Talk:Animal Farm/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Says Who?

"However, he [Snowball] is far from perfect and agrees in the uniting of the apples by the pigs. This suggests that had Snowball triumphed the outlook for the animals would have been not much better under his leadership than Napoleon's"

...the incident does indeed indicate that Snowball/Trotsky was not perfect regarding the temptation to exploit party status for material self-interest, and helps establish Snowball as an imperfect personality, avoiding depicting his conflict with Napoleon/Stalin as a simplistic good guy vs. bad guy arrangement. That aside, the book very strongly suggests that the farm would have been much better off had Snowball been able to retain power. That's my impression, anyway; it'd be rather POV to put such a thing in the text. Much like the second sentence above, wherein someone's personal opinion somehow snuck in there.

OK to nix? Or does mainstream critical analysis of the book actually suggest that Snowball would have been just as bad a leader as Napoleon? What I've read suggests quite the contrary; will edit that bit in a week or so unless someone talks me out of it.

...

Since I'm not reading any objections on this here discussion page, I've gone ahead and tweaked that point in the interest of sustaining NPOV. The current text is a bit of a compromise, but at least doesn't push any particular thematic interpretation onto the article. 69.129.125.79 10:12, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

...

What with all the (vandalism-necessitated) reverts happening recently, I'm not sure that my edit is going to survive-- but as long as that POV statement gets/stays removed by *somebody*, I'm happy. Will leave it to the wiki-heads from this point; thank you for giving an anon edit consideration. 69.129.125.79 21:14, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

---Yeh, leave it to the wiki-heads, the coordinator-class. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.67.79.12 (talk) 12:17, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

The Windmill

Considering the "Allusions/references to actual history, geography and current science"-section about the windmill: Trotsky never advocated for "Socialism in one country"; he was always an internationalist. The ideas of "Socialism in one country" were developed by Stalin as a pseudoscientific, polemic answer to Trotskys ideas of the "Permanent Revolution".

--Mikkel Bue Lykkegaard 14:22, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Animated Version and the CIA

Professional movie reviewer Roger Ebert wrote:

The animated version of "Animal Farm" (1948) was paid for by a CIA front, and twisted Orwell's fable about totalitarianism both East and West into a simplistic anti-communist cartoon.-Source

Link broken. Another source: Laurence Zuckerman in the NYT, 2000--R.H. 11:48, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure about the CIA front claim, and I personally disagree with Ebert's "twisted" evaluation. I always felt that the book, along with 1984, was chiefly if not entirely about Communism's excesses.--Uncle Ed

Interestingly enough, it was the first feature length British animated film.

I really think the note about interpreting "ALL ANIMALS ARE EQUAL… BUT… " should be removed. To use either MORE or LESS when talking about EQUALITY is an absurdity. This has always irked me, and if no one objects, and can argue that it should be retained, I will delete this within the week. Kalki 20:11, 2003 Nov 9 (UTC)

"ALL ANIMALS ARE EQUAL, BUT SOME ARE MORE EQUAL THAN OTHERS" is supposed to be ironic and absurd. The point is most of the animals are so stupid, they don't recognize the saying as being strange.

The idea is that they, the pigs, have such a great control over the animals that they can change the rules and a)the other animals won't even notice the change, and b)they can slowly take over the other animals by using logical fallacies to convince them.

Well, yeah... I don't doubt it's most possible purpose, and I don't deny George Orwell might've thought of humour in that grim situation of the Animals, but...sometimes...it has other - double, perhaps - meaning's, aswell. To interpret what it would directly mean can be interesting to some, even if makes no apparant sense. Any attempt to make it a useful statement I'm willing to give a shot, but I won't care. It's atleast nothing logical, and still just pointless propaganda (And any philosophing on it being anything but unsincere) in my ears. But...well, if that's what people want to read..give them bread and circus!--OleMurder 00:03, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

"Thinly veiled?

Gotta look it up in a day or so, but Orwell wrote a letter to his publisher when "Animal Farm" was in the last stages of preparation for press, asking him if he could change some detail sentence, about Snowball's precise location in some point in some battle, as "I have found out that Trotsky was probably not in [thus-and-such-place during thus-and-such incident]." I hadn't realized this myself, but obviously Orwell intended it to have a very detailed relationship to history, and only my ignorance of the history of the Soviet Union prevented me from realizing it.

There's also some letter to a publisher in which he says, in reference to Animal Farm, something like "I'm working on something now but it is so not OK politically that Gollancz will never accept it..."

As I say, details when I have time to look them up. They're all in the Collected Essays, Journalism and Letters.--Dpbsmith 16:30, 11 May 2004 (UTC)

Orwell subtitled his novel "A Fairy Story". If he didn't want to veil it he would never have given such a subtitle (Does it read like a fairy story to you?). It is meant to mislead the authorities but not others.

The whole point of a satirical allegory is to represent something in another mode. Why? Think about it. "Thinly veiled" is not wrong. Authentic representation does not mean the book can't have a few red herrings to throw the unsuspected parties offguard.--Mandel

Animal Farm (Fictional government)

This page is a recent creation, but I can't honestly see justification for its inclusion since there is nothing there that couldn't be in here, it's just awfully silly. I just though I'd offer it to you for improvement, but I will VFD it if it is not improved.

If you say so. But I think it could only be a section of this article.--OleMurder 00:03, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Pincher

I don't know who took out Pincher as the leader of the Animal Guard. I'm not sure if you know, but there was a film adaptation of Animal Farm in 1999, starring Patrick Stewart, Ian Holm, and Kelsey Grammer. In the movie, Napoleon makes Pincher the leader of the Animal Guard. I even put Pincher down in the fictional military people.--B-101 12:32, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Animal Farm was a book by George Orwell. It was a classic and should not be compared to the movie. Since the book was so good (yes I said it), the movie had much to live up to and Hollywood decided the movie would be better with a head of the guard. Regardless, I find it to be insulting that a synopsis of the book is criticized because there was no inclusion of something about the movie in an article about a movie. Thank you, modern America, for producing people who do not celebrate or recognise great originality.

Modern 2002 view removed by User:64.230.96.197

The section was removed by User:64.230.96.197, perhaps by error, when inserting a link. There seems to be no explanation here for the removal, so I am restoring it.--Hu 17:41, 2004 Nov 18 (UTC)

Sure, that's cool...I don't doubt so...if it's really that pointfull to restore it...BUT! Why are you so sure it was in harmless intent, by incident?--OleMurder 00:03, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Assume good faith? :P —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.33.59.183 (talk) 02:38, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Suggest 9 possible wiki links and 2 possible backlinks for Animal Farm.

An automated Wikipedia link suggester has some possible wiki link suggestions for the Animal_Farm article:

• Can link Animalism: ... Animal Farm), the pigs, who have developed the doctrine of Animalism and lead the revolution, gradually take over. The two [[boa]]... (link to section)
• Can link history of the Soviet Union: ...ers in Animal Farm are all carefully drawn to represent the history of the Soviet Union and Orwell makes this explicit in the case of Napoleon who... (link to section)
• Can link real world: ... letters. The other characters have their analogies in the real world but care should be taken with these comparisons as they do ... (link to section)
• Can link a new song: ...nd]]'', but later, Napoleon and the other pigs ordered that a new song be sung in it's place. This is a reference to the replacemen... (link to section)
• Can link state socialism: ...[[Soviet Union]], probably for the purpose of distancing Soviet state socialism with Trotsky's revolutionary socialism. ... (link to section)
• Can link live action: ...successfully revolt against the pigs. There was also a 1999 live action film directed by John Stephenson. In addition, radical soc... (link to section)
• Can link John Stephenson: ...the pigs. There was also a 1999 live action film directed by John Stephenson. In addition, radical socialist rappers [[Dead Prez]] released... (link to section)
• Can link John Reed: ...===now of the book's premise=== In [[2002]], the American author John Reed published ''Snowball's Chance''. This book adopts Orwell's... (link to section)
• Can link western countries: ...on had suffered less from the [[Great Depression]] than most western countries, and because Stalin had led the Soviet Union in the success... (link to section)

Additionally, there are some other articles which may be able to linked to this one (also known as "backlinks"):

• In Recurring South Park characters, can backlink animal farm: ...=== Big Gay Al is a [[stereotype]]d [[gay]] man. He runs an animal farm for gay animals who have been rejected by [[homophobia|homo]]...
• In Windmill Farm Railway, can backlink Animal Farm: The '''Windmill Farm Railway''' is located at the Windmill Animal Farm, Burscough, near [[Ormskirk]], Lancashire.The railway opera...

Notes: The article text has not been changed in any way; Some of these suggestions may be wrong, some may be right.

Feedback: I like it, I hate it, Please don't link to — LinkBot 11:28, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Differences between the book and the 1998 movie

There's a whole section like this that reads like it was written by a high schooler, including the line "Mr. and Mrs. Jones went home and got it on."

While I've not seen the movie and have no reason to doubt that this happened, that doesn't seem to be very "encyclopedic".

Also it's written in a first person point of view, with a lot of "I" statements, as in, "I didn't include them all, so if you know of any others, go ahead and add them."

I personally see little to no redeeming value in this section whatsoever and, at the very least, should be rewritten to something appropriating more professional language.--159.121.130.84 12:44, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more, this sounds like a school report, not a serious encyclopaedic entry Twrist 21:57, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'd like to lend my support to the removal of this section, or at least to its replacement with a brief sentence referencing the movie. In its current form it serves only to trivialize the book (not to mention this article). --Koyna 11:02, May 4, 2005 (UTC)

It goes on and on and on and doesn't get anywhere. If the differences between the novel and the movie are that important, perhaps we could make a new novel, and get it rewritten by someone else? But I'd support removing that section completely.

Well? First of all, let's not take any extreme choichepoints here. (Heh! New word invented.) Section-removal, yaddah, yaddah. Hey! What's so wrong 'bout school report's anyways? It depends on how you read between the lines. Although I know the sex-lingo "Get it on"....Be prepared that it might've been literally. To get something on. And if you think that's dirty-meanin'..well, it depends...it doesn't necessarily mean the author thought so, but the reader. Stop thinkin' "briefcase". Pretend that it's not. And if they did ('Get it on'), it's a fact, who cares about the phrasing? Oh yeah, go ahead, write "sexual intercourse". I'll laugh my arse off over this academic quabbling. To the people who search care? I know I don't except for helping to resolve conflicts, like this.--OleMurder 00:03, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

The claim that the movie was true to the book looks very POV to me. The movie explicitly rejects Old Major's teaching, which the book does not do. In the book, the animals wind up as bad off under the pigs as they were under Mr. Jones. The movie, on the other hand, has a happy ending with new human owners taking over the farm, bringing back the "good old days". It's not at all true to the book.--RLent 21:21, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Wow. And now I know not to bother with the movie. I, for one, like his books in part because he DOESN'T have a "super-happy-awesome-loving" ending. It's more realistic for things to end on a down note. Not to mention interesting. But this is neither the time nor place to discuss the book, I guess. 65.33.59.183 (talk) 02:40, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Is the similarity in meter between "Beasts of England" and the German National Anthem a coincidence?

Since I first read Animal Farm in High School, I've always wondered whether there was some hidden significance to the similarity in the meter of the Animals Anthem Beasts of England and the German National Anthem (Once known as Deutschland Über Alles).

Without too much strain, the meters do match. You do have to spread some of the syllables (Such as the 'aw' sound in trod and the 'ah' in alone) out over several notes, but that is not uncommon in music.

Beasts of England, beasts of Ireland, 
Beasts of every land and clime, 
Hearken to my joyful tidings 
Of the golden future time. 

Soon or late the day is coming, 
Tyrant Man shall be o'erthrown, 
And the fruitful fields of England 
Shall be trod by beasts alone. 

When I first read Animal Farm, for some reason I realised the meter fits very nicely (In fact, perfectly ... no straining needed) to 'La Cucaracha'. Still does ... try it! Proto 11:22, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Or 'My darling Clementine', come to think of it.--Proto 09:55, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I had always assumed that "Beasts of England" essentially equalled Internationale. The original Soviet Union anthem, and later gotten rid of by Stalin. Infact, these lyrics fit the tune of Internationale!--Oldak Quill 4 July 2005 12:41 (UTC)

I know this discussion is long over but how ignorant are you people. it says in the stupid book written by the george orwell that it is in tempo somewhere between those two songs. if you have no knowledge of the book neither of you have any business editing the animal farm page.75.104.128.39 18:13, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Identical Article

I found this when I was looking up other Animal Farm information. The meta date expiration tag for their site showed a date in 2003. Which do you think ripped the other?--^demon - 6/08/05, 02:08 UTC.

• From the page you linked to:This article was derived fully or in part from the article Animal Farm on Wikipedia - the free encyclopedia. All text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License. --Canderson7 01:11, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)

What is Animal Farm about?

I did Animal Farm as a set book about 1962 - it was presented to us then as a very close allegory of the events in Soviet Russia (E.g. the Socialism in One Country vs World Revolution debate). And contrary to the intro to the present article Orwell was not a CP-Sympathiser for most of his life . He witnessed aspects of the CP-Behaviour in the Spanish Civil War which made him suspicious of the Moscow-directed CP. He was a good old fashioned thinking British leftie :-) Suggest we amend the silly last sentence in the intro.--Linuxlad

I think the book was merely a distrust of some Communist's genuine-ness in helping people, not the ideology of Communism itself. Of course, Capitalists like to twist this book, well around their fingers, and use it against Leftist's. The book was more about a farm led by a man called Jones Manor, that was overthrown by the Animal's, obviously enough, and they succeed, as was foretold by an old pig called "Old Major". The leaders of the revolution were "Napoleon" and "Snowball". Not giving away too much here, but some of them succeed more than the other in the long-run, and although keen propaganda and cunningness, one has to go. Read it.--OleMurder 21:13, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

(Er, thanks...) The identification of the characters presently quoted in the text is pretty standard, (and more or less as I remember it from a 1960s 'gloss') but not totally above contention - have we got a _reference_ for the version in the WP article?? (Especially the slightly POV statements on how much Mr. Blair really loved Mr. Marx greatly - which may well be true for all I know...)--Linuxlad

"Modern revisionist view"

However, Reed's critique, a concentration on the contrasts of capitalism and socialism, fails to recognize the book's message of the corruption of the ideals of the Russian Revolution and the progressive subversion of the ideals of Lenin (Old Major) and Trotsky (Snowball) by Stalin (Napoleon). The humans (capitalists, fascists, and the tsar) are in no way portrayed sympathetically. Nevertheless, the book was released at a time when Stalin was widely admired by portions of the Western Intelligentsia, partly because the Soviet Union had suffered less from the Great Depression than most western countries, and because Stalin had led the Soviet Union in the successful and dearly-won victory over Nazi Germany. The Destalinization of Russia under Nikita Khrushchev was still more than a decade in the future.

This is a critique of Reed's critique and needs to be de-POV'd before it gets back in the article. No editorials. It was the second paragraph of the "modern revisionist" section. --Mr. Billion 00:02, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

The basic allegory of animal farm, and the main layer on which it is read, is obviously George Orwell's own, personal view on soviety russia. However, on another, deeper level, it challenges the very nature of human society and if it is possible to live in a world in which everyone is equal? It it actually feesable for our own, human nature not to crave power or a highraquay. This is just one of many, thought provoking ideas of the novel.

yes

Plot (long) (short)

Two seperate sections for plot is really silly. They might as well be titled Plot for those who have homework due in a week and Plot for those who have let it slide and have to hand in tomorrow. These should be deleted/merged unless someone can justify it.--MeltBanana 14:02, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree with this, I've not seen it in any other book pages. Do people think one should go or should it stay how it is?--SamTrev 22:37, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Apparently somebody already merged the two plots.--AndyZ 22:41, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

What the HELL is that supposed to mean? Because you see a general use for it, as in cheating at school, you decide, that a long and short plot probably is totally meant entirely for so? Talk about reading inbetween the lines way too much. Black and White. Guess WHAT!? They could've just copied the whole article, perhaps entire wikipedia is meant to help students cheat, so we should delete it! HOORAY FOR INSANITY. It doesn't need justification. People sometimes want to read the long or short plot, based on their time available on a PC. And if a student may 'cheat' because of getting a good summarization...well, there's risks to being a good enclycopedia, so if we're 'sposed to be afraid of that and take the blame for such a silly thing I'd "approve" of anyways (Who cares? It doesn't give them better succsess in life to summarize a fiction book) - then perhaps even running a site based on free information wasn't a good idea because of that possibility...it's not Wikipedia's fault if someone does, and it's not in the rules.--OleMurder 00:03, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

First off, nothing was ever mentioned about cheating... All MeltBanana mentioned was that those who have to slide and have to hand it in tomorrow. Other wikipedia articles about books to have short and long plots- they are simply redundant. AndyZ 23:29, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

And, technically, you can't just copy something from the internet. Most teachers run it through a checker. Trust me. I know. But it was an accident, I swear. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.33.59.183 (talk) 02:44, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

YOu cannot cheat with Wikipedia. Isn't the whole point of Wikipedia is to be learning tool? If putting in both a summary for those who need a summary and a long version for those who have time to go more in depth helps them learn, why not do it?- Tom

What's this?

"When Boxer was injured, The pigs gave him a pink medicine, or Pepto Bismol, which would not help his leg. This demonstrates the communists' inability to give products that the people wanted to the people."

The communist's inability to give products that the people wanted to the people? I want to correct it but i have no idea what it's trying to say. Someone? Anon 03:09, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

I think it should probably be deleted. For one thing my edition does not name the medicine and it probably has much more to do with Orwell's own dislike of miraculous medicines, obesity cures and advertising, rather then a direct criticism of communism. MeltBanana 19:06, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

excecuse me if you have ever read the book it clearly says that boxer is injured clover tries to heal his leg by herbs which she accquired by chewing on them. boxer is not given any medicine by the pigs. and that represents thaat the communist would not help thier followers. thanks ___________

The book states that he was given some medicine they found in the cabinet. Perhaps this references peoples blind faith that the medicene would help without even knowing what the medacien did? Your thoughts.-Tom

Deletion of Cold War Part

"Thanks for your contributions to Animal Farm! However, please don't delete parts of articles without stating why. Tense relationships between US and Soviet Union immediately developed with the end of World War II, and both superpowers were involved in a power struggle for dominance. Since the animals of Animal Farm were representing satirically the Soviet Union and Mr. Pilkington represented the Allied powers, it follows that the ending struggle was probably a representation of the Cold War. AndyZ 01:47, 16 December 2005 (UTC)"

Retract the part in my statement about "stating why".AndyZ 23:31, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

I wrote this: "Animal Farm was written before the Cold War. (deleted bit about how the quarell between Frederick and Napoleon represented the cold war"

Although Animal Farm was published around the end of WW2, it was written during WW2.

• My error... I'm so sorry, I was rushing my homework and reverted your edits while looking at the part in the parenthesis only. I kind of retract what I said before (not fully though), I do think rising tensions between the Soviet Union and Allies powers did prompt the Cold War and hence I restored it. It has now been changed to a more passive view, where it is now like "might have" and stuff like that. I realize that the book was written before the end of WW2, and therefore the action was not exactly the Cold War. Still, I think the two have some sort of a relationship, though it is possible that Orwell just placed it in there to further the satirical part of the book. AndyZ 23:31, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• No problem. Anyway, I see your point and agree with you. f00b13 December 2005 (UTC)

Orwell probably implied the rising Allied and Soviet tensions. It would have ben pretty easy to guess taht there would be rising problems. Oppenheimer predicted the Russians would get the Bomb, so even though the book was written before the Cold War Orwell still could have predicted tensions.-Tom

Shoddy Analysis

"Napoleon is Orwell's chief villain in Animal Farm. Napoleon, the pig, is really the central character on the farm. Obviously a metaphor for Stalin, Comrade Napoleon represents the human frailties of any revolution. Orwell believed that although socialism is good as an ideal, it can never be successfully adopted due the to uncontrollable sins of human nature."

Did Orwell believe this, or is this a reader's interpretation of his views? I'm very familiar with George Orwell's essays and novels, and I can't recall him ever saying anything so simplistic as 'socialism is a nice idea that doesn't work in practice.' If no one objects, I'll take this bit out, aside from being of questionable accuracy it is completely superfluous. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.51.72.26 (talk • contribs) 02:55, 13 January 2006.

That statement violates Wikipedia's NPOV policy, so it should not be included in the article. Orwell clearly explains in Why I Write that everything he wrote after 1936 was against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism. Including the statement above would be distracting from the primary focus of the article and would misrepresent the most probable political motives behind Animal Farm. --TantalumTelluride 03:19, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Possibly remove?

In schools Animal Farm is used in the Core Knowledge curriculum. Core knowledge is based on the interaction of different subjects in schools. The way Animal Farm comes into play is that if a student's Geography or History Class is learning about the former Soviet Union, the English class will be reading Animal Farm.

This paragraph appears in the significance section of the article. It discusses the role of Animal Farm in core curriculum. My feeling is that the paragraph is not very relevant to the topic, as the rest of the significance section discusses use as propraganda, movements, etc. Should this be removed or kept? AndyZ 23:25, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

removed - relates only to UK based examination system. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 15:06, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Looks like it has already been removed. AndyZ _t 19:26, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Seeds of Corruption

I think one very important point is overlooked in the plot analysis, namely that the animal revolution begins to degenerate by degrees, virtually from the outset. Napoleon's later siezure of absolute power only accelerates the whole process. To see the book as an argument against Stalinism risks turning it into an argument in favour of Trotskyism. The truth is both are equally repellant. Benjamin would have understood this. Rcpaterson 03:42, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Benjamin was an ass. Badum-tish - sorry. HawkerTyphoon 10:10, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Remember that Snowball also has special privileges and is a member of the coordinators with all the power that entails. He also does not do his share of the hard labor, instead doing only intellectual work, making decisions for others etc. It is not, I think, an argument in favor of Trotskyism. Rather it is a warning (by Orwell, a life long socialist) pointing out the dangers of the coordinator class who raise to the top and take over in Communism. Note Mr. Pilkington's remarks at dinner about the lower classes near the end of the book. --Fluxaviator 13:54, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

on the subject of ruling what if old major was alive and kicking do you think he would be corrupted with the power as napoleon was? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.185.57.247 (talk) 21:32, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

The Cat

The cat can also represent human nature; not willing to work and taking advantage of the government.

Is there a source for this? Moved it from the main page to discuss here.--Fluxaviator 13:44, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

• Perhaps it could be rewritten as "The cat can also be seen to represent certain facets of human nature; not willing to work and taking advantage of the government". However, this would count as original research unless someone could find a source which says pretty much this (any "Notes on Animal Farm" title should do the job). I also think that, even if the comment were re-written in this way, it should be balanced with another interpretation of the cat; the interpretation above is clearly from a particular political point of view.

The Cat represents laziness (for she, along with Mollie, did not do any work on the farm) and possibly racism (for she is the only one who says the rats are enemies).

I don't believe this is correct. Here's a quote from the book:

The vote was taken at once, and it was agreed by an overwhelming majority that rats were comrades. There were only four dissentients, the three dogs and the cat, who was afterwards discovered to have voted on both sides.

From the quote above you would conclude that the Cat is the only one who voted twice and not the only one who voted that the rats are enemies. Clintox (talk) 20:07, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Coordinatorism

Should the main article link to Coordinatorism somewhere? Seems to be exactly what Orwell was warning of. --Fluxaviator 14:07, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't think so. It seems a bit like original research to include it as he obviously wasn't writing about it directly as he pre-dates the term even if he anticipates it. Writing "Some people think that Orwell was writing about Coordinatorism." will make some other people reading the article say which people? MeltBanana 02:10, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Last Revision

I just spellchecked the last revision in the significance part, but it still needs someone to clarify and add links.

Allusions to actual event

"Napoleon's later alliance with the humans — Stalin’s non-aggression pact with Hitler in the early years of WWII."

Considering this book was completed in 1945 couldn't napoleons cooperation be analogious to the alliance of the UK, USA, and the USSR, and couldn't the ending scene be a reference to the conferences at tehran, yalta and potsdam? seeing as the cold war hadn't "started" proper when this book was completed

copy editing

I spent some time over the last few days editing most of the sections of this entry. This is my first attempt at editing on Wikipedia, so I was just taking shots in the dark. The whole article probably needs another pass.

• I copy-edited the Synopsis and Characters sections. Mostly cleaned up commas, removed extraneous spaces, standardized use of quotation marks. Fixed a few passive verbs, but probably needs another pass. Beverson 04:37, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• I copy-edited the Significance section. Tightened up this section a bit more as I felt there was some repetition and wordiness. Beverson 22:08, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• I copy-edited the Allusions section last night. Tried to standardize each bullet. Also made sure they were complete sentences. Beverson 12:44, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
• I copy-edited the Cultural References and Adaptations sections. Standardized titles and punctuation. Also improved readability, primarily in Adaptations. Beverson 18:41, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Popular culture references moved into leaf article

I'd moved popular culture references (and movie adaptations) into leaf article Animal Farm in popular culture. This is rather common practice to offload the main article and keep it more focused. See e.g. Gorilla or Category:In popular culture.

Content of the section "Allusions to history, geography and current science" could possibly make separate leaf article as well. Pavel Vozenilek 21:56, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Why the revert from Tsar back to Czar??

Re: 2006-09-17T08:53:24 by HawkerTyphoon.

The main Wikipedia entry is Tsar. That article says that the spelling Czar is less common. The spelling c-z-a-r makes me think of baseball!

Tsar
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Czar and tzar redirect here. For other uses, see Tsar (disambiguation)

Tsar (Bulgarian, Serbian and Macedonian цар, Russian царь (help·info), in scientific transliteration respectively car and car' ), occasionally spelled Czar or Tzar and sometimes Csar or Zar in English, is a Slavonic term designating certain monarchs.

My bolds. (:-) --Oryanw 17:57, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Humour vs. humor

The issue seems unimportant, but the revert of 2006-09-27T10:44:31 from humour back to humor seems very strange. A link was provided to policy. I quote from that policy: If an article's subject has a strong tie to a specific region/dialect, it should use that dialect. George Orwell is British, Animal Farm is a British novel, The animals revolutionary song cited in the article is Beasts of Englind. Is not h-u-m-o-u-r the British spelling?

Am I confused? Dictionary.com cites both Random House and Merriam Webster as stating that humour is British. --O'RyanW (☺ ₪) 21:05, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

However, the editor who changed "humor" to "humour" failed to note that the article being linked to spells it "humor". They thus changed a link directly to the related article into a link to a redirect to the article. It wasn't a big deal, but it was just easier to revert the ill-planned change rather than dig through and find the link again. Sxeptomaniac 22:07, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh. I see. Thanks. I really should have noticed that. Would it have been wrong to revert just the spelling in the link and leave the spelling that the reader sees British? I have done similar things elsewhere. O'RyanW (☺ ₪) 23:18, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

It's not really a big deal to me what dialect of English the article's in, overall. If you want to switch it to British spelling, I won't do any reverts at this point. Sxeptomaniac 17:40, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry . . . English teacher here.

You can't just "evoke" as the article professes. The verb evoke must take a direct object or it makes no sense at all. One must evoke something . . . like evoke strong emotions, or evoke nationalistic pride or patriotism.

Spoilers in first paragraph.

I haven't read the book and wanted to know the basic plot but the first paragraph gave away more of the story than I wanted to know. It's proably the same with other people as well. Would someone be able to rewrite the first paragraph? 156.34.215.59 17:03, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Ehm...why are you reading a Wikipedia article of a book you plan to read before you read it? That seems to go against common sense. Takua108 21:55, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Here is what the article looked like when I looked at it. I read the first paragraph, before the spoiler warning. 156.34.219.194 00:53, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Silly Takua, don't you know? "Common sense is the least common type of sense." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.33.59.183 (talk) 02:50, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Cover Artist Typo

The Cover artist should be Christopher Corr, not Christoper Corr as it reads in the right column.

fixed--Acebrock 18:49, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

ISBN

The book has the ISBN 0-14-012670-8.

Copyright

Animal Farm was first published in 1946, and Orwell died in 1950. As such, is Animal Farm not covered under copyright. If so, are the links the the full text links to illigal copright violation websites? It the links are copyright violations, they should be removed, if only for ethical reasons. Thegreenj 00:12, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I've recieved no response for or against this move, so I will go ahead and delete the links. If someone believes they should remain, just contact me. Thegreenj 01:33, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

What is the basis for saying "not covered under copyright"? I thought it was death + 70 years in the US? Notinasnaid 09:15, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry! I meant that it is covered under copyright. I suppose my first argument contradicted itself.

Actually, according to the wikipedia article on Copyrighting, "The length of the copyright term within the United States was extended by the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act which made the copyright term the life of the author plus 70 years for works created after January 1, 1978." So, it's possible Animal Farm is out of copyright in the US.

reference 3

reference 3 seams not to reference anything, only link to date articles --Zr2d2 03:40, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism

What's with all the vandalism on this article? Troubleshooter 03:26, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Block needed?

I am getting sick of all the vandalism on this article. PUT A PERMANENT SEMI-BLOCK ON THIS ARTICLE NOW! --Dynamo_ace 16:07, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Permenant semi-block needed!

With so many vandalism attempts since the semi-block was removed, one wonders if it should be reintroduced and if so, be made permenant - Dynamo_ace Talk

Is there a reason this Article is so popular for vandalism? I mean, it's a f**ing book! Troubleshooter 23:22, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Your guess is as good as mine however we know that as soon as the temporary semi-block was removed the vandals returned to that article. - Dynamo_ace Talk

It's weird that this page gets so much vandalism - there's a similar amount at Nineteen Eighty-Four, especially if one includes edit wars and the like. My guess would be that one of the reasons for all the vandalism is the location of the books within the Cultural Politics in the late 20th century - they've both been used by various people to support their own political causes, and I think this sort of activity forms how people view the books. --Jim (Talk) 10:37, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure the reason is that it is a common middle/high school read. Most students probably use wikipedia instead of sparknotes then vandalize it for kicks and giggles. Similar vandalism occurs at the To kill a mockingbird article, another popular book in education. b_cubed 11:32, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

That is, indeed, another good reason for the vandalism etc. Interestingly enough there's probably a very strong connection between the two reasons. There's probably a PhD in this! --Jim (Talk) 11:47, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

That's what I thought (B cubed). Troubleshooter 15:30, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Cat Font

Is there are reason the information about the cat is italicized in the article? Just Wondering...

Looks like it was just broken markup, attempting to bold the word Cat as with the other animals in the section. It's fixed now. pbryan 18:36, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Title

I don't know if this has already been brought up or not, but is the title "Animal Farm" or "Animal Farm: A Fairy Story"? I think the latter's the original but Orwell later changed it. Should a note about that be added/suitable redirects be made/the page be moved? Yuanchosaan^Salutations! 07:58, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Changed a section name

I made a minor change, rewriting the title of the section "Animals" to "Characters" because it is more direct and includes more than what the former title alluded. Etni3s 21:38, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Benjamin's Quotation

Here Benjamin is quoted as "Donkeys live a long time. None of you have ever seen a dead donkey." On wikiquote it's none of you has ever..., which I think is the correct one grammatically. I can't find my copy at the moment, so could someone check? Mrbowtie 15:51, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

"'Donkeys live a long time. None of you HAS ever seen a dead donkey,' and the others had to be content with this answer." - Animal Farm (50th anniversary edition), Chapter 3, page 47, Publishing Company is "First Signet Classic Printing", Copyright year is 1999.

~~TheHoustonKid, (L-TX)~~

Flag of Animalism

Hi There. I think it is a good idea to have a representation of the horn and hoof here. I know it is my own work but wanted to share it here. Please tell me what you think. Rgs es:User:Al2

Boxer

Is the character Boxer named such in reference to the Boxer Rebellion of 1898? Archon of Atlantis 04:42, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I doubt it - it wouldn't really fit the allegory of Soviet totalitarianism, or time period for that matter. But I am sure it would be an interesting topic to look into nonetheless. Chris Buttigieg 18:06, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

According to http://www.novelguide.com/animalfarm/characterprofiles.html Boxer is a reference to the Boxer Rebellion. I don't know how reliable this source is though, since I've never used it before. Archon of Atlantis 07:01, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Teheran Conference

I recently purchased the Hard Cover 50th Anniversary Edition of Animal Farm. In the back of the book are two extra prefaces. First there is Orwell's Proposed Preface to Animal Farm and second is Orwell's Preface to the Ukranian Edition of Animal Farm. In the Ukranian Edition Preface Orwell wrote about his wanting to write a story that would explain to its reader's the true face of Soviet "Socialism." He wrote "I did not write it out till 1943, for I was always engaged on other work which gave me no time; and in the end I included some events, for example the Teheran Conference, which were taking place while I was writing. Thus the main outlines of the story were in my mind over a period of six years before it was atually written." This sounds to me, although I am new to the topic, as though Orwell put the meeting between the pigs and humans at the end of the story to symbolize the Teheran Conference. If anyone disagrees with this, say so, and please explain your reason(s) for disagreeing. Almighty lunchbox 14:19, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Moses and the pigs

I think an edit on Moses would be necessary. It suggests the pigs change their minds regarding him. His last appearance in the book, the book reads that the pigs "declared contemptuously that his stories about Sugarcandy Mountain were lies" and continue to tolerate his existence. His section states the contrary at the moment. Small details. Big implications.

Well correct me if I am wrong but didn't the communists reinstated the orthodox church during world war two to inspire hope in the soviet citizens against the advancing Germans?And is that not the reason for his return to the farm? -Alex

Has "Animal Farm" ever been banned in the U.S.?

Is it true that in the the book "Animal Farm" had once been banned in the U.S., because it was considered pro-communist? (See: http://www.pcc.edu/LIBRARY/news/banned2006.htm )

reply: No , challenged only. "Challenged in Jackson County, Florida because the novel is "pro-communist and contained explicit sexual matter"" but banned in USSR —Preceding unsigned comment added by S990067 (talk • contribs) 14:14, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Moved

• A number of critics think that Animal Farm is very similar to Bunt (Revolt: A novel) by winner of the Nobel Prize - Wladyslaw Stanislaw Reymont, which had been published much earlier, in 1924.

I can find no references to this. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 04:41, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

B-Class

This article does not have sufficient references to warrant "A-Class". Also , the list of allusions should be less listy and more cited analysis. The Placebo Effect 18:53, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

More on the plot, less on the allegory

The article spends 2 sentences on the plot, and something like 5 pages on how it's a allegory. I think the should be changed around so new readers have an idea of what the plot is like (Compare to 1984) 76.84.12.144 02:02, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Flag

"Green is also the complementary color to red." Not true. The complementary of red is CYAN. Discuss. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.135.48.90 (talk) 05:30, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I assume the writer is thinking of Christmas, but it's still a bit far-fetched. ~~Lazyguythewerewolf . Rawr. 21:49, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I just removed the sentence. Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 16:45, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Christopher Hitchens

Since when this PIG is considered a "Orwell authority"??? 201.19.95.163 (talk) 12:08, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Communism sucks?

I think the standard interpretation of the book is that communism doesn't work. But this is not mentioned in the article. Shouldn't this be rectified? Thanks. Amit@Talk 16:19, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

The definite impression i got from the book was that dictatorships suck, and that actually communism wasn't that bad, eg. after the revolution and before Napoleon took control, the animals prospered.User:mikething —Preceding comment was added at 12:02, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

If the pigs were honestly trying to make the farm work for the animals, and failed in this task, then it could be said that the point of the book was that communism didn't work. But the pigs were trying to make it work for themselves, and in the end it does: the animals are as bad off as they were before, the only difference is that it is the pigs prospering at the expense of the rest of the animals, instead of Mr. Jones prospering at the expense of the animals. Orwell doesn't repudiate Old Major's dream, he only shows that dream twisted by those who crave power. It can be read most easily as criticism of the Soviet Union, but the interpretation need not be limited to such a narrow interpretation. One of the messages is that power, once given away, may be difficult or impossible to get back.--RLent (talk) 07:10, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Orwell was both a Socialist and a member of the International Labour Party...he agreed with much of Karl Marx and even some of Lenin, but he didnt like Stalinism, which is the point of the book...Stalinism=bad 69.156.36.183 (talk) 02:31, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

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- Lenin/ 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)

All of this is complete speculation because Orwell never acknowledged that this is what he intended. Indeed I think he refuted it. --Bduke (Discussion) 23:42, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

You do know you're responding to a comment from about 10 months ago, right? Qwyrxian (talk) 23:51, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Of course, but another editor tried to make some changes here and it reminded me. It is worth putting on the record, because too many people believe this speculation. --Bduke (Discussion) 01:09, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

You can pretty much match events to events of this book to the Russian Revolution, and the beginning of the book talks about his relation to politics, and socialists causes, and what he meant. It speaks repeatedly about how he meant for this to be a warning to western democratic governments, and my English Teacher (I'm in high school) basically teaches it relative to Russian Communism. Being new to Wikipedia, I don't know if this is a valid source or not. Idofen (talk) 03:25, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

No, something your English teacher said once is not considered reliable. Doniago (talk) 06:48, 22 November 2011 (UTC)