemitism, but perhaps that is perhaps just how we interpret that from our eyes, not those of his day. After all, wasn't his publisher Victor Gollancz a Jew? SimonTrew (talk) 17:26, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

In any case, this talk page is to discuss the article Animal Farm, not Orwell's alleged antisemitism, which if it belongs anywhere belongs at Talk:George_Orwell. SimonTrew (talk) 17:29, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

the four rebel pigs

I noticed since last I checked on this article, the rebel pigs were renamed young pigs. [6] These weren't all the young pigs, nor do I recall they being referred to as young. These were four of the pigs, who happened to be considered troublemakers, so Napoleon took them away with his dogs, and tortured and brainwashed them into confessing, along with a couple of other animals on the farm. Perhaps the accused traitors or something, would be a good name for the section, and include the other animals as well. Also, someone erased the bit about how Stalin did the same thing to his enemies, torturing and brainwashing them into confessing all sorts of nonsense, then executing them. That is quite relevant to this story. Dream Focus 01:46, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Where is the consensus for merging Boxer and Benjamin?

As per title. I have not seen any, and now their talk pages are cleared. SimonTrew (talk) 17:21, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree. TNN has a long history of merging/redirecting pages, without discussion. No merge should ever be done without tagging it, and having a discussion on the proper talk page. Boxer_(Animal_Farm) and Benjamin_(Animal_Farm) are currently back. Dream Focus 18:28, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Criticism section ?

Would anyone object if I created one? One criticism I have is that there is no instance of Napoleon killing another pig but all the members of the 1917 politbureau of the Bolsheviks (except Lenin) were killed by Stalin. So this seems to me to a glaring error in the allegory.  SmokeyTheCat  •TALK• 17:49, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

There is no reason why he'd try to write in every single historical detail exactly as it happened. I don't believe that is justifiable for a criticism section. It isn't suppose to be a history lesson, as much as a moral lesson. Dream Focus 23:55, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Even as a moral lesson the book seems deeply flawed to me. I'd still like a criticism section. Unless you think that the book is perfect?  SmokeyTheCat  •TALK• 06:36, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Can you source these criticism(s) to a reliable source? --Cybercobra (talk) 06:55, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

False dichotomy, SmokeyTheCat. We don't need a criticism section unless there is significant, source-able criticism. Even when such criticism exists, it's usually preferable to integrate it into the current article, rather than create a separate section. It's not an issue of whether anyone considers the book perfect or not.

I also agree with Dream Focus, as criticizing an allegorical novel for being unhistorical would be more than a little silly. Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 16:31, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I believe that Napoleon does kill another pig. When those four piglets confess to their "crimes," Napoleon has his dogs tear their throats out, if I remember correctly. --15lsoucy (talk) 02:14, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree with Dream Focus and Sxeptomanic. Critisising art would be like critisising the Mona Lisa or some Picasso piece for not being close enough to a photography. Art is what it is, The Mona Lisa is the Mona Lisa, not an exact representation of reality. Nunamiut (talk) 22:38, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Credited. Criticizing a story about talking farm animals for not being realistic enough is a tad wide of the mark. Also, it's allegory. That means, it's not supposed to directly correlate. These figures are broader than person X or Y. They're types.

I blame the public school system for this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.174.227.233 (talk) 19:39, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Animals

so each of the animals represent a different historical or real life person?
i get Napoleon = Stalin
Snowball = Trotskey or who ever
but what about the other characters

it says in the article about the Soviet newspaper Pravda that snowball is the representation of them.

Mr Fredrick is Hitler? (the breaking of the alliance, Fredrick - Fredrick the great of prussia)

i was just wondering if theres more infomation about this and if it could be put into the article —Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.73.41.70 (talk) 05:27, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Correction for Animal Farm entry.

There is an incorrect statement about translations. The original title, Animal Farm: A Fairy Story, lost its subtitle in all translations made during Orwell's lifetime except for the one in Telugu, according to the article. This is incorrect. The 1947 Ukrainian translation, which contains a preface by Orwell, preserves the whole title in the translation, namely, Kolhosp tvaryn: Kazka. See the translation by Ivan Cherniatyns'kyi [pen name of Ihor Sevcenko], published by Prometei Publishers [Munich?] 6wings73 (talk) 02:56, 25 February 2010 (UTC) The Puppies are an offspring of Jessie and Pincher, not Jessie and Bluebell

Minor edits

--When Major dies three days later, two young pigs, Snowball and Napoleon, assume command and turn his dream into a philosophy.

The pigs Snowball, Napoleon, and Squealer adapt Old Major's ideas into an actual philosophy, which they formally name Animalism.

The pigs Snowball, Napoleon, and Squealer adapt Old Major's ideas into an actual philosophy, which they formally name Animalism.

Change link 'philosophy' in the second sentence to 'political philosophy'.

--Once Snowball becomes a scapegoat, Napoleon begins purging the farm, killing animals he accuses of consorting with Snowball.

Once Snowball becomes a scapegoat, Napoleon begins purging the farm, killing animals he accuses of consorting with Snowball.

Provide link to 'Reign of Terror (French Revolution)'. Possible parallel to events surrounding French Revolution and Napoleon Bonaparte [citation needed].

--Add new Wikipedia article entitled List of characters (Animal Farm).

--Add new section to Characters

The Cat

Although a minor character, the Cat in the story is possibly a reference to Asia, who was watching the development of the Soviet Union but refused to actively participate in its proletarian government. [citation needed]

71.118.38.79 (talk) 23:48, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Note: These are merely suggestions for effective edits/changes to improve the quality and coherence of the article at hand, as it has been semiprotected. 71.118.39.165 (talk) 07:41, 25 February 2010 (UTC) 71.118.39.165 (talk) 08:30, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

New article

Should we create a new article entitled: List of characters (Animal Farm), as stated above? —Preceding unsigned comment added by TeleComNasSprVen (talk • contribs) 19:16, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

First Sentence

I could be wrong, but I'm pretty positive that Animal Farm is not a distopian novel. I would say it's more along the lines of satire, but I'm no expert. I think this first sentence should be changed. (Dubbycakes (talk) 05:12, 5 April 2010 (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)