Talk:Animal Farm

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Icon books.svg

This Books related article has not received a brainstar for quality. Please consider expanding the article appropriately. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.



"Four legs good, two legs bad" being repeated endlessly is far worse if you think of it in sheep accent... "Four legs good, two legs b-a-a-a-a-a-d" ;) --TheEgyptiansig001.png 11:06, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I was in a play of Animal Farm once as Napoleon. Playing a bitter, twisted, self-obsessed, drink-sodden, megalomaniac pig was surprisingly easy. --Let Them Eat Cake (talk) 14:58, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

What about snakes, millipedes, kangaroos, infants and old people? (nod at the Sphinx) (talk) 15:55, 28 April 2014 (UTC)


I did not keep most of the relevant sub-section of this from the Orwell page on the premise it was simply chatting about the plot, which in 2024 can easily be found elsewhere. And I did shove in a link to a good plot summary of it in the 'external links' bit. KarmaPolice (talk) 16:25, 1 February 2024 (UTC)


I note you nixxed the Gutenberg link at the bottom, (@Cosmikdebris). Is this due to you not liking it there, or not liking Gutenberg itself? KarmaPolice (talk) 17:10, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

I used that link as reference #1 so I thought it redundant to put it in twice. I love project Gutenberg! —cosmikdebris talk stalk 17:19, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
I vaguely wondered if it was due to the slight issue re: US copyright. Anyhows, while it is used as ref #1, I felt it was worth putting as a clear link at the bottom too [as I suspect not a huge amount of folks bother checking the ordinary ref links]. KarmaPolice (talk) 17:32, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Plot etc...[edit]

My justification for not having those sections in RW AF's page is the following;

  1. It is not that good [95% suspect it's a cut/paste off of WP]
  2. It is better done elsewhere [I linked to one; the Cliff Notes]
  3. It is not really missional for RW.
  4. It adds a lot of waffly text with little value.

So, why (@Ioe bidome) did you restore it [or more correctly, pull it out of a memory hole]? KarmaPolice (talk) 21:06, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

If I had known why you didn't want this text I wouldn't have copied it. I will revert it now Ioe bidome (talk) 22:52, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
I'm not the god-king of this article [or any, for that matter]. I was mainly curious to your reasoning for adding/restoring it in the first place - you might have been planning to re-work it or something [something I considered doing, are capable of doing but then concluded would be a waste of my limited time - but you might feel differently]. Nor are my reasonings above immune to being disputed. KarmaPolice (talk) 23:05, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
I was confused as to why this seemingly important text was left out, so I restored it. Ioe bidome (talk) 23:12, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
Ans: 'because that is what WP is for'. Though this is no way RW policy or anything. My objection was more the quality/length/originality of the cut content, not the principle of it. If it was re-worked to be say, half the size [or less] of WP's corresponding content [currently 950 words] my concerns over 'quality'/'bloat' would be answered. As I said above, I could have done this myself, but I felt my attention was better-used giving the parent page George Orwell an overhaul/expansion. KarmaPolice (talk) 23:26, 25 March 2024 (UTC)