document_title: Apportionment (politics)

question_text: what is reapportionment and when does it take place

text: Apportionment (politics)

text: Apportionment in theory[edit]

text: The simplest and most universal principle is that elections should give each voter's intentions equal weight. This is both intuitive and stated in historical documents such as the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution (the Equal Protection Clause). However, there are a variety of historical and technical reasons why this principle is not followed absolutely or as a first priority.

text: Common problems[edit]

text: Fundamentally, the representation of a population in the thousands or millions by a governing body that is much smaller involves arithmetic that will not be exact. Although it could make representation more exact for a representative's vote in the governing body to be weighted according to the number of his constituents,[1] it avoids complexity and awkwardness if each representative has exactly 1 vote.

text: Over time, populations migrate and change in number, and preferences change. Governing bodies, however, usually exist for a defined term of office. While Parliamentary systems provide for dissolution of the body in reaction to political events, no system tries to make real-time adjustments to reflect demographic changes. Instead, any redistricting takes effect at the next scheduled election or after the next scheduled census.

text: Apportionment by district[edit]

text: In some representative assemblies, each member represents a geographic district. Equal representation requires that districts comprise the same number of residents or voters. But this is not universal, for reasons including the following:

text:
In federations like the United States, and confederations like Canada, the regions, states, or provinces are important as more than mere election districts. For example, residents of New York State identify as New Yorkers and not merely as members of some 415th Congressional district; the state also has institutional interests that it seeks to pursue in Congress through its representatives. Consequently, election districts do not span regions.
Malapportionment might be deliberate, as when the governing documents guarantee outlying regions a specific number of seats. Denmark guarantees two seats each for Greenland and the Faroe Islands; Spain (see below) has a number of designated seats; and Canada (see below) favors its territories. Remote regions might have special circumstances that the governing body should take into account, or might be motivated to secede.
The administrative quantum in an election is not the voter but the voting place (for example, a municipality or a precinct within a municipality). The government does not organize the perfect number of voters into an election district, but a roughly appropriate number of voting places.
The basis for apportionment may be out of date. For example, in the United States, apportionment follows the decennial census. The states conducted the 2010 elections with districts apportioned according to the 2000 Census. The lack of accuracy does not justify a new census before each biennial election.

text: A perfectly apportioned governing body does not ensure good representation; voters who did not vote for their district's winner might have no representative who is disposed to voice their opinion in the governing body. Conversely, a representative in the governing body may voice the opinions held by a voter who is not actually their constituent, though representatives usually seek to serve their own constituents first and will only voice the interests of an outside group of voters if it pertains to their district as well or is of national importance. In any case, the representative does not technically represent the voter as the elected official from their district.

text: Apportionment by party list[edit]

text: Nations such as Israel and the Netherlands use party-list proportional representation elections. Mexico does so for some of the members of its lower house.

text: In this system, voters do not vote for a person to represent their geographic district, but for a political party that aligns with the voter's philosophy. Each party names a number of representatives based on the number of votes it receives nationally.

text: This system does not give effect to every voter's preference. Parties with very few voters do not earn even one representative in the governing body; moreover, most proportional systems impose a threshold that a party must reach (for example, some percentage of the total vote) to qualify to obtain representatives in the body. This eliminates extreme parties, to try to make the governing body more orderly.

text: The vast majority of voters elect representatives of their philosophies. However, unlike district systems, no one elects a representative that represents him/her, or the specific region, and voters might have no personal contact with their representatives.

text: Mathematics of apportionment[edit]

text: There are many different mathematical schemes for calculating apportionment, differing primarily in how they handle rounding of fractional representatives. The schemes can produce different results in terms of seats for the relevant party or sector. Additionally, all methods are subject to one or more anomalies. The article on the largest remainder method presents several schemes and discusses their trade-offs, with examples.

text: Malapportionment[edit]

text: Malapportionment or misapportionment is the creation of electoral districts with divergent ratios of voters to representatives. For example, if one single-member district has 10,000 voters and another has 100,000 voters, voters in the former district have ten times the influence, per person, over the governing body. Malapportionment may be deliberate, for reasons such as favouring equity of groups over equality of individuals. For example, in a federation, each member unit may have the same representation regardless of its population.

text: The effect might not be just a vague empowerment of some voters but a systematic bias to the nation's government. Many instances worldwide arise in which large, sparsely populated rural regions are given equal representation to densely packed urban areas.[2] For example, in the United States (see below), the Republican Party benefits from institutional advantages to rural states with low populations, and the Senate and the Presidency often reflect results in opposition to the popular vote. Unequal representation that does not introduce biases into the governing body is not as controversial.

text: Unequal representation can be measured in the following ways:

text:
By the ratio of the most populous electoral district to the least populous. In the example above, the ratio is 10:1. A ratio approaching 1:1 means there are no anomalies among districts. In India in 1991, a ratio of nearly 50:1 was measured.[3] The Reynolds v. Sims decision of the U.S. Supreme Court found ratios of up to 1081:1 in state legislatures. A higher ratio measures the severity of the worst anomalies, but does not indicate whether inequality is prevalent.
By the standard deviation of the populations of electoral districts.
By the smallest percentage of voters that could win a majority in the governing body due to disparities in the populations of districts. For example, in a 61-member body, this would be half the voters in the 31 districts with the lowest populations. It is persuasive to show that far fewer than 50% of the voters could win a majority in the governing body. But it requires additional research to conclude that such an outcome is realistic: whether the malapportionment is systematic and designed to bias the body, or is the result of random factors that give extra power to voters whose interests are unlikely to coincide.[4]

text: Even when electoral districts have similar populations, legislators may draw the boundaries to pursue private agendas; see Gerrymandering.

text: Anomalies by country[edit]

text: Australia[edit]

text: The Australian Senate is elected on a basis of equality among the States: all States elect 12 senators. Tasmania, with a population of 502,000, elects the same number of senators as New South Wales, with almost 7.1 million. This was deliberate under the Australian Constitution to protect the less populous States, without which federation would not have been agreed to, and can only be changed via a national referendum.[5]

text: There has been malapportionment of electoral districts in both the Federal and State legislatures in the past, often resulting in rural constituencies containing far fewer voters than urban ones and maintaining in power those parties that have rural support despite polling fewer popular votes. Past apportionments in Queensland, Western Australia and the 'Playmander' in South Australia were notorious examples of the differences between urban and rural constituency sizes. In extreme cases, rural areas had four times the voting power of metropolitan areas. Supporters of such arrangements claimed Australia's urban population dominates the countryside and that these practices gave fair representation to country people. (See: Australian electoral system#Gerrymandering and malapportionment.)

text: Canada[edit]

text: In Canada, each federal electoral district ("riding") is represented by one Member of Parliament (MP). Ridings are based on population, but each territory is also given an MP; so Nunavut receives one MP even though its population in 2006 was only 29,474.

text: Certain provisions in the Constitution and law (the "grandfather clause" and the "senatorial clause") guarantee that provinces cannot have fewer MPs than they had in 1982.[6] The apportionment method is to grant one MP to each territory, and allocate 279 other MPs according to population among the 10 provinces. After doing so, the provinces with slower historical population growth since joining the Confederation receive extra ridings so as not to lose MPs. After the 1991 Census, 19 extra ridings were created, making a total of 301. After the 2001 Census, seven more ridings were created, making a total of 308.

text: That ridings were not eliminated but only added created huge disparities. For example, in 2006 the Peace River riding in Alberta had a population of 138,009, whilst Charlottetown riding in Prince Edward Island had a population of 32,174; yet both ridings received equal representation in the House of Commons. Rural ridings even in populous provinces also tended to have more constituents than urban ridings.

text: The Fair Representation Act, passed in 2011 and effective for the federal election that took place in 2015, specified a uniform "electoral quotient" of 111,166 (to be readjusted after each future census) but again ensured that no province would lose ridings, increasing the size of the House of Commons to 338.[7]

text: Ireland[edit]

text: The Constitution of Ireland states that general elections to the Dáil must use the single transferable vote, that each Dáil constituency must return at least three members (TDs), that constituency boundaries must be revised at least every twelve years, and that the ratio of TDs to inhabitants (not voters or citizens) be equal "so far as it is practicable".[8] The Supreme Court ruled in 1961 that the Dáil had wide latitude to decide what degree of divergence was "practicable" and what factors could be considered; nevertheless the Court reserved the right to judicial review of proposed boundaries.[9] Current practice is for constituencies to return one TD for every 20,000 to 30,000 voters.

text: Around urban centres, constituency boundaries are drawn in such a way that each constituency comprises part of the urban centre and a larger part of its rural hinterland, rather than creating a single urban constituency surrounded by fewer rural ones. As a result of this practice, only Dublin, which has a much larger population than any other Irish urban centre, has constituencies where TDs are elected by an exclusively urban electorate: in all other areas, constituencies cover either exclusively rural populations, or a mix of both rural and urban.

text: Japan[edit]

text: Voters in rural prefectures are over-represented in the Japanese parliament, and those in urban prefectures are under-represented. The conservative Liberal Democratic Party thus wins more seats in the Japanese parliament because its voters are concentrated in more rural prefectures.

text: Malaysia[edit]

text: The voters in rural districts are over-represented in Malaysia while the urban districts are under-represented. The largest parliamentary seat (Kapar) is nine times larger than the smallest one (Putrajaya). On average, the rural parliamentary seats are over-represented by six times compared to the urban seats.[10]

text: New Zealand[edit]

text: Between 1881 and 1945 New Zealand applied a system of malapportionment called the country quota, which required urban districts to contain more people than rural ones but did not give them any equivalent increase in representation.

text: Norway[edit]

text: Out of the 169 seats in the Storting, 150 are apportioned among the 19 Counties of Norway with deliberate bias in favor of rural areas. The number of seats for a county is decided using a formula in which a county receives 1 point for every inhabitant and 1.8 points for every square kilometer of land area. However, the bias is reduced by the 19 compensation seats, which are given to parties that are underrepresented. Thus the system does not have a great effect on the partisan composition of the Storting, but does result in more MPs coming from rural counties. Electoral researcher Bernt Aardal calculated that if the 2009 parliamentary election had been conducted without this bias, the Labour Party and Progress Party would both have lost a seat, while the Red Party and Liberal Party would each have gained one, reducing the majority of the Red-Green Coalition from 3 seats to 1.[11]

text: Slovakia[edit]

text: The difference in electorates between the districts was a matter before the Constitutional Court and UN Human Rights Committee, both of which found the rights of a candidate not elected in a district with larger electorate to be violated, but did not request new elections.[12]

text: South Africa[edit]

text: In the South African general election of 1948, South Africa's constituency boundaries meant that sparsely populated rural constituencies in the Afrikaner heartland had relatively few eligible voters compared to the urban constituencies in Cape Town. The rural electorates often strongly supported the Reunited National Party, led by Daniel Malan and the urban electorates often supported Jan Christiaan Smuts' United Party (the incumbent prime minister and his party, 90% of whose seats were urban). The 1948 general election saw the Reunited National Party winning more seats than the United Party, meaning that Malan was able to form a government bilaterally with the Afrikaner Party and gain an absolute majority in parliament. This was despite the fact the United Party had won 49% of the vote compared to 38% for Malan's party. By comparison, the British general election of 1945 was also conducted under first past the post but with more equal constituencies, and produced a landslide victory for a party which received 47% of the vote. Malapportionment was a key tool that allowed the National Party to implement its Apartheid program within the notionally democratic parliament.

text: Spain[edit]

text: The Spanish Congress of Deputies consists of 350 members. Each Spanish province is a constituency entitled to an initial minimum of two seats for a total of 100 seats, while the North African enclaves of Ceuta and Melilla are allocated one member each. The remaining 248 seats are allocated among the fifty provinces in proportion to their populations.[13] The result is that the smaller provinces are virtually guaranteed a minimum of three seats and have a disproportionate share of seats relative to their electorate. For example, in 2004, Spain had 34,571,831 voters, an average of 98,777 voters per deputy.[14] However, the number of voters per deputy varied from 129,269 in Barcelona [15] and 127,377 in Madrid [16] to 38,714 and 26,177 respectively in the smallest provinces of Teruel [17] and Soria.[18]

text: In the Spanish Senate each of the forty-seven mainland provinces are assigned four seats, while the three largest islands are allocated three seats each, and the seven smaller islands one each. The North African enclaves of Ceuta and Melilla are allocated two seats each. Additionally, the legislative assemblies of the seventeen autonomous communities into which the provinces of Spain are grouped are entitled to appoint at least one Senator each, as well as one Senator for every million voters. The result is a bias in favour of mainly rural areas. For example, the community of Madrid with 4,458,540 voters in 2004 has 9 senators while Castilla y León with 2,179,521 voters has a total of 39 senators.

text: United Kingdom[edit]

text: The number of electors in a United Kingdom constituency can vary considerably. This variation has resulted from:

text:
Legislation; beginning with the Redistribution of Seats Act 1958, which replaced an electoral quota (ideal population) for the whole United Kingdom with four separate quotas: England 69,534; Northern Ireland 67,145, Wales 58,383, and Scotland 54,741 voters per constituency.
Decisions of the four UK Boundary Commissions to favour geographically "natural" districts.
Population migrations between boundary reviews, which have tended to decrease the number of voters in inner-city districts, a trend that usually favours the Labour Party.[19]

text: Currently, the populations of constituencies vary by fourfold, from Scotland's Na h-Eileanan an Iar (21,837 voters) and Orkney and Shetland (33,755), to England's East Ham (91,531) and Isle of Wight (110,924).

text: Periodic reviews by the Boundary Commissions are submitted to the House of Commons for approval, primarily to prevent the reemergence of any new rotten boroughs. The House is allowed to ignore or delay implementation of their findings, but not change them. The Sixth Periodic Review of Westminster constituencies, instigated to reduce the number of MPs from 650 to 600 and address the current malapportionment, was suspended until after the 2015 general election, by a vote of the House in January 2013.

text: United States[edit]

text: Apportionment at the federal level of the United States government is guided by the rubrics of the U.S. Constitution. The writers of the Constitution designed the nation's bicameral Legislature to include, a Senate (the upper legislative chamber) to represent the states, and a House of Representatives (the lower legislative chamber) to represent the people rather than the states. Each state—in its entirety—is equally represented in the Senate by two senators, regardless of its population. The constitution guarentees each state at least one representative for its people in the House, while the size of a state's House delegation depends on its total population.[20] Each state is apportioned a number of seats which approximately corresponds to its share of the aggregate population of the 50 states, as determined by the most recent decennial U.S. census. This governance plan came about as a result of the Connecticut Compromise reached during Constitutional Convention of 1787 between delegates from states with a large population and those from states with a small population. The Constitution also prescribes that the President and Vice President be elected by a group of people apportioned among the states in the same numbers as their representatives in Congress, called the Electoral College.

text: As the Constitution's apportionment procedures are established solely for the states in the Union, neither the District of Columbia nor the country's territories and possessions are included. Therefore, they do not have the same representation in the federal government as states do.

text: Senate[edit]

text: Under Article I, Section 3, of the U.S. Constitution, each state has two seats in the Senate. This equality of representation is shielded from being amended by Article V which specifies that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of having the same number of seats as the others. (Neither the District of Columbia, nor the country's territories and possessions have representation in the Senate, as they are not states.)

text: Senators from each state were originally elected by that state's legislature, and influenced only indirectly by the voters, through their election of state legislators. The 17th Amendment, ratified in 1913, provided for direct election of U.S. Senators. It did not however, change the principle of equal representation of the states in the Senate, which, as James Madison noted in The Federalist No. 39, ensures a polity of mixed sovereignty, one in which the states are an integral part of the federal government. This, of course, is precisely why those who do not think the Constitution not democratic enough would wish to remove that portion of the Constitution.[21] The 38 million people who live in the nation’s 22 least populous states are represented by 44 senators, while the 38 million residents of California, the most populous state, are represented by two.[2]

text: House[edit]

text: The House of Representatives, by comparison, is required by Article I, Section 2, to be "apportioned among the several states... according to their respective numbers." The Constitution does not provide for either fractional votes nor Congressional seats spanning states, and guarantees every state at least one Representative. Thus, a resident of a state whose population just barely qualifies for two Representatives has almost twice the relative influence as a resident of a state that does not quite qualify for two.

text: 2 U.S.C. § 2a, based on the Reapportionment Act of 1929, reapportions the Representatives to the states following each decennial census. It left the states to decide how and whether to redistrict, except in the case that the census changes the state's number of Representatives, but federal court cases now require states to redistrict based on each census.

text: However, here too, other criteria take precedence over exact equality of representation. In 2012, the Supreme Court endorsed Tennant v. Jefferson County the use of other criteria, including the legislature's reluctance to move voters between districts, to put incumbent Congressmen in the same district, and to divide counties between districts, when the State of West Virginia redrew its three Congressional districts with a disparity of 0.79% between the most populous and least populous district.

text: Washington, D.C. and the five largest possessions are instead represented by non-voting delegates. During the tenure of Speaker of the House Tip O'Neill between 1977 and 1987, these delegates were allowed to vote on legislation except for the final, formal vote on enactment. The country's other possessions do not have any representation in the House.

text: President[edit]

text: The U.S. President is elected only indirectly by voters, through the Electoral College. Under Article II, Section 1, Clause 2, of the U.S. Constitution, the number of electors for every state is the sum of the number of that state's senators and representatives. This was also a result of the original Connecticut Compromise between large and small states. The effect is to give each state a two-elector bonus (for the state's two Senators) regardless of population. A low-population state does not receive one elector in a body of 435, but three electors out of 535. The two-elector bonus is comparatively minor for a state with a high population.

text: Washington, D.C. did not have a voice in the selection of the President until 1961, when the 23rd Amendment was ratified, giving D.C. the treatment of a state in the Electoral College ("but in no event more than the least populous State"; that is, three electors, increasing the total number of electors to 538).

text: U.S. territories and possessions still have no voice in the selection of the President. In 2000, Puerto Rico attempted to include the U.S. Presidential election on its ballots, knowing that the Electoral College would not count its result. However, the move was declared unconstitutional by the First Circuit Court of Appeals, and the Presidential ballot was not handed out to voters on election day.[22]

text: A separate obstacle to proportional representation is that almost all of the states choose electors on a "winner-take-all" basis,[23] where the state's electors are awarded to the candidate with the most popular votes in that state. Maine and Nebraska are the only states that instead use the "congressional district method", selecting one elector within each congressional district by popular vote and awarding two electors by a statewide popular vote.[24] With the "winner-takes-all" method used by most of the states, a candidate can still win the presidency without winning the national popular vote (such as what happened in 1824, 1876, 1888, 2000, and 2016).

text: The Electoral College denies voters equal influence in the Presidential election. However, it induces Presidential candidates to campaign outside large population centers and insulates small states from being overwhelmed by election irregularities in large population centers. On the other hand, the electoral college encourages political campaigners to focus on so-called "swing states" while ignoring the rest of the country. States in which polling shows no clear favorite are usually inundated with campaign visits, television advertising, get-out-the-vote efforts by party organizers and debates, while "four out of five" voters in the national election are "absolutely ignored," according to one assessment.[25]

text: In the event that the Electoral College does not produce a majority for any candidate, the 12th Amendment (roughly as Article II, Section 1 had done) throws the election to the U.S. House (the U.S. Senate choosing the Vice President), but under a procedure where each state's delegation, regardless of size, casts one vote—thus giving smaller states more voting power in the event of a deadlock than larger states. For example, Wyoming, with only one representative, has the same power as California, with 53 representatives.

text: State senates[edit]

text: The United States government was a construct of the thirteen states, and the Constitution's only original constraint on the states was, in Article IV, Section 4, that the federal government "guarantee to every state... a republican form of government." Though the Fourteenth Amendment contains the Equal Protection Clause and bars the states from "abridging" voting rights, the text does not address apportionment.

text: Instead, most state legislatures imitated the Congress, in which the lower house is apportioned by population, while the upper house is apportioned by some other criterion. For example, each county might have one state senator.

text: In the 1960s, in cases such as Baker v. Carr and Reynolds v. Sims (the "one man, one vote" decision), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the Equal Protection Clause authorized judicial remedy when a significant disparity in population size arises between electoral districts within a state. The biggest immediate effect was to require that state senate districts have substantially equal populations, as Chief Justice Earl Warren wrote, "Legislators represent people, not trees or acres." These cases also opened apportionment of state houses of representatives to review by the judiciary.

text: State legislatures[edit]

text: In most states, the legislature draws the boundaries of electoral districts, including its own; and even court decisions that set aside malapportionment acknowledge that political self-interest plays a role in decisions of the legislature.[26] Legislatures and the majority party can pursue self-interest by gerrymandering—contriving legislative districts to promote the election of specific individuals or to concentrate the opposition party's core constituencies in a small number of districts—or by simply declining to reapportion at all, so that the make-up of a legislature fails to track the evolving demographics of the state.[27] Many states now redistrict state electoral districts following each decennial federal census, as Reynolds v. Sims required for Congressional districts.

text: Areas that have practiced malapportionment with the purpose or effect of disenfranchising citizens according to race are subject to federal "preclearance" under the Voting Rights Act.

text: A state may draw districts that span political subdivisions and elect multiple representatives, and may draw floterial districts,[28] to match representation to population more precisely than the U.S. House does (see above).

text: The basis of apportionment has also been litigated. In Evenwel v. Abbott (2016), a unanimous Supreme Court ruled[29] that "constitutional history, precedent, and practice" support basing districts on population, even when some districts thus had 40% more voters than others.

text: Prospects for change[edit]

text: Arguments for or against change to these institutions often have political overtones. The Democratic Party often advocates change, as it is generally more popular in large cities and many of the more populated states, while the Republican Party often defends the current system, as that party is more popular in rural areas and many of the less populated states.

text: Any changes would require amendment of the Constitution. But the procedure for doing this also contains protections for states with low populations. Article V, Section 1 requires any amendments to be ratified by three-fourths of the states (currently, 38). Most small states would refuse to ratify any amendment that nullified their traditional advantages.

text: Various states have joined the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, pledging that their legislatures will direct their Presidential electors to vote for whichever Presidential candidate wins the national popular vote. This would partly counteract the advantage the Electoral College gives to low-population states, though it might reduce the joiners' influence during Presidential campaigns.


document_title: Animal Farm

question_text: who wrote the seven commandments in animal farm

root

text: Animal Farm

text: Plot summary

text: Old Major, the old boar on the Manor Farm, summons the animals on the farm together for a meeting, during which he refers to humans as "enemies" and teaches the animals a revolutionary song called "Beasts of England".

tag: p

text: When Major dies, two young pigs, Snowball and Napoleon, assume command and consider it a duty to prepare for the Rebellion. The animals revolt, driving the drunken, irresponsible farmer Mr Jones, as well as Mrs Jones and the other human caretakers and employees, off the farm, renaming it "Animal Farm". They adopt the Seven Commandments of Animalism, the most important of which is, "All animals are equal".

text: Snowball teaches the animals to read and write, while Napoleon educates young puppies on the principles of Animalism. Food is plentiful, and the farm runs smoothly. The pigs elevate themselves to positions of leadership and set aside special food items, ostensibly for their personal health.

text: Some time later, several men attack Animal Farm. Jones and his men are making an attempt to recapture the farm, aided by several other farmers who are terrified of similar animal revolts. Snowball and the animals, who are hiding in ambush, defeat the men by launching a surprise attack as soon as they enter the farmyard. Snowball's popularity soars, and this event is proclaimed "The Battle of the Cowshed". It is celebrated annually with the firing of a gun, on the anniversary of the Revolution. Napoleon and Snowball vie for pre-eminence. When Snowball announces his plans to modernize the farm by building a windmill, Napoleon has his dogs chase Snowball away and declares himself leader.

text: Napoleon enacts changes to the governance structure of the farm, replacing meetings with a committee of pigs who will run the farm. Through a young pig named Squealer, Napoleon claims credit for the windmill idea. The animals work harder with the promise of easier lives with the windmill. When the animals find the windmill collapsed after a violent storm, Napoleon and Squealer convince the animals that Snowball is trying to sabotage their project.

text: Once Snowball becomes a scapegoat, Napoleon begins to purge the farm with his dogs, killing animals he accuses of consorting with his old rival. When some animals recall the Battle of the Cowshed, Napoleon (who was nowhere to be found during the battle) frequently smears Snowball as a collaborator of Farmer Jones, while falsely representing himself as the hero of the battle. "Beasts of England" is replaced with an anthem glorifying Napoleon, who appears to be adopting the lifestyle of a man. The animals remain convinced that they are better off than they were under Mr Jones.

text: Mr Frederick, a neighbouring farmer, attacks the farm, using blasting powder to blow up the restored windmill. Although the animals win the battle, they do so at great cost, as many, including Boxer, the workhorse, are wounded. Despite his injuries, Boxer continues working harder and harder, until he collapses while working on the windmill. Napoleon sends for a van to purportedly take Boxer to a veterinary surgeon, explaining that better care can be given there. Benjamin, the cynical donkey who "could read as well as any pig",[9] notices that the van belongs to a knacker and attempts a futile rescue. Squealer quickly assures the animals that the van had been purchased from the knacker by an animal hospital, and the previous owner's signboard had not been repainted.

text: In a subsequent report, Squealer reports sadly to the animals that Boxer died peacefully at the animal hospital; the pigs hold a festival one day after Boxer's death to further praise the glories of Animal Farm and have the animals work harder by taking on Boxer's ways. However, the truth was that Napoleon had engineered the sale of Boxer to the knacker, allowing him and his inner circle to acquire money to buy whisky for themselves. (In 1940s England, one way for farms to make money was to sell large animals to a knacker, who would kill the animal and boil its remains into animal glue.)

text: Years pass, and the windmill is rebuilt along with construction of another windmill, which makes the farm a good amount of income. However, the ideals which Snowball discussed, including stalls with electric lighting, heating and running water are forgotten, with Napoleon advocating that the happiest animals live simple lives. In addition to Boxer, many of the animals who participated in the Revolution are dead, as is Farmer Jones, who died in another part of England. The pigs start to resemble humans, as they walk upright, carry whips, and wear clothes. The Seven Commandments are abridged to a single phrase: "All animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others."

text: Napoleon holds a dinner party for the pigs and local farmers, with whom he celebrates a new alliance. He abolishes the practice of the revolutionary traditions and restores the name "The Manor Farm". As the animals appearance changes from pig to human, they realise they can no longer distinguish between the two.

text: Characters

text: Pigs

text:
Old Major – An aged prize Middle White boar provides the inspiration that fuels the rebellion. He is an allegorical combination of Karl Marx, one of the creators of communism, and Vladimir Lenin, the communist leader of the Russian Revolution and the early Soviet nation, in that he draws up the principles of the revolution. His skull being put on revered public display recalls Lenin, whose embalmed body was put on display.[10][11]
Napoleon – "A large, rather fierce-looking Berkshire boar, the only Berkshire on the farm, not much of a talker, but with a reputation for getting his own way".[12] An allegory of Joseph Stalin,[10] Napoleon is the main villain of Animal Farm. In the first French version of Animal Farm, Napoleon is called César, the French form of Caesar,[4] although another translation has him as Napoléon.[13]
Snowball – Napoleon's rival and original head of the farm after Jones' overthrow. He is mainly based on Leon Trotsky,[10] but also combines elements from Lenin.[11]
Squealer – A small, white, fat porker who serves as Napoleon's second-in-command and minister of propaganda, holding a position similar to that of Vyacheslav Molotov.[10]
Minimus – A poetic pig who writes the second and third national anthems of Animal Farm after the singing of "Beasts of England" is banned.
The piglets – Hinted to be the children of Napoleon and are the first generation of animals subjugated to his idea of animal inequality.
The young pigs – Four pigs who complain about Napoleon's takeover of the farm but are quickly silenced and later executed, the first animals killed in Napoleon's farm purge. Based on the Great Purge of Grigori Zinoviev, Lev Kamenev, Nikolai Bukharin, and Alexei Rykov.
Pinkeye – A minor pig who is mentioned only once; he is the pig that tastes Napoleon's food to make sure it is not poisoned, in response to rumours about an assassination attempt on Napoleon.

tag: ul

text: Humans

text:
Mr Jones – A heavy drinker who is the original owner of Manor Farm, a farm in disrepair with farmhands who often loaf on the job. He is an allegory of Russian Tsar Nicholas II,[14] who abdicated following the February Revolution of 1917 and was murdered, along with the rest of his family, by the Bolsheviks on 17 July 1918. The animals revolt after Jones drinks so much he does not care for the animals.
Mr Frederick – The tough owner of Pinchfield, a small but well-kept neighbouring farm, who briefly enters into an alliance with Napoleon.[15][16][17][18] Animal Farm shares land boundaries with Pinchfield on one side and Foxwood on another, making Animal Farm a "buffer zone" between the two bickering farmers. The animals of Animal Farm are terrified of Frederick, as rumours abound of him abusing his animals and entertaining himself with cockfighting (a likely allegory for the human rights abuses of Adolf Hitler). Napoleon enters into an alliance with Frederick in order to sell surplus timber that Pilkington also sought, but is enraged to learn Frederick paid him in counterfeit money. Shortly after the swindling, Frederick and his men invade Animal Farm, killing many animals and detonating the windmill. The brief alliance and subsequent invasion may allude to the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact and Operation Barbarossa.
Mr Pilkington – The easy-going but crafty and well-to-do owner of Foxwood, a large neighbouring farm overgrown with weeds. Unlike Frederick, Pilkington is wealthier and owns more land, but his farm is in need of care as opposed to Frederick's smaller but more efficiently-run farm. Although on bad terms with Frederick, Pilkington is also concerned about the animal revolution that deposed Jones, and worried that this could also happen to him.
Mr Whymper – A man hired by Napoleon to act as the liaison between Animal Farm and human society. At first he is used to acquire necessities that cannot be produced on the farm, such as dog biscuits and paraffin wax, but later he procures luxuries like alcohol for the pigs.

text: Horses and donkeys

text:
Boxer – A loyal, kind, dedicated, extremely strong, hard working, and respectable cart-horse, although quite naive and gullible. Boxer does a large share of the physical labour on the farm. He is shown to hold the belief that 'Napoleon is always right'. At one point, he had challenged Squealer's statement that Snowball was always against the welfare of the farm, earning him an attack from Napoleon's dogs. But Boxer's immense strength repels the attack, worrying the pigs that their authority can be challenged. Boxer has been compared to the Stakhanovite movement. He has been described as "faithful and strong";[19] he believes any problem can be solved if he works harder.[20] When Boxer is injured, Napoleon sells him to a local knacker to buy himself whisky, and Squealer gives a moving account falsifying Boxer's death.
Mollie – A self-centred, self-indulgent and vain young white mare who quickly leaves for another farm after the revolution. She is only once mentioned again, in a manner similar to those who left Russia after the fall of the Tsar.
Clover – A gentle, caring female horse, who shows concern especially for Boxer, who often pushes himself too hard. Clover can read all the letters of the alphabet, but cannot "put words together". She seems to catch on to the sly tricks and schemes set up by Napoleon and Squealer.
Benjamin – A donkey, one of the oldest, wisest animals on the farm, and one of the few who can read properly. He is sceptical, temperamental and cynical: his most frequent remark is, "Life will go on as it has always gone on—that is, badly."[21] The academic Morris Dickstein has suggested there is "a touch of Orwell himself in this creature's timeless skepticism"[22] and indeed, friends called Orwell "Donkey George", "after his grumbling donkey Benjamin, in Animal Farm."[23]

text: Other animals

text:
Muriel – A wise old goat who is friends with all of the animals on the farm. She, like Benjamin and Snowball, is one of the few animals on the farm who can read.
The puppies – Offspring of Jessie and Bluebell, they were taken away at birth by Napoleon and reared by him to be his security force.
Moses – The raven, "Mr Jones's especial pet, was a spy and a tale-bearer, but he was also a clever talker." Initially following Mrs Jones into exile, he reappears several years later and resumes his role of talking but not working. He regales Animal Farm's denizens with tales of a wondrous place beyond the clouds called "Sugarcandy Mountain, that happy country where we poor animals shall rest forever from our labours!" Orwell portrays established religion as "the black raven of priestcraft—promising pie in the sky when you die, and faithfully serving whoever happens to be in power." Napoleon brings the raven back (Ch. IX), as Stalin brought back the Russian Orthodox Church.[22]
The sheep – They show limited understanding of Animalism and the political atmosphere of the farm; yet nonetheless they blindly support Napoleon's ideals with vocal jingles during his speeches and meetings with Snowball. Some commentators[24] have compared the sheep to representations of state controlled press. Their constant bleating of "four legs good, two legs bad" was used as a device to drown out any opposition; analogous to simplistic headlines used in printed media of the age. Towards the latter section of the book, Squealer (the propagandist) trains the sheep to alter their slogan to "four legs good, two legs better", which they dutifully do, symbolizing the state manipulation of media.
The hens – The hens are promised at the start of the revolution that they will get to keep their eggs, which are stolen from them under Mr Jones. However their eggs are soon taken from them under the premise of buying goods from outside Animal Farm. The hens are among the first to rebel, albeit unsuccessfully, against Napoleon.
The cows – The cows are enticed into the revolution by promises that their milk will not be stolen, but can be used to raise their own calves. Their milk is then stolen by the pigs, who learn to milk them. The milk is stirred into the pigs' mash every day, while the other animals are denied such luxuries.
The cat – Never seen to carry out any work, the cat is absent for long periods and is forgiven; because her excuses are so convincing and she "purred so affectionately that it was impossible not to believe in her good intentions."[25] She has no interest in the politics of the farm, and the only time she is recorded as having participated in an election, she is found to have actually "voted on both sides."[25]

text: Composition and publication

text: Origin

text: George Orwell wrote the manuscript in 1943 and 1944 subsequent to his experiences during the Spanish Civil War, which he described in Homage to Catalonia (1938). In the preface of a 1947 Ukrainian edition of Animal Farm, he explained how escaping the communist purges in Spain taught him "how easily totalitarian propaganda can control the opinion of enlightened people in democratic countries". This motivated Orwell to expose and strongly condemn what he saw as the Stalinist corruption of the original socialist ideals.[26]

text: Immediately prior to writing the book, Orwell had quit the BBC. He was also upset about a booklet for propagandists the Ministry of Information had put out. The booklet included instructions on how to quell ideological fears of the Soviet Union, such as directions to claim that the Red Terror was a figment of Nazi imagination.[27]

text: In the preface, Orwell also described the source of the idea of setting the book on a farm:[26]

text: ...I saw a little boy, perhaps ten years old, driving a huge carthorse along a narrow path, whipping it whenever it tried to turn. It struck me that if only such animals became aware of their strength we should have no power over them, and that men exploit animals in much the same way as the rich exploit the proletariat.

text: Efforts to find a publisher

text: Orwell initially encountered difficulty getting the manuscript published, largely due to fears that the book might upset the alliance between Britain, the United States, and the Soviet Union. Four publishers refused; one had initially accepted the work but declined it after consulting the Ministry of Information.[28][29] Eventually, Secker and Warburg published the first edition in 1945.

text: During the Second World War, it became clear to Orwell that anti-Soviet literature was not something which most major publishing houses would touch—including his regular publisher Gollancz. He also submitted the manuscript to Faber and Faber, where the poet T. S. Eliot (who was a director of the firm) rejected it; Eliot wrote back to Orwell praising the book's "good writing" and "fundamental integrity", but declared that they would only accept it for publication if they had some sympathy for the viewpoint "which I take to be generally Trotskyite". Eliot said he found the view "not convincing", and contended that the pigs were made out to be the best to run the farm; he posited that someone might argue "what was needed... was not more communism but more public-spirited pigs".[30][31] Orwell let André Deutsch, who was working for Nicholson & Watson in 1944, read the typescript, and Deutsch was convinced that Nicholson & Watson would want to publish it; however, they did not, and "lectured Orwell on what they perceived to be errors in Animal Farm."[32] In his London Letter on 17 April 1944 for Partisan Review, Orwell wrote that it was "now next door to impossible to get anything overtly anti-Russian printed. Anti-Russian books do appear, but mostly from Catholic publishing firms and always from a religious or frankly reactionary angle."

text: The publisher Jonathan Cape, who had initially accepted Animal Farm, subsequently rejected the book after an official at the British Ministry of Information warned him off[33]—although the civil servant who it is assumed gave the order was later found to be a Soviet spy.[34] Writing to Leonard Moore, a partner in the literary agency of Christy & Moore, publisher Jonathan Cape explained that the decision had been taken on the advice of a senior official in the Ministry of Information. Such flagrant anti-Soviet bias was unacceptable, and the choice of pigs as the dominant class was thought to be especially offensive. It may reasonably be assumed that the 'important official' was a man named Peter Smollett, who was later unmasked as a Soviet agent.[35] Orwell was suspicious of Smollett/Smolka, and he would be one of the names Orwell included in his list of Crypto-Communists and Fellow-Travellers sent to the Information Research Department in 1949. Born Hans Peter Smolka in Vienna in 1912, he came to Britain in 1933 as an NKVD agent with the codename 'Abo',[36] became a naturalised British subject in 1938, changed his name, and after the outbreak of World War II joined the Ministry of Information where he organised pro-Soviet propaganda, working with Kim Philby in 1943–45.[37] Smollett's family have rejected the accusation that he was a spy.[35] The publisher wrote to Orwell, saying:[33]

text: If the fable were addressed generally to dictators and dictatorships at large then publication would be all right, but the fable does follow, as I see now, so completely the progress of the Russian Soviets and their two dictators [Lenin and Stalin], that it can apply only to Russia, to the exclusion of the other dictatorships.

text: Another thing: it would be less offensive if the predominant caste in the fable were not pigs. I think the choice of pigs as the ruling caste will no doubt give offence to many people, and particularly to anyone who is a bit touchy, as undoubtedly the Russians are.

text: Frederic Warburg also faced pressures against publication, even from people in his own office and from his wife Pamela, who felt that it was not the moment for ingratitude towards Stalin and the heroic Red Army,[38] which had played a major part in defeating Hitler. A Russian translation was printed in the paper Posev, and in giving permission for a Russian translation of Animal Farm, Orwell refused in advance all royalties. A translation in Ukrainian, which was produced in Germany, was confiscated in large part by the American wartime authorities and handed over to the Soviet repatriation commission.[39]

text: In October 1945, Orwell wrote to Frederic Warburg expressing interest in pursuing the possibility that the political cartoonist David Low might illustrate Animal Farm. Low had written a letter saying that he had had "a good time with ANIMAL FARM—an excellent bit of satire—it would illustrate perfectly." Nothing came of this, and a trial issue produced by Secker & Warburg in 1956 illustrated by John Driver was abandoned, but the Folio Society published an edition in 1984 illustrated by Quentin Blake and an edition illustrated by the cartoonist Ralph Steadman was published by Secker & Warburg in 1995 to celebrate the fiftieth anniversary of the first edition of Animal Farm.[40]

text: Preface

text: Orwell originally wrote a preface complaining about British self-censorship and how the British people were suppressing criticism of the USSR, their World War II ally:

text: The sinister fact about literary censorship in England is that it is largely voluntary.... Things are kept right out of the British press, not because the Government intervenes but because of a general tacit agreement that 'it wouldn't do' to mention that particular fact.

text: Although the first edition allowed space for the preface, it was not included,[28] and as of June 2009 most editions of the book have not included it.[41]

text: Secker and Warburg published the first edition of Animal Farm in 1945 without an introduction. However, the publisher had provided space for a preface in the author's proof composited from the manuscript. For reasons unknown, no preface was supplied, and the page numbers had to be renumbered at the last minute.[42][43]

text: In 1972, Ian Angus found the original typescript titled "The Freedom of the Press", and Bernard Crick published it, together with his own introduction, in The Times Literary Supplement on 15 September 1972[42] as "How the essay came to be written".[43][44] Orwell's essay criticised British self-censorship by the press, specifically the suppression of unflattering descriptions of Stalin and the Soviet government.[43] The same essay also appeared in the Italian 1976 edition of Animal Farm with another introduction by Crick, claiming to be the first edition with the preface.[42] Other publishers were still declining to publish it.[clarification needed]

text: Critical response

text: Contemporary reviews of the work were not universally positive. Writing in the American New Republic magazine, George Soule expressed his disappointment in the book, writing that it "puzzled and saddened me. It seemed on the whole dull. The allegory turned out to be a creaking machine for saying in a clumsy way things that have been said better directly." Soule believed that the animals were not consistent enough with their real world inspirations, and said, "It seems to me that the failure of this book (commercially it is already assured of tremendous success) arises from the fact that the satire deals not with something the author has experienced, but rather with stereotyped ideas about a country which he probably does not know very well".[45]

text: The Guardian on 24 August 1945 called Animal Farm "a delightfully humorous and caustic satire on the rule of the many by the few".[46] Tosco Fyvel, writing in Tribune on the same day, called the book "a gentle satire on a certain State and on the illusions of an age which may already be behind us." Julian Symons responded, on 7 September, "Should we not expect, in Tribune at least, acknowledgement of the fact that it is a satire not at all gentle upon a particular State—Soviet Russia? It seems to me that a reviewer should have the courage to identify Napoleon with Stalin, and Snowball with Trotsky, and express an opinion favourable or unfavourable to the author, upon a political ground. In a hundred years time perhaps, Animal Farm may be simply a fairy story, today it is a political satire with a good deal of point."

text: Animal Farm has been subject to much comment in the decades since these early remarks.[47]

text: Analysis

text: Animalism

text: The pigs Snowball, Napoleon, and Squealer adapt Old Major's ideas into "a complete system of thought", which they formally name Animalism, an allegoric reference to Communism. Soon after, Napoleon and Squealer partake in activities associated with the humans (drinking alcohol, sleeping in beds, trading), which were explicitly prohibited by the Seven Commandments. Squealer is employed to alter the Seven Commandments to account for this humanisation, an allusion to the Soviet government's revising of history in order to exercise control of the people's beliefs about themselves and their society.[48]

text: The original commandments are:

text:
Whatever goes upon two legs is an enemy.
Whatever goes upon four legs, or has wings, is a friend.
No animal shall wear clothes.
No animal shall sleep in a bed.
No animal shall drink alcohol.
No animal shall kill any other animal.
All animals are equal.

tag: ol

text: These commandments are also distilled into the maxim "Four legs good, two legs bad!" which is primarily used by the sheep on the farm, often to disrupt discussions and disagreements between animals on the nature of Animalism.

text: Later, Napoleon and his pigs secretly revise some commandments to clear themselves of accusations of law-breaking. The changed commandments are as follows, with the changes bolded:

text:
No animal shall sleep in a bed with sheets.
No animal shall drink alcohol to excess.
No animal shall kill any other animal without cause.

text: Eventually, these are replaced with the maxims, "All animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others", and "Four legs good, two legs better!" as the pigs become more human. This is an ironic twist to the original purpose of the Seven Commandments, which were supposed to keep order within Animal Farm by uniting the animals together against the humans and preventing animals from following the humans' evil habits. Through the revision of the commandments, Orwell demonstrates how simply political dogma can be turned into malleable propaganda.[49]

text: Significance and allegory

text: In the Eastern Bloc, both Animal Farm and later Nineteen Eighty-Four were on the list of forbidden books until the end of communist rule in 1989, and were only available via clandestine Samizdat networks.[citation needed]

text: Orwell biographer Jeffrey Meyers has written, "virtually every detail has political significance in this allegory." Orwell himself wrote in 1946, "Of course I intended it primarily as a satire on the Russian revolution..[and] that kind of revolution (violent conspiratorial revolution, led by unconsciously power hungry people) can only lead to a change of masters [-] revolutions only effect a radical improvement when the masses are alert."[50] In a preface for a 1947 Ukrainian edition, he stated, "... for the past ten years I have been convinced that the destruction of the Soviet myth was essential if we wanted a revival of the socialist movement. On my return from Spain [in 1937] I thought of exposing the Soviet myth in a story that could be easily understood by almost anyone and which could be easily translated into other languages."[51]

text: The revolt of the animals against Farmer Jones is Orwell's analogy with the October 1917 Bolshevik Revolution. The Battle of the Cowshed has been said to represent the allied invasion of Soviet Russia in 1918,[52] and the defeat of the White Russians in the Russian Civil War.[53] The pigs' rise to pre-eminence mirrors the rise of a Stalinist bureaucracy in the USSR, just as Napoleon's emergence as the farm's sole leader reflects Stalin's emergence. The pigs' appropriation of milk and apples for their own use, "the turning point of the story" as Orwell termed it in a letter to Dwight Macdonald,[50] stands as an analogy for the crushing of the left-wing 1921 Kronstadt revolt against the Bolsheviks,[54] and the difficult efforts of the animals to build the windmill suggest the various Five Year Plans. The puppies controlled by Napoleon parallel the nurture of the secret police in the Stalinist structure, and the pigs' treatment of the other animals on the farm recalls the internal terror faced by the populace in the 1930s.[55] In chapter seven, when the animals confess their nonexistent crimes and are killed, Orwell directly alludes to the purges, confessions and show trials of the late 1930s. These contributed to Orwell's conviction that the Bolshevik revolution had been corrupted and the Soviet system become rotten.[56]

text: Peter Edgerly Firchow and Peter Davison consider that the Battle of the Windmill represents the Great Patriotic War (World War II),[53] especially the Battle of Stalingrad and the Battle of Moscow.[52] During the battle, Orwell first wrote, "All the animals, including Napoleon" took cover. Orwell had the publisher alter this to "All the animals except Napoleon" in recognition of Stalin's decision to remain in Moscow during the German advance.[57] Orwell requested the change after he met Joseph Czapski in Paris in March 1945. Czapski, a survivor of the Katyn Massacre and an opponent of the Soviet regime, told Orwell, as Orwell wrote to Arthur Koestler, that it had been "the character [and] greatness of Stalin" that saved Russia from the German invasion.[58]

text: Other connections that writers have suggested illustrate Orwell's telescoping of Russian history from 1917 to 1943[60] include the wave of rebelliousness that ran through the countryside after the Rebellion, which stands for the abortive revolutions in Hungary and in Germany (Ch IV); the conflict between Napoleon and Snowball (Ch V), paralleling "the two rival and quasi-Messianic beliefs that seemed pitted against one another: Trotskyism, with its faith in the revolutionary vocation of the proletariat of the West; and Stalinism with its glorification of Russia's socialist destiny";[61] Napoleon's dealings with Whymper and the Willingdon markets (Ch VI), paralleling the Treaty of Rapallo; and Frederick's forged bank notes, paralleling the Hitler-Stalin non-aggression pact of August 1939, after which Frederick attacks Animal Farm without warning and destroys the windmill.[17]

text: The book's close, with the pigs and men in a kind of rapprochement, reflected Orwell's view of the 1943 Teheran Conference[62] that seemed to display the establishment of "the best possible relations between the USSR and the West"—but in reality were destined, as Orwell presciently predicted, to continue to unravel.[63] The disagreement between the allies and the start of the Cold War is suggested when Napoleon and Pilkington, both suspicious, "played an ace of spades simultaneously".[64]

text: Similarly, the music in the novel, starting with Beasts of England and the later anthems, parallels The Internationale and its adoption and repudiation by the Soviet authorities as the Anthem of the USSR in the 1920s and 1930s.

text: In addition to the book's political symbolism, some critics have argued that Animal Farm can also be read as a more straightforward story about farm animals, reflecting Orwell's concern for the treatment of animals.[65][66] Critics supporting such readings, beginning in the 1970s with Marxist scholar Raymond Williams and later including Jeffrey Moussaieff Masson and Helen Tiffin, cite Orwell's description of his inspiration for setting the story on a farm, in which he writes that, "from the animals’ point of view,"

text: "To them it is clear that the concept of a class struggle between humans was pure illusion, since whenever it was necessary to exploit animals, all humans united against them: the true struggle is between animals and humans."[65][26]

text: Adaptations

text: Films

text: Animal Farm has been adapted to film twice. Both differ from the novel and have been accused of taking significant liberties, including sanitising some aspects.

text:
Animal Farm (1954) is an animated feature in which Napoleon is apparently overthrown in a second revolution. In 1974, E. Howard Hunt revealed that he had been sent by the CIA's Psychological Warfare department to obtain the film rights from Orwell's widow, and the resulting 1954 animation was funded by the agency.[67]
Animal Farm (1999) is a TV live action version that shows Napoleon's regime collapsing in on itself, with the farm having new human owners, reflecting the collapse of Soviet communism.

text: In 2012, a HFR-3D version of Animal Farm, potentially directed by Andy Serkis was announced.[68]

text: Radio dramatizations

text: A BBC radio version, produced by Rayner Heppenstall, was broadcast in January 1947. Orwell listened to the production at his home in Canonbury Square, London, with Hugh Gordon Porteous, amongst others. Orwell later wrote to Heppenstall that Porteous, "who had not read the book, grasped what was happening after a few minutes."[69]

text: A further radio production, again using Orwell's own dramatisation of the book, was broadcast in January 2013 on BBC Radio 4. Tamsin Greig narrated, and the cast included Nicky Henson as Napoleon, Toby Jones as the propagandist Squealer, and Ralph Ineson as Boxer.[70]

text: Stage productions

text: A theatrical version, with music by Richard Peaslee and lyrics by Adrian Mitchell, was staged at the National Theatre London on 25 April 1984, directed by Peter Hall. It toured nine cities in 1985.[71]

text: A solo version, adapted and performed by Guy Masterson, premièred at the Traverse Theatre Edinburgh in January 1995 and has toured worldwide since.[72][73]

text: Comic strip

text: In 1950 Norman Pett and his writing partner Don Freeman were secretly hired by the British Foreign Office to adapt Animal Farm into a comic strip. This comic was not published in the U.K., but ran in Brazilian and Burmese newspapers. [74]

text: Popular culture

text: Music

text: (Alphabetical by artist)

text:
The Boston Crusaders Drum and Bugle Corps' 2014 show was titled Animal Farm, based on the novel.[75]
Canadian-based band Boxer the Horse takes its name from a character in the novel.[76]
Dead prez based a song on their album Let's Get Free (2000), called "Animal in Man", on the novella, putting emphasis on how the other animals should not trust the pigs during a revolution.[77][78][79]
The lyrics of the song ″Arthur's Farm″ from the Half Man Half Biscuit album Back Again in the DHSS (1987) tell the story of Douglas Bader and Arthur Askey visiting Animal Farm. The song features the line "Four legs good, but no legs best" in apparent tribute to the two famous amputees.[80]
The song, "The Nature of the Beast", by the American metalcore band, Ice Nine Kills, was inspired by Animal Farm.[81]
Pink Floyd's album Animals (1977) was partially inspired by Animal Farm.[82] It categorises people as pigs, dogs, or sheep.
R.E.M.'s song "Disturbance at the Heron House" is based on Animal Farm.[clarification needed][83]
Radiohead's song "Optimistic" contains a lyric mentioning Animal Farm.[84]
The Clash used an image from the animated movie Animal Farm (1954) on their single "English Civil War".[85]

text: Television

text: (Alphabetical by program)

text:
In The Daleks' Master Plan (1966), an episode of the long-running British science fiction show Doctor Who, a character references the modified seventh commandment of Animal Farm, saying: "Though we are all equal partners with the Daleks on this great conquest, some of us are more equal than others."[86]
In the tenth episode of the second season of Johnny Bravo, "Aunt Katie's Farm" (1999), Johnny, while dressed in a pig costume, yells, "Four feet good! Two feet bad!".[87][88]
The Lost episode "Exposé" (2007), in season three, involves flashbacks with Nikki and Paulo involving an argument with Kate about the handgun case. During this scene, Dr. Leslie Arzt yells at Kate: "The pigs are walking," a reference to Animal Farm where Napoleon and his generals begin to adapt human characteristics and change their oath from "Four legs good, two legs bad" to "Four legs good, two legs better."[89][90]
The seventh episode (1998) of the second season of the HBO series Oz is titled "Animal Farm" in reference to the conniving and manipulation of the characters vying for control, similar to the characters of the novella.[91][92][93][94]
In the ninth episode of the fourth season of Sex and the City, "Sex and the Country" (2001), Carrie goes with her new boyfriend Aidan to his cottage, and informs her friends that it reminds her of Animal Farm, and would not be surprised to hear an outburst of "four legs good, two legs bad!"[95][96]
In the third episode of the first season of the X-Men animated series, "Enter Magneto" (1992), Beast is seen reading a copy of Animal Farm, is mocked by the prison guards for "reading a picture book", and is asked if he "sees any relatives in there" because they assume he is an illiterate animal.[97][98]

text: Video game

text: A video game adaptation of Animal Farm was announced in August 2017.[99] Fully authorised by the estate of George Orwell,[100] Animal Farm is created by an independent team formed specifically to deliver Orwell’s vision in an interactive format.[101][102]

text: Editions

text:
LCCN 46006290 (hardcover, 1946, First American Edition)
ISBN 0-451-51679-6 (paperback, 1956, Signet Classic)
ISBN 0-582-02173-1 (paper text, 1989)
ISBN 0-15-107255-8 (hardcover, 1990)
ISBN 0-582-06010-9 (paper text, 1991)
ISBN 0-679-42039-8 (hardcover, 1993)
ISBN 0-606-00102-6 (prebound, 1996)
ISBN 0-15-100217-7 (hardcover, 1996, Anniversary Edition)
ISBN 0-452-27750-7 (paperback, 1996, Anniversary Edition)
ISBN 0-451-52634-1 (mass market paperback, 1996, Anniversary Edition)
ISBN 0-582-53008-3 (1996)
ISBN 1-56000-520-3 (cloth text, 1998, Large Type Edition)
ISBN 0-7910-4774-1 (hardcover, 1999)
ISBN 0-451-52536-1 (paperback, 1999)
ISBN 0-7641-0819-0 (paperback, 1999)
ISBN 0-8220-7009-X (e-book, 1999)
ISBN 0-7587-7843-0 (hardcover, 2002)
ISBN 0-15-101026-9 (hardcover, 2003, with Nineteen Eighty-Four)
ISBN 0-452-28424-4 (paperback, 2003, Centennial Edition)
ISBN 0-8488-0120-2 (hardcover)
ISBN 0-03-055434-9 (hardcover) Animal Farm with Connections
ISBN 0-395-79677-6 (hardcover) Animal Farm & Related Readings, 1997
ISBN 0-582-43447-5 (hardcover, 2007)
ISBN 0-14-103349-5 (paperback, 2007)
ISBN 978-0-141-03613-7 (paperback, 2008)
ISBN 978-0-141-39305-6 (paperback, 2013, puffin books edition)
ISBN 978-8-193-36962-3 (paperback, 2017, Pirates Enhanced Edition, India)

text: On 17 July 2009, Amazon.com withdrew certain Amazon Kindle titles, including Animal Farm and Nineteen Eighty-Four by George Orwell, from sale, refunded buyers, and remotely deleted items from purchasers' devices after discovering that the publisher lacked rights to publish the titles in question.[103] Notes and annotations for the books made by users on their devices were also deleted.[104] After the move prompted outcry and comparisons to Nineteen Eighty-Four itself, Amazon spokesman Drew Herdener stated that the company is "[c]hanging our systems so that in the future we will not remove books from customers' devices in these circumstances."[105]


document_title: The Young and the Restless cast members

question_text: ok google who's leaving the young and the restless

question_tokens: ok google who 's leaving the young and the restless

text: The Young and the Restless cast members

text: Cast

text: Main cast

text:
Actor
Character
Duration

Peter Bergman
Jack Abbott
1989–

Marco Annicelli
2015

Eric Braeden
Victor Newman
1980–

Sharon Case
Sharon Newman
1994–

Doug Davidson
Paul Williams
1978–

Eileen Davidson
Ashley Abbott
1982–88, 1999–

Melissa Claire Egan
Chelsea Newman
2011–

Cait Fairbanks
Tessa Porter
2017–

Noah Alexander Gerry
Charlie Ashby
2017–

Daniel Goddard
Cane Ashby
2007–

Caleb Atkinson
2011

Camryn Grimes
Cassie Newman
1997–2007, 2009–10, 2013–14

Mariah Copeland
2014–

Amelia Heinle
Victoria Newman
2005–

Bryton James
Devon Hamilton
2004–

Christel Khalil
Lily Ashby
2002–

Tristan Lake Leabu
Reed Hellstrom
2016–

Christian LeBlanc
Michael Baldwin
1991–93, 1997–

Kate Linder
Esther Valentine
1982–

Thad Luckinbill
J.T. Hellstrom
1999–2010, 2017–

Mishael Morgan
Hilary Hamilton
2013–

Joshua Morrow
Nicholas Newman
1994–

Melissa Ordway
Abby Newman
2013–

Melody Thomas Scott
Nikki Newman
1979–

Kristoff St. John
Neil Winters
1991–

Lexie Stevenson
Mattie Ashby
2017–

Jason Thompson
Billy Abbott
2016–

Gina Tognoni
Phyllis Summers
2014–

tag: table

text: Recurring cast

text:
Actor
Character
Duration

Marla Adams
Dina Abbott Mergeron
1983–86, 1991, 1996, 2008, 2017–

Robert Adamson
Noah Newman
2012–

Catherine Bach
Anita Lawson
2012–

Lauralee Bell
Christine Blair Williams
1983–2006, 2010–

Corbin Bernsen
Todd Williams
2003–04, 2009–10, 2012–14, 2017–

Tracey E. Bregman
Lauren Fenmore Baldwin
1983–95, 2000–

Sarah Smythe
2010

Jason Canela
Arturo
2018–

Sean Carrigan
Stitch Rayburn
2013–

Judith Chapman
Jill Foster Abbott
1994

Gloria Abbott Bardwell
2005–

Annalisa Cochrane
Zoey
2017–

Angell Conwell
Leslie Michaelson
2010–

Jerry Douglas
John Abbott
1982–2013, 2015–

Alistair Wallingford
2008

Max Ehrich
Fenmore Baldwin
2012–

Margarita Franco
Mrs. Martinez
2016–

Kelly Frye
Michelle Hazelton
2016–

David Faustino
Howard Green
2016–

Robert Gant
David Sherman
2013–

Stacy Haiduk
Patty Williams
2009–12, 2015–

Emily Peterson
2009–12

Shanica Knowles
Simone
2018–

Alyvia Alyn Lind
Faith Newman
2011–

Beth Maitland
Traci Abbott
1982–96, 1999, 2001, 2006–

Morgan Obenreder
Crystal
2017–

Dax Randall
Moses Winters
2016–

Marcia Rodd
Myrna Bloodworth
2017–

Tristan Rogers
Colin Atkinson
2010–12, 2014–

Ted Shackelford
William Bardwell
2006–07

Jeffrey Bardwell
2007–

Abhi Sinha
Ravi Shapur
2016–

Terrell Tilford
Barton Shelby
2014–

Jess Walton
Jill Atkinson
1987–

Ray Wise
Ian Ward
2014–

text: Cast changes

text: Departing

text:
Actor
Character
Date
Ref.

Robert Adamson
Noah Newman
TBA
[5]

Melissa Claire Egan
Chelsea Newman
[6][7][8][9]

text: Previous cast members

text: References and notes

text:
^ Jump up to: a b The Young and the Restless Weekdays. "The Young and the Restless Cast: Doug Davidson". Cbs.com. Retrieved September 23, 2012.
Jump up ^ The Young and the Restless Weekdays. "The Young and the Restless Cast: Jeanne Cooper". Cbs.com. Retrieved September 23, 2012.
Jump up ^ The Young and the Restless Weekdays (July 20, 2007). "The Young and the Restless Cast: Eric Braeden". Cbs.com. Retrieved September 23, 2012.
Jump up ^ "Show Guide: Cast Bio: Kate Linder". Sony. Retrieved January 6, 2012.
Jump up ^ Kroll, Dan J. (February 15, 2018). "Robert Adamson to exit The Young and the Restless". Soap Central. United States. Archived from the original on February 15, 2018. Retrieved February 15, 2018.
Jump up ^ Giddens, Jamey (January 30, 2018). "Melissa Claire Egan to Exit  The Young and the Restless". Daytime Confidential. United States: Confidential Media, Inc. (SAY Media). Retrieved January 30, 2018.
Jump up ^ SOD (January 31, 2018). "Melissa Claire Egan Confirms Y&R Exit". Soap Opera Digest. United States: American Media, Inc. Odyssey Magazine Publishing Group Inc. Retrieved February 1, 2018.
Jump up ^ Soaps SheKnows (January 31, 2018). "Young and the Restless Melissa Claire Egan Confirms Exit From Soap". Soaps.com. United States: SheKnows Media. Retrieved January 31, 2018.
Jump up ^ Roots, Kimberly (January 31, 2018). "The Young and the Restless Actress Melissa Claire Egan to Exit CBS Soap". TVLine. United States: Penske Media Corporation. Retrieved February 1, 2018.


document_title: Carnoustie Golf Links

question_text: when was the last time the british open was held at carnoustie

text: Carnoustie Golf Links

text: History[edit]

text: Golf is recorded as having been played at Carnoustie in the early 16th century. In 1890, the 14th Earl of Dalhousie, who owned the land, sold the links to the local authority. It had no funds to acquire the property, and public fundraising was undertaken and donated to the council. The original course was of ten holes, crossing and recrossing the Barry Burn; it was designed by Allan Robertson, assisted by Old Tom Morris, and opened in 1842.[1] The opening of the coastal railway from Dundee to Arbroath in 1838 brought an influx of golfers from as far afield as Edinburgh, anxious to tackle the ancient links. This led to a complete restructuring of the course, extended in 1867 by Old Tom Morris to the 18 holes which had meanwhile become standardized. Young Tom Morris won a major open event there that same year. Two additional courses have since been added: the Burnside Course and the shorter though equally testing Buddon Links.

text: Carnoustie first played host to The Open Championship in 1931, after modifications to the course by James Braid in 1926. The winner then was Tommy Armour, from Edinburgh.

text: Later Open winners at Carnoustie include Henry Cotton of England in 1937, Ben Hogan of the USA in 1953, Gary Player of South Africa in 1968, Tom Watson of the USA in 1975, Paul Lawrie of Scotland in 1999, Pádraig Harrington of Ireland in 2007 and Francesco Molinari of Italy in 2018. The 1975, 1999 and 2007 editions were all won in playoffs.

text: The Championship course was modified significantly (but kept its routing used since 1926) prior to the 1999 Open, with all bunkers being rebuilt, many bunkers both added and eliminated, many green complexes expanded and enhanced, and several new tees being built. A large hotel was also built behind the 18th green of the Championship course.[2]

text: The Amateur Championship was first hosted by Carnoustie in 1947; the winner was Willie Turnesa. The world's oldest amateur event has returned three times since: 1966 (won by Bobby Cole), 1971 (won by Steve Melnyk), and 1992 (won by Stephen Dundas).

text: The British Ladies Amateur was first hosted by Carnoustie in 1973, and also in 2012.

text: The Senior Open Championship was held at Carnoustie for the first time in 2010, with Germany's Bernhard Langer winning. The Women's British Open was held here for the first time in 2011; the winner was Yani Tseng.

text: Carnoustie is one of the three courses hosting the Alfred Dunhill Links Championship, an autumn event on the European Tour; the others are the Old Course at St Andrews and Kingsbarns.

text: The Golf Channel's reality series The Big Break, in which aspiring golfers compete for exemptions on professional tours and other prizes, filmed its fourth season at Carnoustie in 2005. As that year also saw the Ryder Cup at The K Club in Ireland, that year's show was based around a US vs Europe theme, with the two teams competing for European Tour exemptions.

text: In North America, the course is nicknamed "Car-nasty," due to its famous difficulty, especially under adverse weather conditions. Carnoustie is considered by many to be the most difficult course in the Open rota, and one of the toughest courses in the world.[citation needed]

text: The term Carnoustie effect dates from the 1999 Open, when the world's best players, many of whom were reared on manicured and relatively windless courses, were frustrated by the unexpected difficulties of the Carnoustie links, which was compounded by the weather. One much-fancied young favourite, a 19-year-old Sergio García of Spain, went straight from the course to his mother's arms crying after shooting 89 and 83 in the first two rounds.[3] The Carnoustie effect is defined as "that degree of mental and psychic shock experienced on collision with reality by those whose expectations are founded on false assumptions." This being a psychological term, it can of course apply to disillusionment in any area of activity, not just in golf.

text: The 1999 Open Championship is best remembered for the collapse of French golfer Jean van de Velde, who needed only a double-bogey six on the 72nd hole to win the Open—and proceeded to score a triple-bogey seven, tying Paul Lawrie and 1997 champion Justin Leonard at 290 (+6). Lawrie won the four-hole aggregate playoff and the championship.

text: The Open Championship was once again contested at Carnoustie in July 2007. The eight-year absence was far shorter than the lengthy 24 years it took to return to Carnoustie, between 1975 and 1999. Harrington triumphed over García in a four-hole playoff. The 18th hole once again proved itself among the most dramatic and exciting in championship golf. Harrington had a one-shot lead over García as he approached the final hole in the fourth round, but proceeded to put not one but two shots into the Barry Burn, on his way to a double-bogey 6. García, playing in the final pairing of the day, reached the 18th with a one-shot lead over Harrington, but bogeyed the hole after missing a putt from just under ten feet away, setting up the playoff. In the four-hole playoff, which ended on the 18th, Harrington took no chances with a two-shot lead on the 18th; his bogey was enough to defeat García by one shot.

text: The Open Championship returned to Carnoustie in 2018.[4]

text: On 17 January 2014, it was announced that Carnoustie Golf Links – which operates the six publicly owned courses, including the Championship Course – had appointed its first-ever female chairman, Pat Sawers.[5]

text: The Open Championship[edit]

text: This is a list of The Open Championship champions at Carnoustie Golf Links:

text:
Year
Winner
Score
Winner'sshare (£)

R1
R2
R3
R4
Total

1931
 Tommy Armour
73
75
77
71
296 (+8)
100

1937
 Henry Cotton 2nd
74
72
73
71
290 (+6)
100

1953
 Ben Hogan
73
71
70
68
282 (−6)
500

1968
 Gary Player 2nd
74
71
71
73
289 (+1)
3,000

1975
 Tom Watson 1st
71
67
69
72
279 (−9) PO
7,500

1999
 Paul Lawrie
73
74
76
67
290 (+6) PO
350,000

2007
 Pádraig Harrington 1st
69
73
68
67
277 (−7) PO
750,000

2018
 Francesco Molinari
70
72
65
69
276 (−8)
1,625,387

text: Note: For multiple winners of The Open Championship, superscript ordinal identifies which in their respective careers.

text: The Women's British Open[edit]

text: Winner of the Women's British Open at Carnoustie Golf Links.

text:
Year
Winner
Score

R1
R2
R3
R4
Total

2011
 Yani Tseng 2nd
71
66
66
69
272 (−16)

text: The Senior British Open[edit]

text: Winner of The Senior Open Championship at Carnoustie Golf Links.

text:
Year
Winner
Score

R1
R2
R3
R4
Total

2010
 Bernhard Langer
67
71
69
72
279 (−5)

2016
 Paul Broadhurst
75
66
68
68
277 (−11)

text: Course[edit]

text: Carnoustie Golf Links - Championship Course2007 Open Championship

text:
Hole
Name
Yards
Par

Hole
Name
Yards
Par

1
Cup
406
4

10
South America
466
4

2
Gulley
463
4
11
John Philp
383
4

3
Jockie's Burn
358
4
12
Southward Ho
499
4

4
Hillocks
412
4
13
Whins
176
3

5
Brae
415
4
14
Spectacles
514
5

6
Hogan's Alley
578
5
15
Lucky Slap
472
4

7
Plantation
410
4
16
Barry Burn
248
3

8
Short
183
3
17
Island
461
4

9
Railway
478
4
18
Home
499
4

Out
3,703
36
In
3,718
35

Total
7,421
71

text: Lengths of the course for previous Opens (since 1950):[6]

text:
1999: 7,361 yards (6,731 m), par 71
1975: 7,065 yards (6,460 m), par 72
1968: 7,252 yards (6,631 m), par 72
1953: 6,701 yards (6,127 m), par 72

text: The 12th hole was played as a par-5 through 1975.

text: Length of the course for Women's British Open

text: 2011: 6,490 yards (5,934 m), par 72

text: Length of the course for Senior Open Championship

text:
2016: 7,345 yards (6,716 m), par 72
2010: 7,197 yards (6,581 m), par 71

text: Course record[edit]

text:
Player
Country
Score
Tournament
Date

Tommy Fleetwood
 England
63 (−9)
Alfred Dunhill Links Championship
6 Oct 2017

text: Scorecard[edit]

text:
Hole
 1
 2
 3
 4
 5
 6
 7
 8
 9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18

Par
4
4
4
4
4
5
4
3
4
4
4
5
3
5
4
3
4
4

 Fleetwood
E
−1
−1
−2
−2
−3
−3
−3
−3
−3
−4
−5
−6
−7
−8
−8
−8
−9

text: Birdie

text: The course was par 72 at 7,394 yards (6,761 m), with the 12th hole as a par 5 at 504 yards (461 m).