Jump to content

Talk:Animals (Pink Floyd album)/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Songwriting credits

I edited the paragraph on the creation of the album, and removed and changed the claims about the songwriting credits. Everything I wrote can be found in Nick Mason's book "Inside Pink Floyd", but I'm fairly new to Wikipedia editing and don't know how to put in references. Hopefully someone else can do that. Alterationx10 (talk) 20:12, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Waters playing guitar

I've never seen any sources for Roger Waters playing rhythm guitar on "Pigs (Three Different Ones)" except live performances. Actually I've red somewhere (can't remember where) which states that Roger Waters didn't play any instrument on the song besides vocals and vocoder. Floyd(Norway) 06:29, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Mary Whitehouse

I removed "was making considerable efforts to censor PF's music because of its political overtones"

It's not mentioned in the MW article, and sounds very unlikely as her whole focus was against sex on TV, certainly not music censorship. If anyone can find a reliable reference, put it back in, but I would be very surprised if this was the case.

Someone added this back in. It either needs to be cited or removed. The only references I can find are web pages where an American is explaining that Whitehouse is kind of like a British Tipper Gore, which would exlain why they make the jump to music censorship... as far as I know, she was concerned with TV only and would hardly be aware of PF, let alone any attempts to censor them. 88.107.60.41 16:24, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
The above user is correct. She became prominent in the UK by claiming Doctor Who was the most violent show on British televison (i'm paraphrasing) and was not suitable for children, and the fans of Pink Floyd were fans of the show...don't know her opinion on "Pigs", tho... Doc Strange 19:13, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

What does this mean?

Can some one fix this or delete it: "The album had custom picture labels with drummer Nick Mason's writing for credits."

I havent a clue what it means to try and fix it.

Fixed. Andy Mabbett 21:19, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Two cover images?

We seem to have two images of the cover of this album:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:PinkfloydAnimals.jpg - This one is used on the article for the album
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Pink_Floyd-Animals-Frontal.jpg - This one is used on the article about Pink Floyd
I really prefer the one used in the Pink Floyd article, the other one is kinda yellow. If no one has anything against it, I will replace the image on this article for the one in the other article. Imadofus 00:29, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Factually incorrect statement

Many wonder if "Pigs (three differnt ones)" (a song dedicated to the highest class) was a political message to the ultra conservitive Brittish Prime minister of 77 Margret Thatcher.

Margaret Thatcher didn't become Prime Minister until 1979 Margaret_Thatcher


Yes, she didn't but she was rising in stature in Britian. It wasn't like she was an absolute unknown in British politics in '77. It mentions it in the song's AMG review, which is as good a source as any Doc Strange 19:14, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I've seen this mentioned in a few guitar magazines (sorry, no sources), but it's usually in connection with the 'bus-stop ratbag', who is actually identified in the song as Mary Whitehouse. I think the confusion just reflects the fact that Mary Whitehouse is not widely known outside the UK, while Margaret Thatcher obviously is. 219.89.2.59 06:51, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Tim Hunkin designed or built the pig?

According to this interview [1] the polymath Tim Hunkin was involved somehow making the pig? If true it deserves a mention. Richard W.M. Jones 21:03, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

He didn't make the big, inflatable pig, but paper pigs and sheep which were fired over concert audiences to parachute down. I've ever been able to track down pictures of these. Andy Mabbett 21:17, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
I believe it was Thorgerson and the folks at Hipgnosis who created the pig. Would make sense. Doc Strange 19:14, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
On my old vinyl copy of animals, on the sleeve it says "Inflatable pig designed by ERG", though who that refers to I do not know (I'd always assumed it was some company). 79.64.45.1 14:57, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Songwriting credits

Someone please source the disputes about songwriting credits or remove them. Rick Wright has outright said he contributed little to this record (and said that on those few times when he did try to contribute something, Roger Waters shot it down), and I can find no reference to Dave Gilmour laying claim to "Pigs (Three Different Ones)," though the Saucerful of Secrets book does imply that he, at minimum, feels a great deal of pride for "Sheep." Nick Mason, in fact, outright calls "much of the material," explicitly both "Dogs" and "Sheep," "songs that Roger had previously written." Carolus 17:15, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

gilmour said he wrote most (90% in his words) of dogs. sheep and pigs were roger's songs, though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Violarulez (talk • contribs) 05:54, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Waters as a dog

"the final line suggests the singer admits he is/was once one of the dogs"

Sheep contains the line "...we fell on his neck with a scream...", suggesting him as a sheep. At best, the evidence is contradictory. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.58.253.55 (talk) 14:30, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Pigs on the Wing part 2 suggest heavily that the singer (Waters in this case) has put his life as a dog behind himself. This is especially confirmed in the lines "Now that I've found somewhere safe / To bury my bone". He also appears to be talking about the love he has for another and how they will care for him, "So I don't feel alone Or the weight of the stone" The stone is mentioned as a trait of the dogs in the dogs song. --75.68.36.81 04:13, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Orwell's Animal Farm?

While the album does use similar figures to that of Animal Farm, Animals is targeted at the flaws of capitalism while Animal Farm is targeted at the flaws of Communism. I don't see how Animals can be said to be based off of Animal Farm other than a basic idea of representing society through a farm. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.68.36.81 (talk) 04:18, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

  • id say that animal farm is more of an attack against totalitarianism, than an attack against communism, thats at least how i always took it.74.192.12.135 (talk) 06:52, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
    • I added that the album had similar themes, but not the exact same as "Animal Farm". I think a mention of it deserved to be in the article, but I agree that the album isn't one big tribute to Orwell.--Gen. Quon (talk) 01:52, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Why not change the image?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Pink_Floyd-Animals-Frontal.jpg this one has a better resolution. Maybe there are some restrictions I don't know about? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.248.181.67 (talk) 23:17, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Star wars sync

Star ways sync? Yeh right... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.84.23.99 (talk) 08:12, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Biota template

I reverted a change where another editor inserted 3 "biota" templates. In case the issue comes up, here are some concerns I have: The template was created by the user on the same day it was inserted into the article, and according to him, was done for "demonstration". On his talk page, I questioned whether it was appropriate to use it in this article, and he did not address that issue. At that point I decided to remove it.

Aside from that, I have some concerns about the use of this template on Wikipedia. It would have to be used virtually everywhere to be useful, and I'm sure there is no official approval for its usage at this time. Will all respect to the user, who is trying to accomplish something he believes to be useful to some people, I'm having doubts this template would ever be approved. For one thing, it's not actually useful to Wikipedia users themselves, but is mainly for the benefit of outside agencies using "screen scrapers" to compile information. Since most users won't ever benefit from it, I doubt they would learn to understand when and why to use it, and trying to decide whether or not to add more templates when copying text or adding more similar text is likely to cause headaches. I don't think this feature could ever be documented adequately, and documentation would probably not be followed, especially considering that there is no visible change when the template is added (at least, not here; the user claims that the template can substitute words, but I'm not sure we want that either). Just look at how we tend to disregard rules where there is documentation, on things that are visible, such as templates. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 22:46, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree that there is no need whatever for the biota template in this article (much as one would not link dog, sheep etc). ('Fish-eye lens' is mentioned - an opportunity missed.) I look forward to the tfd on the biota template when perhaps a case will be made for it elsewhere. I suppose we could try user:{{biota|vernacular=Pig}}sonthewing}}. Occuli (talk) 19:33, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Template vs text list

I reverted the previous edit to the organised template list done by Gracz54. This is the list used on almost every other album on wikipedia, and is used on every Pink Floyd album between Meddle and the Wall, excluding this one (I didn't bother to check the other albums). Unless you have a reason for the proper template not to be used, which you should discuss here, it will be used. -- ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 17:13, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

It's not "proper" in the sense of not using it being improper. If you look at discussions about the template's usage on its own page, you will see recommendations that it be used when there is a good reason for it (it does have advantages in certain cases), but otherwise, a simple list format is also good, and may be preferable. We have had many discussions at the music and album WikiProjects about whether we should recommend the template's use in album articles in general, and there has been agreement that the answer is no. It was only recently that we updated the album article formatting instructions to mention the template at all, and currently it recommends either of list, table, or template for the discography, depending on the complexity of the listing, and most importantly, which one gives a better appearance on a given listing.
I felt encouraged to restore the list version because, in response to my observation that the template format is hard to read (in the way it's being used here) because it is using "hard-to-read small font", the other editor replied (via edit summary), "Who cares if it's easier to read? It's got to be the PROPER way, and this is the proper way" - in which he is completely mistaken. Readability is the PRIMARY reason for selecting which of the three methods to use. The edit summary seems to be acknowledging that the template, as used, is harder to read, but the editor feels there is a rule somewhere stating we have to use it, regardless. If we have agreement, even from the editor invoking the template, that it isn't as readable, then we certainly should be changing back to list format.
Speaking of proper procedure, when I reverted and asked for a discussion on the talk page, that didn't mean to change it back again, and then come to the talk page to say you did so. I am asking for consensus to be reached before putting in the template, and that's how it should be done. The fact that the other editor seems to agree that the template is not as readable, seems to be a vote for not using it, assuming he understands now that the template is not a requirement.
The question we should ask is, what advantage does the template version have over the list version? - and vice versa.
Looking at the article again, we could avoid the "tiny text" problem by just not using the "note" feature, and adding those notes to the title field. Another difference between the list and template versions, is that the list version said all songs by Waters with one exception as shown, which is a nicer way to do it when there is only one song with a different composer credit, so we don't have to show "Waters" multiple times. This can be done with either format method.
If anyone else has an opinion on which format we should use, please do comment. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 12:48, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Re-write

As per the other Floyd albums I've been working on, I hope nobody minds when I copy this to my sandbox and completely re-write it, with a view to GA? Parrot of Doom 19:00, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I've copied it across. Unfortunately there isn't much to read about the actual recording of the album, most sources seem concerned with the internal politics of the band. There is still a bit of tidying up to do, but better to do it in mainspace now the bulk of the article has been rewritten. Parrot of Doom 13:02, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Pig on the cover

I know it would only be a non-free image, but I do remember when the album cover was actually photographed. I saw an image of it on www.batterseapowerstation.org.uk. It may be pushing the limits of a non-free image, but it is an interesting image. Seth Whales (talk) 15:53, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Animals (album)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Jezhotwells (talk) 12:35, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I shall be reviewing this page against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status.


Checking against GA criteria

  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose):
    • In Recording we have Recording took place at Britannia Row, from April to December 1976, and also into early 1977. In Packaging we have The album was completed in December 1976, and work began on its cover. In Release we have Animals was released on 23 January 1977. These can't all be correct.
    • Povey, which I view as the most reliable source with regard to dates, claims that there were discontinuous recording sessions between April to December, and "Work here continued throughout the rest of the year and into early 1977". Blake (packaging) claims that the album was finished by Christmas. I think that Blake is probably just saying "largely complete", and the work early in 1977 was probably equalising levels, completing the final mixdown, copying masters, etc. I'll remove the date from "The album was completed in Dec 1976". Parrot of Doom 18:35, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
    • Packaging: Unfortunately inclement weather delayed shooting, and O'Rourke had neglected to book the marksman for a second day. Who is O'Rourke? He doesn't seem to be mentioned before.
    b (MoS):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references):
    • Background: 1976 was a period in Britain's history dominated by industrial action, racial violence, high inflation, and high unemployment. Can you cite that?
    b (citations to reliable sources):
    • Ref #18 should be cited to Mojo directly rather thane neptunepinkfloyd. The latter is just a convenience link.
    • True, but we should always cite the first instance of what we read. While I trust NPF is a reliable source (although it might not pass FAC), I think its better to cite that page, until somebody can check the issue of Mojo quoted to see if its correct. Parrot of Doom 18:31, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
    • Ok, I'll buy that.
    c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its scope.
    a (major aspects):
    b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):
    b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:

Reference in "Children Of Men"

in the movie "children of men", one of the characters comes into posession of battersea power station, and is seen to have had a giant inflatable pig installed in an effort to emulate this album's artwork, i thought maybe this might be worth a mention on this page, and maybe even a screen grab?

Track times

I'm wondering where the track times in the article came from because I haven't found any source that matches up with them. After searching on Discogs, I came across a few scans with different times. We should find one hard source and cite it in the article. Most of the releases did not list the track times. The only vinyl I could find with track times was the German vinyl, so that's the times I would go with, but I wanted to get more input here.

Track Article current German vinyl (1977) US CD (1985) Remastered CD (1994)
Pigs on the Wing 1 1:24 1:25 1:24 1:25
Dogs 17:06 17:03 17:03 17:04
Pigs (Three Different Ones) 11:28 11:25 11:30 11:22
Sheep 10:21 10:25 10:18 10:24
Pigs on the Wing 2 1:27 1:23 1:24 1:25

–Dream out loud (talk) 01:02, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

They've probably been added from someone's CD-rip. I'll check my Vinyl, but I'm happy to go with whatever you suggest. Parrot of Doom 10:54, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
Since you're one of the main contributors to the article and you think it's alright, I've gone ahead and changed the track times to that of the German vinyl. If there are any other original vinyls out there (from 1977) that have different track times, please me me know. –Dream out loud (talk) 05:41, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Parrot of Doom's obstruction

Parrot,

0. you do not own this article. Your actions are unacceptable.

  • 1. You have given no reasoning about why the rejection of Pink Floyd by punk music is in any way relevant to the album. Please explain it to me?
  • 2. Stop accusing me of deleting sourced material - I actually moved the punk section to the general Pink Floyd article where it is on topic (though overall not that important).
  • 3. "Although for this new musical movement Waters' success might have counted against him, his concerns with inequality, prejudice, and the social-political attitudes of the day, were not far removed from those expressed by the new breed of rock bands." says more about this "new breed", is furthermore a overly lauding description of Roger Water. Again, it is not about the album.
  • 4. "Animals is loosely based on George Orwell's political fable Animal Farm, where various castes in society are represented as animals" - that much is correct, even though the word "caste" is not the best way to put it. But the specifics are problematic:
    • a. "dogs as enforcers of the law" - that is correct for both the album and the book, though they are not actually enforcers "of the law" in either case. Simply enforcers would do.
    • b. "pigs as ruthless leaders" - true for the novel, but not entirely for the album, which describes them all "charade you are". Is Mary Whitehouse considered a "ruthless leader" by the lyrics? The ruthless ones in the album are the dogs.
    • c. "sheep as the mindless pawns" - the clearest mistake on that version's part: in the album, the sheep are the subjugated people which eventually rise up, but in Animal Farm, the sheep are the progandists of the pigs' regime, repeating their slogans ad nauseum.
  • 5. With the specifics, it is not clear in every case, whether the attribution is taken from the album or the novel. (You can look up the novel's allegory at Animal Farm.) I no case do they fit both. The album's desciprition can do without any of these.
  • 6. "the album is a critique of the worst aspects of capitalism" - is a violation of the NPOV policy. Please attribute this to someone, e.g. Roger Waters.
  • 7. "and although both advocate a democratic socialist ideal" - does the novel advocate that?
  • 8. And of course, the sheep would not rise up in the novel, as they are not the subjugated people.
  • 9. Your reference to a single source will not do, as that would have to be attributed to that source. You simply portray it as matters of fact.
  • 10. I changed the description of "Pigs" in accord with the article on that song - why restrict this to simply the "Mary Whitehouse" verse? And yes, "pro-censorship campaigner" is POV and (like her or not) misses her point entirely. Whatever does "one of the apocryphal pigs" mean? And never mind that Whitehouse is - in contrast to others - actually mentioned by name.
  • 11. Your edits simply remove the actual context of the album in the situation Britain was in at the time.
  • 12. Why you insist that the abbreviation should be thrown into the mix (when WP has no space problem and the full term is more accessible and better stylistically) is beyond me. Probably you just reject any change by me or by anyone but you.
  • 13. And yes, "British" is the adjective referring to the UK.

Str1977 (talk) 08:46, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

How about addressing the actual issues.
And how about not blanket reverting all the time - clear proof of your claim to WP:OWNership. Str1977 (talk)
Always the first resort of those with the weakest argument, isn't it? Try discussing things rationally, without resorting to bullshit accusations. You might then find me a little more willing to accept your arbitrary, unsourced and unexplained changes, which appear to reflect your personal views more than they do the views of the authors referenced for this article. Parrot of Doom 09:29, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
Pre-S: Answering, as you did within my lines (and at that inconsistently regarding the format, will soon make the discussion unreadable. I have there added numbers and moved your answer further down. Hope you at least have no problem with that.)

Parrot, you do not own this article. Your actions are unacceptable.

    • Frankly I have little or no time for people who roll out the "own" argument. Take it for granted that I'm well aware of Wikipedia's policies.
  • You have given no reasoning about why the rejection of Pink Floyd by punk music is in any way relevant to the album. Please explain it to me?
    • Its relevant enough for the sources used, its relevant therefore here. If you need it explaining, go and buy the books, as I did. You can read all about it there.
  • Stop accusing me of deleting sourced material - I actually moved the punk section to the general Pink Floyd article where it is on topic (though overall not that important).
    • Yes, you moved it to the main article where it fits like a square peg in a round hole. It belongs here, not there.
  • "Although for this new musical movement Waters' success might have counted against him, his concerns with inequality, prejudice, and the social-political attitudes of the day, were not far removed from those expressed by the new breed of rock bands." says more about this "new breed", is furthermore a overly lauding description of Roger Water. Again, it is not about the album.
    • It is about the album, since Animals is considered by some to be a reaction to the punk music popular at that time. It could perhaps use something like "in the opinion of author...", so I will check that later today.
  • "Animals is loosely based on George Orwell's political fable Animal Farm, where various castes in society are represented as animals" - that much is correct, even though the word "caste" is not the best way to put it. But the specifics are problematic:
    • "dogs as enforcers of the law" - that is correct for both the album and the book, though they are not actually enforcers "of the law" in either case. Simply enforcers would do.
    • "pigs as ruthless leaders" - true for the novel, but not entirely for the album, which describes them all "charade you are". Is Mary Whitehouse considered a "ruthless leader" by the lyrics? The ruthless ones in the album are the dogs.
      • That's your interpretation, the source used differs.
    • "sheep as the mindless pawns" - the clearest mistake on that version's part: in the album, the sheep are the subjugated people which eventually rise up, but in Animal Farm, the sheep are the progandists of the pigs' regime, repeating their slogans ad nauseum.
      • See above reply.
  • With the specifics, it is not clear in every case, whether the attribution is taken from the album or the novel. (You can look up the novel's allegory at Animal Farm.) I no case do they fit both. The album's desciprition can do without any of these.
    • I disagree.
  • "the album is a critique of the worst aspects of capitalism" - is a violation of the NPOV policy. Please attribute this to someone, e.g. Roger Waters.
    • That was once sourced, but has either been moved and the citation appears elsewhere, or has been changed beyond recognition. I will track it down.
  • "and although both advocate a democratic socialist ideal" - does the novel advocate that?
    • See above.
  • And of course, the sheep would not rise up in the novel, as they are not the subjugated people.
  • Your reference to a single source will not do, as that would have to be attributed to that source. You simply portray it as matters of fact.
  • I changed the description of "Pigs" in accord with the article on that song - why restrict this to simply the "Mary Whitehouse" verse? And yes, "pro-censorship campaigner" is POV and (like her or not) misses her point entirely. Whatever does "one of the apocryphal pigs" mean? And never mind that Whitehouse is - in contrast to others - actually mentioned by name.
    • I see nothing about Margaret Thatcher on pages 243-244 of Blake's book.
  • Your edits simply remove the actual context of the album in the situation Britain was in at the time.
  • Why you insist that the abbreviation should be thrown into the mix (when WP has no space problem and the full term is more accessible and better stylistically) is beyond me. Probably you just reject any change by me or by anyone but you.
    • Because its inconsistent with other Floyd album articles.
  • And yes, "British" is the adjective referring to the UK.
So far, you are the one that seems obsessed with shouting out profanities. But maybe I should be grateful that you respond to issues at all.
0. If you are aware of them, why don't you act in accordance with them? The one's you seem to misunderstand is WP:OWN, and WP:NPOV. I will specify the latter further down.
  • 1. Your "Its relevant enough for the sources" is seriously flawed. Neither of the sources cited in regarding the "punk issue" is about the Animals album - they are about Floyd in general. Do the sources somehow link the album with the "punk issue", e.g. that Floyd in this album somehow reacted to punk or that punk music specifically railed against this album? If there is a link, please make it clear and I would be happy to include it as it would be most interesting. However, if it simply that punk (and their anti-Floyd stance) and the album appeared at the same time, then the punk issue has no place in this article. The responsibility of justifying your edits rests with you, not with me or the books. Explain it to me!
  • 2. How does it not fit into the Floyd article? I am not happy with the placing either (and wouldn't mind simply moving it to the Animals section - for strictly temporal reasons) but, as I said, if punks railed against Floyd, it is certainly more relevant to an article about the band. It belongs there, not here!
  • 3. Thanks for a proper response on this.
    "It is about the album, since Animals is considered by some to be a reaction to the punk music popular at that time.
    That's what I am looking for. Can we verbalise this so that it can be put into the article?
    "It could perhaps use something like "in the opinion of author...", so I will check that later today."
    This passage and others as well (here is what I meant by your disregard thus far for NPOV. I will have a look at your suggestion.
  • 4. It is not merely my interpretation. What I told you about the book is factual and you can look it up at Animal Farm or read the book itself. I give you that point "a" (Dogs) is merely wording and point "b" is arguable but point "c" is clearly wrong when it speaks about the novel. A possible solution would be to simply (and clearly) restrict this passage to the identification within the confines of the album, e.g. the album uses dogs to portray ..., pigs to portray ... and sheep to portray ... And that is all any book on the album or Floyd in general is qualified to do. A Floyd expert might be a lousy Orwell reader (or no Orwell reader at all).
PS. Rethinking things (and listening to the song), "Dogs" is not mere wording. The dogs in Animal Farm are Napoleon's enforcers, whereas the song speaks about business executives. Dogs (Pink Floyd song) speaks in a similar vein. Does your source say something else? If so, I'd like to see it as then we would have a problem. Str1977 (talk) 17:05, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
  • 5. Is "I disagree" supposed to be an argument? My point is not that the album article must not explain the allegory in detail but that it needn't do this. However, if it does, the information must be correct and must not included nonsense about the book.
  • 6. "the album is a critique of the worst aspects of capitalism" - "That was once sourced, but has either been moved and the citation appears elsewhere, or has been changed beyond recognition. I will track it down."
    Thanks but sourcing it alone will not do. As the language "the worst aspects of capitalism" is inherently POV. The main problem is that we shouldn't cover Roger Waters' opinion as fact.
  • 7. The article should be content to speak of the album alone.
  • 8. This point is basically identical to "4.c." (Sheep) - all the more urgend that we get it right.
  • 9. No response on your part.
  • 10. I took the Thatcher information from the Pigs (Three Different Ones) article, which in turn sources to an Allmusic review. (That it is not on certain pages in a certain book is simply not enough. We're not here to replicate the Blake book, are we?) I did not make this up. My intention was that we shouldn't be merely addressing the third of the pigs.
    Which brings us to the points you ignore:
    What are "apocryphal pigs"?
    How is "pro-censorship campaigner" NPOV?
  • 11. No response on your part.
  • 12., 13. That other Floyd articles are lazy in that regard, is not an argument. UK is not an adjective. It is bad style.

Str1977 (talk) 11:30, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

If you think I'm going to waste my time scrolling up and down reading through that lot, you're mistaken. That's why I replied to each point, indented. Parrot of Doom 18:05, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
Still waiting for your clarifications on the things you mentioned and response on the other things.
By now the discussion would be unreadable when replying within the lines. Str1977 (talk) 08:08, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Until you restore my replies to their original position, where they are easiest to read, I'll not be bothering with this conversation. Perhaps you have your monitor turned through 90 degrees, but I do not. Parrot of Doom 09:06, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Though I disagree with the demand, with your tendency to constantly shouting out insults against all who disagree with you, I have - as a gesture of good will - restored your comments the way to posted them, though not in between my lines but separately (with my lines repeated). Don't mess around in my postings! And always make sure that it is clear who is saying what (an option would be quoting the lines you respond to in your posting).
Now, I hope you finally get around to saying anything substantial. Str1977 (an experienced editor) (talk) 09:54, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
I find it hilarious that one who claims that I am obstructive and that I own this article is the first to feel insulted by the use of a few choice words. I'm not going to waste my time navigating your question and answer session until you restore my replies into some semblance of order. If that leaves you feeling unfulfilled or confused, then frankly I really don't give a shit. Parrot of Doom 10:19, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
I have restored your posting as they stood. The only difference is that my posting appears above them in the way I posted them. Your demand has been complied with (or where does your problem lie? Point me to it because I can't see it!), now fulfill your part. Otherwise I must see your "I will look into it" as nothing but lies and hypocrisy and will draw my conclusions.
And again, your fecal language only makes yourself look dirty. Str1977 (an experienced editor) (talk) 14:56, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
I wasn't aware that I had to follow your orders, and please do me the favour of not presuming that I am at all interested in your opinion of me, or my language. I will look into the points raised which I feel may have merit, but I will not be making any substantial changes to those with which I disagree. If you want to see those changed, then find some manner of consensus, backed up by reliable sources and not your intuition. Article improvement isn't merely about deleting things you find objectionable. Do yourself a favour, get copies of the source material and read them. Then, perhaps, you might be less willing to hit the revert button.
And perhaps, just maybe, you might be a little more willing in future to refrain from making offensive allegations against editors' motives; because then, you'd no longer be talking out of your arse. Parrot of Doom 16:36, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Parrot, this is getting absurd.
I presented my case here on talk and you said you would look into some issues. Then I made a purely format change that didn't affect the content of either our postings. I had my reasons for these (right or wrong) and you disagreed (right or wrong). Fine! I restored the former format of your posting, as you requested. As you had before said you would look into it and then that you wouldn't proceed as long as my format change wasn't reverted, I assumed that after I did adhere to your request you would do as you said before. Now, I have done so and you still complain and do nothing...?!
Nowhere have I issued any orders to you. I simply took you by your word.
Nowhere have I impugned on your motives. You seem to be imagining things. You however have thrown around insults and dirty language since day 1.
Note that if you are not interested in my opinion, neither am I particular interested in yours. However, I am interested in a good, that is accurate, balanced and well-written article.
I see that there is no reasoning with you and my initial comment, that you indeed think yourself the OWNer of these articles was correct. Str1977 (an experienced editor) (talk) 20:16, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
More baseless accusations and blanket reverting:
  • "creating new paragraphs leading to removal of citations" - I did NOT remove citations!
  • "stylistic changes inconsistent with other floyd albums" - if you refer to the UK/US issue - you agreed to that compromise on the other talk page!
  • "reformatting quotes from source" - what are you talking about?
And if one simply leaves out the pointless citation of "house proud town mouse" (which must be by far the greatest line ever written in music! Very notable) one need not be divided among oneself whether to link or not to link.
Apparent OWNership visible again! Str1977 (talk) 21:20, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Content dispute

I saw a lot of anger and mud-slinging here so I took it down so we can properly discuss what needs to happen at this article. So, what needs to happen? --John (talk) 05:46, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

First of all, no discussions should be removed. That is against wikirules, isn't it. But to help a fresh start along, I have moved the section into the archives.
Then, all content issues should be discussed one by one. And I mean really discussed. Str1977 (talk) 08:52, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
It seems like things are going better here. Well done for the progress you are making. --John (talk) 18:33, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
I'm much happier if possible errors or omissions are pointed out and discussed first. It makes correcting or improving them much easier. Parrot of Doom 18:48, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Statements about Animal Farm

The article correctly states that the album is based on Animal Farm:

"The album is loosely based on George Orwell's political fable Animal Farm, where various castes in society are represented as animals; dogs as enforcers of the law, pigs as ruthless leaders, and sheep as "the mindless and unquestioning herd".[13] Whereas the novella focuses on communism, the album is a critique of capitalism, and although both advocate a democratic socialist ideal the album differs again in that the sheep eventually rise up to overpower their oppressors.[14][13]"

The passage is unclear whether the clause "dogs as enforcers of the law, pigs as ruthless leaders, and sheep as "the mindless and unquestioning herd" refers to the album or the book. IMHO it is enough to cover here the allegories as used in the album and leave the book to other articles. (Including statements about the novel advocating "democratic socialism" - in itself, the book advocated nothing.)

As Animal Farm shows, the sheep in the novel are not simply "the mindless and unquestioning herd", not simply the opressed masses but that part of society that mindlessly repeats and spreads the leaders' propaganda.

Issues how factual the current description in the context of the album, I leave to another section. Str1977 (talk) 09:08, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, PoD, for making changes in that regard and further, on the actual allegories made by the album (removing the claim that dogs are enforcers). I clarified this a bit further.
IMHO, one shouldn't speak of "overpower their oppressors" as the sheep are then sent home again by someone, suggesting there is still somebody commanding them left. Str1977 (talk) 08:29, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Animals (Pink Floyd album)/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

"to George Orwell's anti-communist novel "Animal Farm": In the book various animals (mainly pigs, sheep, dogs, etc.) represent different roles assumed by individuals in a communist society." - i'm not sure it's correct. 'animal farm' represents modern totalitarian society which includes capitalistic society also.

Last edited at 17:02, 26 June 2011 (UTC). Substituted at 14:14, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Animals_(Pink_Floyd_album)/Archive_1&oldid=1087809458"