Talk:Watership Down/Archive 1

Name

Shouldn't the hill be listed first and then the book? Lee M 02:13, 31 Oct 2003 (UTC)

In the words of Kenneth Wolstenholme: it is now. Lee M 04:55, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)

and I've now reversed it...I have doubts that few look for the hill first. If this bothers you, feel free to revert it. Parelle

And I've done the obvious, and created a page for the hill itself, at Watership Down (place). It's known for other reasons than the story, after all. Loganberry 00:04, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I see that "Martin Rosen" has been unlinked, presumably because at the moment it redirects to Moishe Rosen. I think Martin Rosen the director is significant enough to have a page, so if no-one else does it first, I'll try to get a stub done, sort out the Moishe Rosen redirect, and then restore the link. Loganberry 03:05, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

Chapter 49

Reasons for my edits:

1. The character of "Doctor Adams" is almost certainly based on Adams' father, not Richard himself; Richard is described in many editions' biographical blurb as "the son of a country doctor".
2. Chapter 49 is entitled Dea ex Machina (not Deus...). This is because it is Lucy, rather than Doctor Adams, who is the important person here.

Loganberry (Talk) 18:27, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Shouldn't the movie Donnie Darko be mentioned in cultural references?

Go ahead and add it if you like; I don't know the film well enough to do so reliably. Could you sign your comments on Talk pages (only) please, though? Use ~~~~ after your comment to do that. Cheers. Loganberry (Talk) 01:11, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

The book in Another Languages

I added a section about how is the book named in another languages. So far I only added the name of the Japanese version. Feel free to add or correct another languages' versions. --Luisedgarf 21:59, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

El-Hrair-Rah

Shouldn't some mention be made of this character? He's not in the breakdown, likely because he's not in the actual plot of the story, just in the internal mythos, but he is an important part of the book.

Ben

Gundam

Here's my source for the Gundam info: Category:Titans Test Team Mobile Weapons from the Advance of Zeta wiki. A web search for "hazel gundam" will probably yield some Hazel kits. --KJ 09:10, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

"Gundam model kits named after Hazel have been released by Bandai. Mobile weapons named Hazel-rah, Kehaar, Bigwig, and Hrududu also exist, albeit only in fiction. "

Don't all Gundams exist in fiction? This should be clarified

Revisions

1. . A novel can not star anyone. This is a term reservered for preformances.
2. . Second revision is simply to break up the run on sentence. Several ideas were clumped together. Not necessary.
3. . The term "breaking through" is illusive and not encyclopedic.
4. . The phrase "for purposes of fiction" seems like POV to me but, I'm willing to debate this one.
5. . Yet again, this section was broken up to better exspress several ideas that have been needless jumbled into a run on sentence.
6. . Use of the word "Legendary" is POV
7. . Saying it is "one of the legendary xenofictions" is open ended. What are the others? This sentence still seems weaselly to me but I left it for another editor to fix.
8. . "Chewed out" not encyclopedic
9. . Use of the word they is illusive, who are they?
10. . "Fornlornly", awkward wording but, thats my own personal opinion
11. . Totlatarian state would be run "by" a totalitarian not "under" one.
12. . "must persuad does to join" I didn't know what this sentence meant, so I changed "does" to "others"
13. . More awkard wording. I intend to come back and put this section in a table when I have more time.
14. . Adams is already wikified

I intend to come back and do more revisions when I have more time. --The_stuart 22:00, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your edits, but please double-check to see how they affect flow and capitalization. --KJ 05:35, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

In number 12 of your list, The_stuart, "does" is the plural of "doe," a female rabbit, not a conjugation of "do." --Rosey 19:49, 25 April 2006

Some tidying needed...

...and I'm talking about the whole Watership Down section, not just this article. For a start, Thlayli is a silly place to put Bigwig's article, since a) the latter is a much more familiar name, and b) Thlayli isn't used at all in the 1978 film. Bigwig (Watership Down) is where it ought to be, and I intend to move it there subject to any serious objections. Several other articles also need to be moved, although some are a case of simple capitalisation corrections (eg El-ahrairah, which in fact I have just moved from the incorrect El-Ahrairah).

There are also a number of places in these WD articles that simply seem overly "fannish". As a devoted WD fan myself, I can understand that, but we need to remember that Wikipedia is not a personal website or journal. I've seen examples of Lapine used that were the work of fans, not of Richard Adams, and yet were quoted as though they were official canon.

A bit more attention to detail wouldn't go amiss either. For example, Owslafa didn't have a proper bolded headword until I put it in just now, and both that and the aforementioned El-ahrairah article used {{Fantasy-book-stub}}, which is just plain wrong: that stub is for books themselves, whereas El-ahrairah is a book character and Owslafa an institution.

More things come to mind - for example, more clearly marking out things that are not in all versions of the story (eg Redstone) - but this will do for now, I think. And yes, of course I'm going to work on improving these things and not just complaining! Hoi, hoi, u embleer Hrair... =;P Loganberry (Talk) 03:12, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I generally agree; one more thing: we don't need to have articles for everything when we can put similar content together. We don't need a separate article for owslafa when we can merge it into owsla. --KJ 04:23, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Owsla and Owslafa are sufficiently different to be on seperate pages. CL8 04:49, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Then how come the old owslafa article didn't say anything worthy of another article? Can owslafa ever be anything other than a really small stub, a candidate for deletion or merging? I think not. --KJ 05:32, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Come to think of it, I think it would be nice to have owsla redirect to Watership Down, or some other article. We don't need stubs with no hope. --KJ 05:35, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Maybe we could have some sort of "Concepts in Watership Down" article where these things could be brought together? I'm thinking of the existing Minor Discworld concepts page; WD isn't as big a "universe" as Discworld, so we'd probably only need one page, wherein could be found (for example), Owsla, Owslafa, Wide Patrol, Hlessi... that sort of thing. Loganberry (Talk) 22:03, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Standardising article titles

I noticed that there wasn't much consistency in these: for example Captain Campion, Vervain (character) and Blackberry (rabbit). That made it harder to find (and edit) them, so I'm being bold and moving all those that require disambiguation in the first place (El-ahrairah doesn't, for example) to a standardised format of Character (Watership Down). I am making an exception for General Woundwort, because his title is almost an integral part of his name and extremely well-known. Loganberry (Talk) 15:32, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Logan! --Kizor 18:06, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Template?

I've just knocked this template up quickly. Please do not add it to article pages at the moment as there is not yet a proper template page in existence; I'm merely interested in hearing what people make of it.

One point I've already thought of: it's bound to be difficult to decide who is entitled to their own character article and who is not; the names I've given above are just a first suggestion, and I'm sure others will have their own opinions. I've included most of the original band that left Sandleford, but it could easily be argued that (say) Speedwell really doesn't have enough to do to make him worthy of his own article.

Another point that may come up: I know that informally the WD fandom has adopted "Warren of Shining Wires" or similar for Cowslip's place, but I don't think we can justify that here - a Google search shows that no variation has anything like as many hits as "Cowslip's warren", and perhaps more importantly the WoSW title is never once used in the books; it's an invention of the TV series. I think we should have "Cowslip's warren", with a redirect from WoSW and an explanation in the article.

Anyway, please give me some feedback on this template - what's missing, what ought to be removed, that sort of thing. For those who don't know, Flyairth is in Tales and Hannah is in the TV series. (And judging by all those redlinks, we have a big job still to do anyway!) Loganberry (Talk) 00:28, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for all the good work. :) Maybe we could split the template into smaller ones? In articles for the Ender's Game series, there are three templates: {{EnderBooks}}, {{EnderCharacters}}, and {{EnderThings}}. What do you think? --KJ 04:27, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

That was something I was thinking about myself. I don't think the template as it stands is that excessive, and I wouldn't want to split things up too much, as WD is a relatively small universe and there's no point in confusing things for the sake of it. And there are only two novels, after all, so it would be silly to have a separate template just for those; this isn't Discworld! However, a split that might work would be along the lines of Stories (meaning books, film, series, plays etc) / Characters / Locations / Miscellanea. I like the way the Ender's Game templates have links to the others in the bottom bar; I'd support adopting that if we did go for a split.

The Miscellanea section is the one I'm least sure about of the four I've mentioned; realistically, how many articles could we include there that would get beyond stub length? (See Owsla, which personally I think ought to be subsumed into a Concepts in Watership Down article anyway.) I've managed to write essays about several aspects, but obviously that's original research and thus not suitable for Wikipedia. I think we could do it, if we covered subjects such as the allegations of sexism, whether WD is allegorical, the awards the book won, etc... but it would be a big effort. Loganberry (Talk) 13:36, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I've just left-aligned the template to see how it looks; center alignment always looks untidy to me. As for more miscellanea, Lapine needs to go somewhere. :3 Spottedowl 14:05, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Heh; personally I think the centred alignment looks considerably more attractive! =:P More input on that point, among others, from other editors would be very welcome. Fair point about Lapine; you're probably right. 86.132.143.154 23:26, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

(That was me; I got signed out without noticing.) Loganberry (Talk) 16:03, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

How about a version without red links? It's already good enough to be put on article pages, IMHO. --kjoonlee 15:07, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Richard Adams' Watership Down
Novels: Watership Down - Tales from Watership Down
Adaptations: Feature film
Characters: Bigwig - Blackberry - Campion - Dandelion - General Woundwort - Hazel - Kehaar - Vervain - more...
Mythical/story creatures: El-ahrairah
Locations: Efrafa - River Enborne - Railway line - Redstone - River Test - Watership Down

Looks okay, though I have very mixed feelings about leaving out redlinks; I think it may give readers a false sense of completeness. Ideally we'd have some sort of article on every relevant thing before using the template at all, but that's idealism.

The other question is whether to have one big template or several smaller ones. I've knocked up an example of the latter (with redlinks!), and that can be seen here: Template:Watership_Down/temp. Of course if this became active, each box would go on a separate template page. Loganberry (Talk) 01:33, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Template!

I think red links are discouraged: see {{redlinks}}. If articles grow and the template grows, then I think we should split the template, but with the current amount of material, I think a single small template would suffice. (New section created to make editing easier.) --Kjoonlee 04:30, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Richard Adams' Watership Down
Novels: Watership Down - Tales from Watership Down
Adaptations: Feature film
Characters: Bigwig - Blackberry - Campion - Dandelion - General Woundwort - Fiver - Hazel - Kehaar - Vervain
Mythical/story creatures: El-ahrairah
Locations: Efrafa - River Enborne - Railway line - Redstone - River Test - Watership Down

How does this look? Fiver added, moved "List of characters" link to "Characters". --Kjoonlee 16:59, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I note that the {{redlinks}} template has now been "removed after discussion because it was deemed not in keeping with Wikipedia's goals. It was argued that many redlinks on a page promote the creation of new articles." That being so, it would appear that redlinks are generally considered desirable. Loganberry (Talk) 00:28, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Templates again

As I mentioned briefly above, redlinks are not now discouraged, if they ever were, and when the {{redlinks}} template was put up on Tfd in August, the discussion was overwhelmingly in favour of its deletion (13-2 if we're counting). The impression I've got over the years is that redlinks are actually generally encouraged, since they make it very quick and easy to see what still needs writing.

Having said that, I do agree that we could probably get away with a single template for the moment, so I'm going to add that to some relevant pages tonight. The possible split templates still exist at Template:Watership Down/temp, but if it is decided to use them at some point, please do not use the "move page" feature to bring them out of the "temp" page, since that would cause all kinds of problems as we'd want three new template pages rather than just the one. Loganberry (Talk) 00:34, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Titled, entitled

Hi, in my lexicon the words titled and entitled are distinguished by their objects; people are entitled to prizes or titles, while works are titled their names. I think using "titled" for books or chapters is safer than using entitled. --Kjoonlee 11:15, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

You seem to be going by American usage, which is not helpful where Watership Down is concerned. It is a British book by a British author, and so Wikipedia convention is to use British English. "Titled" here is not usual British English usage, as can be seen from a Google search restricted to .uk domains. The phrase "the book titled" gets 660 hits, but the phrase "the book entitled" gets 11,700 hits - more than seventeen times as many. Besides, how on earth can "one sequel, entitled Tales..." be interpreted to mean anything to do with prizes?

Though I was originally tempted to revert again, I think that would be a ridiculous revert war to get into, but "titled" just does not look right in British English. That being so, instead I've edited the section to say what maybe should have been written in the first place, and reworded it to say "One sequel, Tales from Watership Down has been published..." I've also put it in a separate section right at the end (since it's not part of WD proper), which again should have been done from the start. That looks okay to me, and avoids the (en)titled problem entirely. Loganberry (Talk) 00:59, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I normally try to follow British usage when I can. In fact, I learned my English in what is now Greater London (New Malden, Surrey, to be precise.) Despite that, I was unaware that there were BE/AmE differences involved. (BTW, searching for "book titled" and "book entitled," the latter gives me only 3.377 times as many hits in my case.)

Anyway, I guess a paraphrase solves the problem nicely. There are still some bits on chapters that still use "titled," though. --Kjoonlee 01:21, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

As a provincial, I could be rude and question whether London counts as representative of Britain, but that would be uncalled for! I don't know why you get such a different ratio; I have SafeSearch off in Google if that makes any difference. And thanks for pointing out the other occurrences of "titled"; I've reworded or removed those as appropriate. Loganberry (Talk) 01:52, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

1. Word search, exclusive usage
   • Results 1 - 10 of about 18,400,000 for book entitled -titled. (0.16 seconds)
   • Results 1 - 10 of about 606,000 for book titled -entitled. (0.18 seconds)
2. Phrase search, exclusive usage
   • Results 1 - 10 of about 171,000 for "book entitled" -titled. (0.05 seconds)
   • Results 1 - 10 of about 47,700 for "book titled" -entitled. (0.12 seconds)
3. Phrase search
   • Results 1 - 10 of about 179,000 for "book entitled". (0.77 seconds)
   • Results 1 - 10 of about 52,700 for "book titled". (0.08 seconds)
4. Word search
   • Results 1 - 10 of about 4,260,000 for book entitled. (0.53 seconds)
   • Results 1 - 10 of about 740,000 for book titled. (0.24 seconds)

These are results with SafeSearch off and no "site:uk"; I think "site:uk" removes results from .org or .net domains that are located in the UK. --Kjoonlee 02:09, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

(So I used "* pages from the UK." --Kjoonlee 02:11, 20 October 2006 (UTC))

Kehaar

Doesn't he deserve an article of his own? He's a pretty important character, even if he's not a rabbit. When I click on his link it only redirects to this page. Dora Nichov 03:35, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. There's still a lot of work to do on WD-related topics, and a proper page for Kehaar would seem to be a fairly high priority. Loganberry (Talk) 03:43, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah. I just HAD to say that, 'cause I was surprised nobody had brought this up yet. Dora Nichov 09:13, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I suggested that the article be merged because it's a stub.Jrdaigle1000 16:40, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

It is on the short side, so I think it should be merged. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.94.182.11 (talk • contribs).

Stubs

I have noticed several stubs pertaining to Watership Down. I even saw an entire article about the word elil. I think this is overkill. I marked them to be merged with this one. Jrdaigle1000 16:49, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Elil and Owsla should probably go into an article called something like Concepts in Watership Down, since I think this main article would get too long if everything was included here; I wouldn't like to see it much longer than it is now. Specifically, elil and Owsla probably don't deserve articles of their own, but I disagree about Kehaar. He's a major character and deserves a proper article, even if he doesn't have one at the moment! So I'd quite strongly oppose that specific merge. Loganberry (Talk) 02:47, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject Novels assessment

Rather lost in all the recent edits, Kevinalewis has assessed this article for WikiProject Novels, and has rated it as:

• High importance: this is the second-highest class (out of four) and means that Watership Down itself is considered significant both within the field of literature and outside it, but is not quite a "core" book that absolutely everyone will know at least something about.

• B-class: this is the fourth-highest class (out of six) and means that this specific article is considered to have a good deal of useful information, but to have significant gaps, some cleanup required, and/or missing references.

I would broadly agree with his assessment. I think this article isn't bad, but that it's not really good enough for a novel of Watership Down's importance. For example:

• The article's layout isn't the clearest. There are 14 sections (not including the lead): do we really need quite that many? It could also do with a bit of a rewrite for consistency: it's rather too obvious at the moment that it's been written piecemeal.
• Some fairly significant spoilers are given outside the spoiler tags - for example, the specific explanation of what's going on at Cowslip's warren in the "Literary significance & criticism" section, and this happens again in some of the character summaries.
• Some of the plot and character summaries teeter on the edge of fansite rather than encyclopedia article. The list of characters itself is okay, but we should guard against bits and pieces continually being added to it and making it even more unwieldy. We don't need to mention everything about each character.
• We should not list every single person/band/book that's gained inspiration from WD, and nor do we need to mention every time someone in a film or on TV is seen reading the book; there are - well - hrair of those! The reference from The Stand is quite famous and probably justified; the fact that two people on Lost mention it is really pretty minor.
• "Trivia" sections are becoming increasingly frowned upon on Wikipedia. As we only have one entry in ours, it shouldn't be hard to incorporate that somewhere in the main article, and remove the Trivia section entirely. That would also discourage other editors from adding more and more trivia: not everything suitable for a WD fansite belongs in a Wikipedia article.
• There are no inline references: that's only an absolute requirement for featured articles, but it's good practice anyway. If quoting page numbers from the book itself, we should stick to the British Penguin/Puffin editions (which have identical pagination), since it's a British book and they're the most popular editions by far in the UK.
• There are too many external links, some of which are of dubious notability. WP's guidelines on external links gives a useful list of links normally to be avoided, which includes personal web pages not written by a "recognised authority". I'd be inclined to keep Chris Boyce's page as it's an excellent resource, but things like this are just plain fansite material and should be zapped. (And any site that plays music automatically will irritate the heck out of visitors anyway!) We really don't need multiple publication histories either.

I think that in the long term this article should be able to reach featured status, but it's a very tough target, so probably the first goal should be to try to get it approved as a Good Article. If I get the time in the nearish future I'll have a go at a complete rewrite, which I'll then put up on a temp page for everyone here to comment on - but I can't promise that I will have the time. Anyway, we have a lot of digging to do (yes, bucks too)! Loganberry (Talk) 03:27, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Inle right?

I know I'm probably wrong or else it would have probably been changed already but this is my favorite novel and I am just absolutley sure that it's the black rabbit of inle that comes for Hazel at the end, not el-hrairah —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Herzog (talk • contribs) 06:23, 6 January 2007 (UTC).

No, it's El-ahrairah; try to remember how Hazel noticed it was him. --Kjoonlee 06:55, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Yup. The ears sparkle. --Kizor 08:01, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Woundwort "insane"?

I'm not too sure if I'd call Woundwort "insane" in the summary... Power-crazed and despotic yes, but he always had his wits about him, even during the waning moments of the last Watership Down seige. Banpei 21:24, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I'd say where we draw the line is debatable. He did try to take on a dog bare-clawed in the end. That said, the current description seems quite appropriate. --Kizor 23:43, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Woundwort is quite insane. : ) Jrdaigle1000 21:28, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

But Wikipedia is not a place for debates... WP:NOR WP:NPOV --Kjoonlee 22:00, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

God knows the mods don't want people to question wiki.

-G

cultural references

Can we scale down the cultural references section? The bar for inclusion at present seems to be any reference of any kind by any figure with no regard for a) the prominence of who is making the reference, b) the prominence of the work making the reference c) the degree to which the reference is notable within the work itself.

Of these, (c) bothers me the most, and furthermore can be evaluated with the least amount of PoV. To me the barrier needs to be that the work uses or references WD as a significant part of the work. Bunnies and Burrows is obviously inspired in large part by WD, and itself is relatively notable, so it's inclusion is entirely appropriate. The Wallace and Grommit example, on the other hand, is an incredibly minor and obscure reference not the the book directly but to the movie. If it belongs anywhere it's the trivia section, but I would argue that it isn't relevant at all for inclusion in this article.

Anyway, I've gotten rid of a couple that I thought were so far below the threshold that they weren't even debateable, but I thought I'd see if there was any major disagreement with reorganizing the cultural references section with a higher bar for inclusion. Charles (Kznf) 16:12, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Please go ahead. I agree entirely with your feelings about this, and would like to see the glancing references removed entirely, unless there's some other reason why they're notable. Loganberry (Talk) 23:44, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I've taken my first stab at it. One of the ways I determined whether or not to use or keep an example was whether or not it was mentioned anywhere in the article about the source. The Gundam ones in particular seemed kinda notable, but I couldn't find any reference to it in the Gundam articles or any of it's sub-articles at all, so I ditched it. I'm sure it could still be cleaned up, and copy-edited, but I think it represents a vast improvement over the list-mess that was the previous incarnation. Charles (Kznf) 16:34, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the Gundam series in question is Advance of Zeta: The Flags of the Titans. In that series, all of the Titan Test Team's mobile suit is named after those character from WD, such as TR-01 Hazel. I think MAHQ.net and mechascientific.com have very good info and example of those mobile suit. Ang Ling Yuen 07:59, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

And that Gundam series doesn't have a wikipedia article that I could find. Watership Down is a major novel that has sold millions of copies. There are probably thousands of references to it throughout the popular cultures of dozens of countries. I don't think the Gundam one is any more notable than most of these, and I think it falls under WP:TRIVIA Charles (Kznf) 12:54, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Star Wars

I can't find any terribly reliable source for Lucas being inspired by Watership Down. There's plenty of references for both of them being inspired by Hero with a thousand faces. A very small handful of places make reference to "interviews" where he credits WD, but never with a date or publication for the interview. For all I know this could be original research, but it wouldn't be that outrageous for it to be true, so I've merely tagged it with needing a citation for now. Charles (Kznf) 16:41, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I think we should leave that tag for a little while, then if nothing turns up to justify the assertion we can delete it. If nobody can provide a verifiable source for it, then it shouldn't be in the article. Loganberry (Talk) 01:11, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Article needs cleanup

Much of what was/is in the Literary significance and Major themes sections appears to be editors' original research. Also, significant portions of the article have been in place for a long time completely unsourced, even after six months of being tagged with a request to find sources. I've tagged individual sections and have backdated them to May 2007 to match the overall article maintenance tag for two reasons: (1) to alert researchers/readers that the information has not been verified, and (2) to alert other editors that this copy should be either sourced or removed in the next couple weeks.
Jim Dunning | talk 04:57, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

template help

I see that the default for the "Watership Down" template is hidden on this page. That is nice. How is this done? When I place the template anywhere else, the default is shown. I would like to adapt this to another project I'm working on, but I can't seem to locate the wiki-markup for it. It does not seem to be here on the page, or in the template. Thanks! --Knulclunk (talk) 13:39, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Citations requested for sequel?

Any suggestions on what actual citations are requested for this? Since this is the actual contents of the sequel novel, I'm a little confused as to what is being questioned here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheWizardOfAhz (talk • contribs) 18:45, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

A ref to a review that briefly describes the sequel using the same points will do.
Jim Dunning | talk 22:09, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Character section downsizing

Kizor's recent removal of the "shorten section" ({{shorten}}) maintenance tag prompted me to address the original issue: the Characters section contained far too many characters, most of them relatively unimportant to the plot's key events. Therefore, I deleted most of the listed characters without internal links, thus reducing the article's Sparknotes appearance. In line with recommended novel style guidelines for identifying characters, we could consider removing the section completely and instead rely on succinct descriptions incorporated into the Plot summary.
Jim Dunning | talk 04:46, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I've heavily edited Minor characters in Watership Down, moving it to Characters in Watership Down and merging most of the individual character articles. I've linked to it in the Characters section, and removed most of the content there. However, the embedded list is still pretty useless, so further edits or changes are definitely welcome—perhaps the above-mentioned incorporated descriptions are a good idea. Mr. Absurd (talk) 21:51, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Good work on the move. I'll try moving the major character information into the Plot section (which could use some work anyway, although I like its current compact size). If that's unsatisfactory, maybe adding some real-world info to the Characters will work.
Jim Dunning | talk 22:40, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

GA Review

1. The "Sequel" and "Awards and nominations sections" are too short to merit their own sections. If possible, merge the information elsewhere, or expand the sections.
2. Coverage: It seems to me that this article needs a section that analyzes the work (meaning, themes, symbols, etc.) as well as a section that critical and/or public reception to the work. In the latter section, you could merge the short "awards" section into it.
3. The "editions" and "translations" section seems unnecessary to the article; I've never seen these sections before, and I looked specifically in Uncle Tom's Cabin, which is featured.
4. Character sections need to be expanded and should reflect the importance of the characters. Main characters should get fairly thorough descriptions, including a summary, importance, relationship to other important characters, etc.
5. Sources: amazon.com is not a good source, and linking to it is discouraged in the MOS; other sources that seem problematic are ScreenOnline and CurtainUp
6. Make sure all external links are absolutely necessary and justifiable--do not put up external links for the sake of putting up external links. Do not put up external links if the information within those links can be incorporated/presented within the body of the article.

There's quite a bit of work that needs to be done. I'll put this article On Hold for at least seven days (until 26 March 2008). If no significant progress has been made by that time, or if there's is no response to this review, this nom may be closed without further notice. If you have any questions, or would like input/help, feel free to leave a message here or on my talk page. Good Luck!

--Malachirality (talk) 21:11, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the review. I've started some work, but I don't know how long it will take to finish—online reviews are scarce, so I'll have to look elsewhere. One question: I have removed the Amazon.com and CurtainUp sources, but I left ScreenOnline. It seems to be published by the British Film Institute—why wouldn't this be reliable? Mr. Absurd (talk) 06:04, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Alternatives to the current Characters section: (1) remove it, ensuring there are sufficient descriptions in the Plot summary (which looks fine on that point now); or (2) make sure it's expanded with real-world copy, not in-universe information; this could be accomplished by including second-party commentary, analysis, and description and citing it.
Jim Dunning | talk 14:10, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Some resources for article expansion

It should be easy to expand the "Publication history", "Themes", and "Reception" sections, especially the Odyssey elements. Here's some links that may help —

Watership Down - with knives
Selma G. Lanes: Male Chauvinist Rabbits. In: The New York Times , 30. June 1974.
Life and Society on Watership Down
Jim Dunning | talk 16:03, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Number of rejections

The BBC article states that Watership Down was rejected thirteen times, but Adams stated in his 1985 interview that it was rejected only seven times. We need to either remove the specific number from the article because of the ambiguity or establish which number is correct. Mr. Absurd (talk) 22:13, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good. I would put more weight on Adams's statements, but I did read somewhere in an unsourced document that it was rejected by seven major publishing houses and a number of minor ones; maybe that's the source of the discrepancy.
Jim Dunning | talk 03:49, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Re: Themes

I have no proof, but I'm sure there's a source somewhere that envisions the novel as a reworking of the Aeneid: the hero flees his destroyed home with a band of survivors, and settles somewhere else after defeating the locals. The securing of female rabbits also smacks of Livy's "Rape of the Sabine Women" story from early (putative) Roman history. FWIW. Ifnkovhg (talk) 05:21, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

If you can find the source that would be great. I've got more material on the similar Odyssey (topic already started in Themes) and will be adding that. Livy's "Rape" is already mentioned relative to the treatment of females in the novel (also in Themes). More would be welcome.
Jim Dunning | talk 10:52, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Further GA review

The previous reviewer (User:Malachirality) appears to be MIA, and since there's a backlog of Literature noms at WP:GAC, I'll finish this up for them. There are currently two "citation needed" tags in the article, one in "Pub. history" and the other in "Critical" reception; referenced need to be provided or the material removed in order to satisfy WP:V. The novel's themes are somewhat limited and I'm concerned that there are only two major ones defined with very limited sourcing (again, the problem here is verifiability). The previous reviewer had an issue with the "Characters" section being too stingy, and I have to say that I agree; this is your chance to add more plot details or information about character development/background that are not outlined elsewhere. For example, I remember reading in my copy's preface that my favorite character, Blackberry, shows up late in the book because Adams had forgotten until his daughters reminded him -- just an example, of course. Some things are already listed at List of characters in Watership Down, such as Kehaar being based upon a fighter from the Norwegian Resistance during WWII. Little details like this may help bring this article to life.

As of now this is still limited in scope. Would it be easier to just close the nomination for now and leave time for further expansion? María (habla conmigo) 14:49, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Just on a plot point: what do you mean by Blackberry showing up "late in the book"? He's first mentioned (as "a buck with black-tipped ears") on the second page of the novel, and first appears by name at the start of chapter three (out of 50). Loganberry (Talk) 01:12, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Doh, not Blackberry, my mistake. Bluebell. From the Introduction to the Perennial Classics Edition: "I used to read installments to the girls as I wrote them, and often they made suggestions themselves, or reminded me that I had left out some features of the original story told in the car. They remembered, for instance, the comic rabbit Bluebell, and this is why, in the book, he arrives late in the scene." Again, I'm not suggesting this be added; this is minor at best, but similar "behind the scenes" additions would really be an asset. María (habla conmigo) 02:20, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

There haven't been any edits to the article in four days, and it seems that the main contributors are MIA. I'm going to close this nomination for the time being with the hope that the reason for the quietness is that my comments and the comments from the previous reviewer need further time to work on. Best of luck on improving this article on such a great novel, guys! If you have any questions, please do contact me. María (habla conmigo) 12:45, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Homeric Themes

I wanted to put a general correction. You can say that the themes are "Homeric", but as much as they are found in the Aeneid. Most of the scholars would point out an Aeneid connection (and from what I have seen in the sources given, this is true), which deals with the re-founding of a country after its destruction. The one scene that is compared to the Lotus Eaters in parenthesis, for example, would really be about Dido and Carthage. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:48, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Virgil's Aeneid is already mentioned in the "Themes" section and "Homeric" is only used in the lead, unless I'm mistaken. That could be made clearer per WP:LEAD, perhaps. The last point you bring up is certainly interesting, but a reliable source that makes the connection would help so as to avoid WP:OR. María (habla conmigo) 15:20, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Schmoll, Edward A. “Homeric Reminiscence in Watership Down.” Classical and Modern Literature 10.1 (1989): 21-26.

That article argues that all of the scenes of the book are reflected by the individual section headings. I'm a little surprised by how Rothen missattributed too many of the scenes to the wrong Odyssey scene. I guess she never read the Aeneid. Regardless, she isn't used for this section in particular. The Cowslip warren comes at section 13, which is prefaced with Tennyson's "The Lotus-Eaters". Now, this is different than saying it is the Lotus Eaters scene of the Odyssey. I would find the text that I cited and see if you can incorporate any of the comments. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:38, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

GA review

OK, let's get stuck into it....I'll put notes below. A preliminary look-through looks promising. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:26, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

The animals in the novel live in their natural environment, but are anthropomorphized, - could flip the conjunctions to ' Although the animals in the novel live in their natural environment, they are anthropomorphized,' as this emphasises the second clause which then segues into the third.

his novel was rejected 13 times in all, until Rex Collings, a small publishing house, finally accepted it - actually flows better if we break the style rules and use passive - 'his novel was rejected 13 times in all, until finally accepted by Rex Collings, a small publishing house'

Additionally, some scholars have perceived a strong misogynic element. - be good to cite this for GA as could be challenged.

The subsections of the Adaptations section are a wee bit stubby. I'd just add a line or two on each to highlight their similarities (or differences) to the book, for continuity.

Otherwise, a great read and very well done. Just these tiny tweaks and yer over the line...Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:05, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your review! I've already fixed the first and second points. For the fourth, I've added to Film and Televison, but I didn't have anything for Theatre… do we still need more? As for the third point, I would have thought a ref wasn't needed because it was covered in more detail in the subsection "Misogyny". Either way, I didn't work on that section at all so I have no idea, but I'll poke around a bit and see what I can find. Mr. Absurd (talk) 17:52, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think a cite is needed since that paragraph was created as a "Lead" for the Themes section, and the cite is below it (similar to how the article Lead is handled). Similarly, there is no cite for the reference to the heoric elements in the sentence below it. Great job on expanding the film adaptation section, BTW. Excellent addition.
Jim Dunning | talk 18:38, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Nevermind - the two bits referred are referenced further down, leaving only one cite tag which is from the book anyway, so all good. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 18:48, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Dedication

This is certainly not a big deal, but I noticed that my copy of Watership Down (published sometime after the movie, not sure which year) formats the dedication differently from the article. It looks like this:

To
Juliet and Rosamund
remembering
the road to Stratford-on-Avon

as opposed to this:

To Juliet and Rosamund,
remembering
the road to Stratford-on-Avon

Is it my copy that's different from the original, or the version in the article wrong? Mr. Absurd (talk) 18:26, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

The copy I have access to (a very early edition) is formatted similarly to the the box I placed in the article. I don't think it matters. An alternative might be to photo the actual page an place it in the article.
Jim Dunning | talk 18:41, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay, that's fine. I was pretty sure my version was wrong, but I just wanted to make sure. Mr. Absurd (talk) 02:37, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it's a matter of one version being right or wrong — it's the thought that counts! lol
Jim Dunning | talk 03:28, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

On towards FAC

I was musing on this and upon reflection was impressed with the prose (usually the most challenging and heartbreaking aspect of FAC). I am however not too exeprt on literature, so thought if Jbmurray, Awadewit and/or Wrad would be best literary critics I can think of off the top of my head before going on there. Someone may remember some other literary critique we haven't thought of. Also, was watership down the first of the anthropomorphised animal books? eg legacy which spawned Duncton Wood, the Rats of NIMH etc. and has someone written something noting this? Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:40, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

On anthropomorphized animal books: Beatrix Potter and Wind in the Willows. Meanwhile, Awadewit's the person for children's literature (though I realize that it may be somewhat controversial to call WD children's literature!). I really don't know the critical literature, if it exists. A quick look at Google books gives me [1][2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] and [8] as possibly useful sources. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 09:52, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm very much interested in helping to develop the article further, but I urge caution and patience. I thought this article was prematurely nominated for GA, and it took a bit of scrambling to bring it up to snuff (barely) from where it started just over a month ago. The resources listed above are helpful, but to move toward FAC, professional research tools and access to non-online resources (such as those at university libraries) will be needed. I just don't want to rush this: the focus shouldn't be on FAC per se, but creating a top-notch article.
Jim Dunning | talk 10:28, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, offline sources are the things which really help make good FAs, I think they have been instrumental in all of mine without exception, so definitely no rush. I was just giving a heads up to see where this led. Some of mine were delayed months due to not finding what I needed, and biology was a heckuva lot easier than these sorta ones...Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:44, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

BRD

Some one decided to remove the sentence that reads "Additionally, some scholars have criticized its representation of gender." [9] That was very bold considering we have a section titled Gender roles which discusses this issue. I've reverted it as vandalism. Anyone care to comment. NJGW (talk) 07:02, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

While I didn't remove the sentences you are referring to in the first place, I saw no evidence of "vandalism". It appeared to a be a good faith edit, especially, as you say yourself, it is already mentioned elsewhere in the article. I therefore reverted your revert. It did not harm the article. It removed a piece of repetition. Don't assume that all IP edits are vandalism. Rapparee71 (talk) 07:42, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Do you believe that the whole paragraph that summarizes the themes section should be removed? NJGW (talk) 07:48, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I see no harm in leaving it, but it is redundant.Rapparee71 (talk) 07:51, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I guess that's the nature of introductions. Too bad they're a necessary evil for good writing. NJGW (talk) 07:57, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually, it isn't necessary. Not all works require one. And, after looking at a draft without it, it actually looks cleaner. Rapparee71 (talk) 08:00, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I couldn't help but notice that the statement by Adams, stating that it was never meant to be an allegory, is missing. Why was it removed? It was relevant. Rapparee71 (talk) 08:02, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure how you managed to notice that... it's still there in the section related to what he was asked about and was talking about at the time. NJGW (talk) 14:47, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Hyzenthlay

I'm biased here as she's one of my favourite characters, but I do think Hyzenthlay has got a bit of a rough deal in this article. She's only even mentioned once, which is a shame as I think she's long been underestimated. She's by far the most important doe in the book, since without her Bigwig would probably have failed in his mission in Efrafa, so probably deserves a mention in the "Gender roles" section too. The tricky bit is finding a good source: Hyzenthlay's importance seems to have been overlooked by many essayists and reviewers too. Loganberry (Talk) 16:38, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

This is an excellent point. Are there any articles that mention her actions in the novel as a refutation of the view of misogyny? --Hdstubbs (talk) 05:00, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

theme: utopia

Utopia should probably be a theme. The sources are out there. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 08:32, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Maybe a distopia theme? Do you mean the brass wire warren? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.179.195.183 (talk) 16:18, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

"Editions" and "Translations" sections

I've removed the two sections for editions and translations. As commented by Malachirality above, there seems to be no precedent for including them, and at any rate the editions information can be found easily at any number of book databases. Mr. Absurd (talk) 06:12, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Put them back in. It is very hard for many of us to travel to "distant" websites, and access the book databases you think are so easy to reach. You surely have heard of packet death. Well, for a lot of us, the data cannot be obtained as easily as it can for you. Internet is not free. Data searches are not free. What you think is visible on your computer running your favorite software program is not universally visible on other people's computers running their favorite software programs. What takes you perhaps split seconds to reach, takes some of us - perhaps many of us - weeks to reach, with varying degrees of success. And no two databases are absolutely, perfectly, and completely, assuredly the same. Wikipedia would be improved if the information were brought back in, rather than made the subject of censorship. 216.99.201.66 (talk) 08:37, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Farthing Wood

Is there any mileage in mentioning Farthing Wood? the similarities are obvious but is it germane to this article, and can it be referenced? Totnesmartin (talk) 16:51, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Length of plot summary

This article recently underwent a massive plot summary expansion from about 400 words to roughly 4000, mostly written by 121.214.9.130 (talk · contribs), 124.180.11.38 (talk · contribs), and FiverFan65 (talk · contribs) (who I'm guessing are the same user). While I certainly commend this/these user(s) for their dedication and hard work, such a long plot summary is in my opinion far too long and detailed for a Wikipedia article. This view is supported by the Manual of Style, which states that "the length of a plot summary should be carefully balanced with the length of the other sections". As such, I have reverted these additions completely; while there likely were some worthy edits in the additions, the previous summary had undergone a lot of careful revision (especially during the previous Good Article process) and I believe that moving forward it will be much easier to reach an optimal length for this article working from 400 words than 4000.

I hesitated to do this because I didn't want to discourage anyone from contributing further to Wikipedia, but I believed it necessary for the article. I certainly would encourage any editors to help improve the plot summary, but also remembering to focus on maintaining an appropriate length. There is a great set of guidelines at Wikipedia:How to write a plot summary, and also a list of examples from other articles.

Please feel free to leave questions, comments, replies or otherwise.

Thanks, Mr. Absurd (talk) 14:05, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Mr. Absurd, I've written on my own Talk Page how grateful I am to you - and I confess to being the guilty party. To summarize what I wrote there:

I need to lose bad habits I learned as a behind-the-scenes librarian, and because of my love of Watership Down, I lengthened the article, when I fully intended to work on shortening it.

The first lesson of WP is that what we write and Save appears on WP immediately. I've been acting as though I'm playing in a Sandbox, but I haven't been, and I'm embarrassed by how unprofessional I now seem.

I'm determined to show that I can be a good writer/editor for WP. I've read almost all of the Guidelines and I really do understand them, so why did I kept writing at such lengths? - only because I'm used to being able to write and quickly pare down.

But here I lost all sense, apparently.

Thank you so much! Of course I'll work with you and not interfere with your judgements.

Plus, of course it's almost impossible to know who a person is, so forgive me for using the masculine - you seem like a really cool guy.

P.S.: Wait, wait! I am not 121.214.9.130 (talk · contribs) or 124.180.11.38 (talk · contribs), and I don't know who they are. (Obviously, WD fans like myself.) I did NOT mean to imply that I'm using sock puppets, because I think that's a foul practice. PLEASE do not associate me with him, her, or them. It's easy to search ISP addresses, so you'll know that I'm just me, lurching along and learning. And I apologize for the CAPs, but I'm really serious about this.

I am and have always been willing to confess to making mistakes. But the last thing I'm going to do is commit sockpuppetry. I have too much pride for that.

Again, Mr. Absurd, my thanks - and I love your name, because I love absurdist literature.

FiverFan65 (talk) 15:46, 9 July 2012 (UTC)FiverFan65 (talk) 15:35, 9 July 2012 (UTC)FiverFan65

Don't worry, FiverFan-- you're clearly not socking. Sometimes editors forget to log in and they show up with IP addresses, and when we see a long series of edits from a single user with a few IP edits in between, we usually assume that it's the same user. Regarding your editing style, you actually do have a sandbox that you can use for whatever you like. If you prefer to frequently revise your text, you can use your sandbox to get things where you want them before making changes to a live article. Regards, Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 16:25, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Reference formats

Among other things (nothing substantial except Rex Collings and the awards explanations) I have changed all stray date formats to the dual standard evidently adopted here: {dmy} for publication dates; Retrieved yyyy-mm-dd.

I have also made one Economist reference similar to the other but they both need attention, I believe, to present article titles in quotation marks and The Economist in italics. (My hasty revision improves on the previous editor's use of template parameters which generated "Economist: 47" for page 47.)

Attend also to Lastname, Firstname and Firstname, Lastname which are both used here for several referenced authors. --P64 (talk) 16:47, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Odyssey, Rosamund, English

Finding no good target for lowercase "odyssey" in the lead, I read what we say in the article and decided that it warrants --for lead purposes-- bluntly calling this story "the Odyssey of the rabbits". (Aeneid is more accurate but interested readers will get to that, and Odyssey isn't misleading.)

Please check the two daughter names. I edited Rosamond Rosamund but vice versa may be correct afaik.

Do we know that Adams considers himself English? I put this article in Category:English children's novels rather than the usual British because the lead sentence calls Adams English. (We all know this doesn't mean the book is for English children only!) --P64 (talk) 16:47, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Origin and publication history

Section 1 has been "Publication history" with much about the origin and no publication history beyond the first edition. I have renamed it "Origin and publication history" and rearranged both the lead and section 1 to fit that plan, essentially covering first the origin of the story and then the publication history in the latter section.

To cover the publication history even so briefly as I have done has required multiple catalogue and database references. I have also left several hidden comments in the top sections and {infobox}, which identify more catalog/database sources. Two causes are the problems [a] I did not find any US LCCatalog record that explicitly identifies the first U.S. edition (something very common to find for Carnegie Medal winning works) and [b] WorldCat records for US editions give copyright date 1972 rather than publication date (where both alternatives are common). Those WorldCat records (c)1972 do give the same ISBN as LCCatalog record 1974 [ref name=LCC2/] so I believe the identification (Macmillan USA, 1974) as much as I believe anything here.

The WorldCat list of translation languages is not reliable but I suppose that it errs almost exclusively by omission and it is a WP:RELIABLE SOURCE.

--P64 (talk) 20:22, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Fiver's name

It might be because i read the german translation, so this might have no relevance here. In the book it's explicitely explained, that the rabbits have only words for numbers up to four and everything above four is "hrair". "Hrairoo" got his name because he was "the first of the thousand" or "little thousand". In other words, the next after four, hence the english name "Fiver". Though he was the smallest of his litter, it wasn't meant to reflect that. If that's correct, the explanation in the characters section would need correction.

The german Wiki article doesn't go into that at all, merely states his name and that he was the smallest and last of his litter, but no connection between that. --Andy 90459 (talk) 11:55, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Inconsistencies

On this page, it is stated that the book was turned down by 13 publishers. However, on Richard Adams' page, that number is only 7. Which one is correct, and should somebody change them? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.10.81.207 (talk) 22:24, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for replying so late. But if your still following, do you think you could provide the source of where you found that information? Currently, the article links to here, where it verifies 13 publishers. Thanks! Michaelzeng7 (talk) 20:47, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Nuthanger Farm

Just recently read through the paperback. I see from reading past threads that people editing the page caution against overexpanding the Plot section, but I made a couple of changes.

First it mistated that Hazel and Pipkin released the hutch rabbits. In fact the duo reconnaitred Nuthanger Farm one night, and a different team (Hazel, Bigwig, Blackberry, Dandelion, Speedwell, and Hawkbit) led the raid and rescue. Second, I thought it misleading to refer to the Woundwort's presumed destroyer as a dog from a generic "nearby farm", when in fact Bob was kept at Nuthanger. I also added the detail that the girl Lucy at Nuthanger Farm, owner of the escaped hutch rabbits, was the one who had saved Hazel by acting as "Dea ex machina" (though that bit may be judged excessive detail). (corrected sp. Nutley -> Nuthanger)--Kiyoweap (talk) 06:18, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Aeneas and the Lotus Eaters?

The section titles "The Hero, the Aeneid, and the Odyssey" currently includes the following:

"Tolkien scholar John Rateliff calls Adams's novel an Aeneid "what-if" book: what if the seer Cassandra (Fiver) had been believed and she and a company had fled Troy (Sandleford Warren) before its destruction? What if Hazel and his companions, like Aeneas, encounter a seductive home at Cowslip's Warren (Land of the Lotus Eaters)?"

(w/ reference: Rateliff, John D. "Classics of Fantasy". Wizards of the Coast, Inc. Archived from the original on 28 December 2008. Retrieved 2008-03-21.)

While this may be an accurate paraphrase of the Rateliff reference given, I do not believe that Aeneas ever visited the Land of the Lotus Eaters (though, of course, Odysseus famously did). It looks like Rateliff may have gotten his reference wrong and, having made its way into this article, the error has now proliferated onto numerous web sites that base their content on Wikipedia articles.

If I'm wrong, and it turns out that Aeneas DID visit the Land of the Lotus Eaters, I would be interested in knowing what book of the Aeneid that story appears in.

Otherwise, perhaps the text should be modified to reflect that it was Odysseus, not Aeneas, that had that particular adventure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.123.23.97 (talk) 06:51, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Critical reception

If we are going to keep Selma G. Lanes critique of the novel, I would encourage putting it in the criticism section. "Male chauvinism" is can not really be considered an intended "Theme". --Knulclunk (talk) 03:17, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I still have to flesh this section out, but although Lanes has a point of view and is criticizing (in the pejorative sense) the novel for what she perceives an anti-feminist theme, it is a theme. To restrict a treatment of the all-male characters-of-action to the Reception section would be doing that element a disservice. I still recall noting the limited role of the does 30 years ago when I first read the book, which isn't surprising given the attention that role receives. I have no idea whether Adams consciously wrote the story that way (which is curious given that his Lockley source describes a matriarchal society), but I recall reading somewhere that he modeled the camaraderie aspect on his WWII combat experiences (all male). Again, the fact that Lanes wrote a review ("criticism" in the neutral sense) does deserve mention in the Reception section; "criticism" in both the literary and pejorative senses should be mentioned in the Themes section. Also, I just did a quick Google on WD, themes, and feminism and see that eNotes even has an essay on WD anti-feminism on its website.
Jim Dunning | talk 03:43, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, if the author consciously wrote the novel based on WWII combat experiences, that would be a male-camaraderie theme, not an anti-feminist theme. --Knulclunk (talk) 04:04, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

A reviewer can discuss, praise, or condemn a fiction work based on its themes (among other aspects, of course), and a literary critic can research and analyze those same themes. For example, a reviewer may give a thumbs down (or up) on a Sam Peckinpah film for its extensive depiction of violence (e.g. "Peckinpah's world is a man's world, and feminists have castigated his films as misogynistic and sexist, especially concerning the murder of a woman during the final moments of The Wild Bunch, the rape sequence in Straw Dogs and Doc McCoy's physical assault of his wife in The Getaway."). A film critic could also delve into the thread of violence themes Peckinpah is known for employing in his works (e.g. "Themes: Peckinpah's approach to violence is often misinterpreted. Many critics see his worldview as a misanthropic, Hobbesian view of nature as essentially evil and savage. In fact, Peckinpah himself stated the opposite. He saw violence as the product of human society, and not of nature.").

In this case, Lanes – a literary critic – acts as both a reviewer and a critic in her NYT Book Review: she expresses disapproval of the book for its apparent anti-feminist theme (a very contemporary issue in 1974) and provides a meaty analysis of the theme itself. Also, I just did a quick Google on WD, themes, and feminism and see that eNotes even has an essay on WD's anti-feminism on its website (and they charge for it).

As for the male-camaraderie theme, Lanes's essay focused on anti-female, so that's the name of the theme. If we can find a source that discusses male camaraderie, then that will be called something different. Depends on the sources.
Jim Dunning | talk 04:22, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

PS A theme doesn't have to be "intended". Perceived works just as well (or, as some literary critics argue, it is the only valid perspective -- a school of thought puts no weight on what the artist intends).
Jim Dunning | talk 04:25, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I would then propose that the Lanes review stay in criticism as it is written from the fairly narrow worldview of a 1974 book review, and, as you put it, "its apparent anti-feminist theme" was "a very contemporary issue in 1974". To discuss the long term themes of a book considered now to be a classic, perhaps a throwaway book review written at the time of publishing should not be given undue weight? --Knulclunk (talk) 04:42, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

More on the misogyny theme

Although we use the term "critics" only one critic is used. A lazy google search bring up no other critics with a similar opinion, so I will remove it for now.

Lanes's book really is a collection of essays written for the New York Times, the quotes pulled are still from the original 1974 book review. Again, I don't deny that Lanes has a bone to pick with the book, but to elevate her interpretation of misogyny to the level of THEME seems to smack of undue weight to fringe theories.

Personally, I still find Lanes's review ludicrous. I mean, the main characters, particularly Bigwig and Fiver, repeatedly and openly dismiss does as little more than breeding stock. The rabbits seldom show any empathy to one another throughout the entire story. Only in Cowslip's warren do rabbits develop more complex relationships and here are considered very "unrabbit-like". In fact, when faced with the apparent death of Fiver, his brother, Hazel seems to have little emotion about it at all; "it is a shame". I realize I may have veered off into Original Research here, but Lanes's desire to attribute actual gender-specific motivations to characters that repeatedly have less-than-human response to social situations just seems misguided. Perhaps Adams was intentionally implying that rabbit culture, like any gatherer culture on the cusp of survival, may not have the luxury of gender sensitivity? (I suppose I would need to find a source for that.) --Knulclunk (talk) 04:46, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE and NPOV say that "the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each." At this point we have a reliable secondary and tertiary source that supports the presence of the theme of misogyny in WD. WP:UNDUE continues, "Articles that compare views should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views." Well, "views" are not being compared here. There is the Misogyny viewpoint, but no opposing view of, say, Misanthropy – or Feminism, or Gender Equality for that matter – to have a situation where undue prominence is being given to one at the expense of the other(s).

In this situation there is no "minority" perspective. In fact, since the theory Lanes espouses is the only one included in the article "published by a reliable source" on the area of discussion, it appears to be the majority opinion (or at least the only one) as far as WP Policies go. I understand you disagree with Lanes's argument (okay, you called it "ludicrous"), but her credentials certainly qualify her as a reliable, credible source, so it can be presented here. At this point, the only contrasting viewpoint is yours (your arguments are interesting). But, as you said above, find a source to support it, and then insert the material into the article. That would be great, since the article would be even more interesting and the more valuable to reader for it. NPOV and UNDUE only apply when there are contrasting views involved. Let's find "published" contrasting views and then let's get into it about NPOV (lol).

Thanks for bringing this up. Another thing I wanted to mention is that a limited-availability-source perspective is not automatically a "fringe theory." As I said, Lanes's credentials are reason enough to include her theories here, and argue against her being a fringe-theorist. However, you prompted me to look further since I have been concerned about "single source" issues (yes, I recognize I'm using Lanes as both a secondary and tertiary source – not that there's anything wrong with that). A lazy Google also shows that while online "reliable source" references to a misogynic theme in WD are not prolific, there are some, and common readers aplenty have not only taken notice of such a theme but have taken the effort to post it online. Admittedly not all necessarily WP:RSs for citing, but an interesting occurrence for a fringe theory:

• Online book review at Epinions
• A teacher's website supporting a WD lesson plan: "‘Liberated’ women campaigned against what they saw as inequality wherever they saw it, and they saw it in Watership Down. Adams copped a lot of flak from militant feminists who saw Watership Down as giving poor female role models to children. In Tales Adams decided to put that right, and quite out of the rabbit’s character, he made Hyzenthlay sort of equal to Hazel, while simultaneously getting rid of the male in her life, showing her as a lone rabbit with kittens and a career."
• A textbook publisher-provided study guide with the essay prompt, "comment on whether or not you believe Adams is making a statement about the role of female humans by the way he presents the female rabbits in the story."
• Enotes essay: "In the following essay, Thomas explores the limited, stereotypical portrayal of the female characters in Watership Down."
• BookRags essay available for purchase covering anti-feminist theme

That's in just two minutes of looking and vetting hundreds of hits (I'm sure I missed a few). More later. Thanks for making me look for more sources: there were a couple possible reliable sources there. I'm also keeping an eager eye out for contrasting viewpoints!
Jim Dunning | talk 11:52, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I've changed the name of the section to "Alleged Misogyny" as I doubt misogyny was an intended theme of the author. I for one think a separate "criticism" section should be created if the hysterical rantings of one militant feminist absolutely MUST be included in this article. Although I personally feel this article gives that point of view far too much weight through its inclusion.--Ironzealot (talk) 18:45, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Please keep in mind that for themes to exist in a work of art, they do not have to be intended by the artist. "Unintended" themes are also addressed in the world of literary criticism. Also, Lane is not the only critic or reviewer to notice the theme (intended or not). In addition to the several listed above, you may be interested to know that in the Puffin Modern Classics edition of the book, the "Afterword" by Nicholas Tucker originally included a fairly critical section in which Tucker considered the treatment of the does to be (at least some of the time) as "passive baby-factories".
Jim Dunning | talk 13:58, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Added another critical misogyny source who cites the story as drawing upon an anti-feminist tradition. Consequently removed the word "alleged" from the section header. More on the way.
Jim Dunning | talk 04:44, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Male Chauvinist Rabbits. God that is stupid. 153.2.246.30 (talk) 04:30, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Questioning misogyny theme

This "misogyny theme" is purely imagined by the critic. I have found no intended misogynistic message by the author. This feminist rhetoric has no place in this article. For one thing, it is not even balanced. It smacks of political correctness. It is not relevant to the literary theme of the book but is a political one. And thus, it should be removed. How it was added in the first place, I have no idea. But seemingly, according to the rules of Wikipedia editing, it has taken a rather indelible form. I maintain that this section should be stricken from the article.Rapparee71 (talk) 08:26, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Please consider that a work's theme(s) need not be intended by the author to be valid.
Jim Dunning | talk 13:25, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I can see the subject has been debated. I think the best thing is to get a wider audience and will leave a note at WP:Literature (I thought the absence of females was pretty notable myself when I read it...) Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:59, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Rapparee, in Wikipedia we can not say "I don't buy it, so it will have to go." We must work from wp:Reliable sources, and not use wp:Original research. Further, your question of "How was it added in the first place" shows contempt for the discussion which clearly answers this question just above your post. This is a collaborative project and you will have to accept that.

As for your statement that the theme is "purely imagined", that is not really an issue. Many critics find themes in art and literature which the original artist did not notice or intend. If these are notable critiques, Wikipedia should discuss them. NJGW (talk) 16:58, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate that this is a collaborative effort and that there has to be a consensus. However, the critic that is quoted did so from a biased viewpoint to further her political agenda that was so prevalent at the time, feminism. Commercial encyclopaedias strive to avoid biased commentary and political agendas (some better than others) and I feel that Wikipedia should as well. We should not take a political message that is 30 years removed and place it in a contemporary article. It does nothing to describe the book or it's better documented themes. My stance isn't exactly "I don't buy it, so it will have to go" as Casliber charges, but more of an editorial decision based on the fact that the misogynistic themes observed by the quoted critic are biased, political in nature, and highly suspect at best. And thus would have never been entered into an encyclopaedic article on this novel in any other publication in the first place.

The absence of females simply is not true, as Casliber commented. Hyzenthlay is even a heroine of sorts. Even if there was an absence of females or if the females in the novel were marginalised, it does not necessarily imply misogynistic motives. As per the author, the book is about camaraderie.Rapparee71 (talk) 08:36, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

What we think about the motives behind asserting a gender theme is irrelevant. There are at least three reliable sources who have made significant statements about the treatment of females in the novel and it is appropriate they be included. Similarly, if there are contrasting viewpoints from similarly reliable sources out there, the article will be all the better if they are included. My research has been unable to turn them up, but perhaps others can locate them. Rapparee, please don't take this the wrong way, but your statements about one of the sources ("themes observed by the quoted critic are biased, political in nature, and highly suspect at best") could be perceived as evidence of a political agenda as well. Please add relevant — but sourced — material to the article as soon as you find it. That would be great.
Jim Dunning | talk 11:47, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I have no political agenda. I only wish to remove controversial, biased material from this article. The only sources I have found for the opposing view have been reviews of Thomas' and Lanes' reviews and have been online. I found one last night after going on Google for 10 minutes. As Knulclunk suggested, the criticisms of Thomas and Lanes should be relegated to a section labelled as such, "criticism", not listed as a theme. Even though it has been argued before, I maintain that this section violates some of the mandates of Wikipedia. There is no contradicting viewpoint inserted here. And this minority viewpoint has too much coverage. As Knulclunk has already said, "to elevate her interpretation to the level of THEME seems to smack of undue weight to fringe theories." An encylopaedic article should have a neutral point of view. The other theme listed in this section is a comparison of this work of literature to another. Lanes' comparisons (if you can call them that) are nothing more than stabs at what she sees as an assault on her feminist world view, a minority view. Lanes' and Thomas' comments were only relevant to the time in which they were made (and only barely). Why we are giving credence to this fringe viewpoint that is expressed with such vitriol, I do not know. Unless, Jim Dunning, I can't help but wonder if you also have a political agenda to further the feminist rhetoric espoused by Lanes in particular. I mean no disrespect, I only wonder if your motives are neutral. Reading back, it seems you alone are defending this "misogyny" criticism with undue vigour. Are you the original author of this article? Let me reiterate, this is not a personal attack. I'm merely trying to understand the mechanics of editing articles on Wikipedia and understand why there is such opposition in changing this section.

I propose this, we either delete the entry on "misogyny" until the section can be balanced with an opposing viewpoint that doesn't incorporate original research (original research shouldn't be summarily dismissed), or we move the "misogyny" section to a new section titled "criticisms". This would actually fall more in line with content produced by commercial encyclopaedias like Encylopaedia Britannica. Rapparee71 (talk) 02:42, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm with Arlo Guthrie on this one: if it were just one or two critics who noticed the same thing, then it might just be a coincidence (or they are indeed crazy), but three or more, I'm thinking they just might be onto something. I miscounted earlier, however; there are actually four credible sources listed in the article who have seen a gender issue, and one of them wrote about it in the introduction to one of the editions. Rapparee, I think the problem some may have with your position is how you introduced your argument: "This 'misogyny theme' is purely imagined by the critic. I have found no intended misogynistic message by the author. This feminist rhetoric has no place in this article." You say "I" thrice (explicitly and implicitly) and describe the critic's perspective in what could be taken as a pejorative description ("feminist rhetoric"). Leaving aside the fact that a literary theme does not have to be "intended" to exist, you attack the critics' opinions (excuse me, you first characterize the viewpoint as being held by a lone critic and then acknowledge there might be two) not by providing opposing opinions from credible sources, but your personal opinion. The content is not "controversial" or "biased" unless a credible source says it is.

Also, I hesitate to call it a "fringe theory" when a number of critics/reviewers have taken the time to comment about this aspect of the novel. I, too, am interested in providing a "balanced" perspective (or set of them), and WEIGHT requires it. Actually, WEIGHT and NPOV support the article's structure and content, not contradict it. They say, "Neutrality requires that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each." Consequently, I have spent far more time looking for reliable sources (both on and offline) who offer different points of view on the topic and haven't found them (so much for me having an agenda). I very much want to include those viewpoints because it makes for a much more interesting article and provide researchers with more material for their projects. Please note that WEIGHT doesn't require we provide an even number of positions and make up other opinions of credible sources; nor does it require us remove a position simply because no opposing positions exist (or can't be found). It seems to me that the "fringe theory" is actually the one which says that there is no misogyny element since no reliable source has been found to argue that position. How can the misogyny observations be called the "minority view" when no one can find "majority" views?

The good news is that you say you've found the material we need to further enhance the section. I'm glad you were able to accomplish in 10 minutes what I was unable to do in at least 10-15 hours of effort and travel to four college libraries (the Library of Congress is next). Please go ahead and add it to the article. If you need assistance in doing so, I'm glad to help work it into the section. The article will be all the better for it.
Jim Dunning | talk 06:38, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Jim, you are taking my comments 100% literal. I didn't know that there were working androids out there!  :-) First of all, I'd like to remind you that the "rules" of Wikipedia that you are adhering to so stringently, aren't meant to be viewed that way. Please reread the five pillars of Wikipedia. They are more guidelines than rules or laws. I actually appreciate the effort to be perfect. Let me attempt, again, to clarify what I meant. The number of critics is irrelevant. I meant that the feminist viewpoint is a minority one, even in 21st century American culture. The number of critics seeing an misogynistic message in Watership Down is a minority viewpoint when compared to the overall number of literary critics that have reviewed the novel. And the number of critics seeing misogynistic messages in the novel is tiny compared to the total number of readers. THAT is what I meant by it being a minority viewpoint. And I suppose that "feminist rhetoric" could be construed as a pejorative statement and perhaps it was meant as one.

Using the word "I" in describing one's ideas, opinions, observations, and viewpoints is natural in the English language. You seem to be reading too much into that. The content of Lanes' critisism in particular are controversial by her own admission. Her opinions are a minority in our culture and when compared to that of other critics. Even though WEIGHT and NPOV are only guidelines, not hard and fast rules, they have NOT been followed here.

Perhaps we are totally missing the point that OPINION has no place here, no matter if it is a majority of minority one. If we are to insist on keeping these CRITICISMs, then they need to be more clearly labelled as such. So, that, appears to be the best compromise for now. I am putting the "misogyny" section under "reception", which seems logically to be a better fit anyway. Rapparee71 (talk) 01:47, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I find it very ironic that you say "OPINION has no place here". All you are offering is opinion. Jim is discussing published material, by people who are notable enough to be published. Would you care to add some published material that we can discuss, or is this only a discussion based on your opinion? Also, please don't call Jim an android. That could be viewed as a personal attack. NJGW (talk) 01:59, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I made the allusion that Jim's reading my comments 100% literally was machine like. I even inserted an emoticon to ensure that it was meant in jest. Opinions drive decisions. An opinion can also be a formal statement of advice. We are tossing about semantics here. This is what I was actually pointing out to Jim Dunning. We've gotten bogged down by semantics. It seems that we can't see the forest for the trees. It seems that I can not even alter the layout, let alone the content, of the article without Jim Dunning (or some other "senior" editor) changing it right back. This is contrary to the spirit of Wikipedia. Rapparee71 (talk) 07:12, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Re-reprise

The pattern here at Wikipedia is quite disturbing. A feminist critique must be included because one exists? No wonder there are so many feminist sections on articles that have nothing to do with feminism: the standard is that this one philosophical school of thought must be included if any opinion was offered. No other philosophical school of thought is even considered, which is freakishly strange considering this is Watership Down after all. Nothing regarding communists, communitarians or anarchists regarding Waterhsip Down, seriously? But a feminists critique? Why is Wikipedia turning into a platform for a philosophical school of thought? Of the past 5 articles on books I just read over, 4 had sections regarding feminism. That is downright bizarre. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.25.117.176 (talk) 03:05, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

But still until the allegation of intentional misogyny is proven, it remains an allegation - and you can't prove an intention. Restoring "Alleged". Plus, define misogyny please? Lack of focus on women is not hatred of women. If it is, then lack of focus on men is hatred of men. Great! Now let's revisit all the feminist-cherished classics and insert "Misandry" sections in their Wikipedia articles. Oh yes, there will be reliable sources. So much to do, so little time! Rulatir (talk) 12:17, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

[sigh] [not directed at you, personally, Rulatir, but someone needs to come up with a new argument ....] Once again, there are multiple reliable sources which describe "anti-feminist" themes, therefore the viewpoint and material can be included in the article (and should be). If you read the source material, you'll see that the critics are not just noticing a "lack of focus" on females, but discuss the subservient role they play to the males. If a number of editors feel something like "Anti-feminism" (since that term is used in the criticism, too) is a better section title than "Misogyny", then go for it (although "anti-feminism" would seem to imply a much stronger position against a specific movement than just a relative comparison of the treatment of the genders). However, the question of whether Adams intends that element to be in the work is irrelevant to this discussion: reliable sources noted it (at length), ipso facto.
Jim Dunning | talk 22:13, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Jim, Rulatir's argument is valid and is similar to the one that I tried very hard to get across to you and others without any evident success. These feminist critics are seeing things that simply aren't there. What the author intended IS important. It seems that we are giving too much credence to a few critics here, more than that of the author himself! The whole "misogyny" section is way too long for the relative unimportance of the subject. It needs to be changed to "alleged" to reflect the character of the allegation, at the very least. If it was clearly stated by Adams that there was no intended theme of any sort, then that obviously rules out that the validity of the misogyny theme, and by default carry more weight. Let me get this straight you (and others like NGJW), Jim, are defending the misogyny section simply because there were a couple of critics back in the early 70's that imagined this "theme" and published works based on it? So, by that rationale, if a couple of people had seen a hidden message in Watership Down that said "we should all move underground and only eat vegetarian food" and had written and published criticisms to that effect, THAT would be a valid "theme"?! By the way, "misogyny" IS a stronger word than "anti-feminism". The Oxford American Dictionary defines misogyny as "the hatred of women by men". Perhaps this whole time, you did not fully understand the gravity of the word? "Anti-feminism" is simply a belief in the superiority of men over women. In short, there is no good word to describe this theme simply because it DOES NOT EXIST! It was imagined by these women in the early 1970's and their academic exercise snowballed. It's not unlike a made up story of a treasure or conspiracy that other people will hang onto for dear life, simply because they WANT to believe it. The original misogyny articles were nothing more than seeing shapes in clouds. In short, the misogyny section needs to be either removed or at the very least reduced to reflect it's imagined status. (In fact, all the themes should be marginalised in this way, simply because they don't exist). Some times a story is just a story and this is one of them. Rapparee71 (talk) 01:04, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

• "Rulatir's argument is valid" according to whom? According to some literary giants, it is invalid: "[A]uthorial intent is irrelevant to understanding a work of literature. Preoccupation with intent was called by Wimsatt the intentional fallacy. The author, they argue, cannot be reconstructed from a writing. The text is the only source of meaning, and any details of the author's desires or life are purely extraneous." For example...

• "These feminist critics..." Your characterization of these reviewers as feminists is not necessarily their intended authorial intent.

• "if a couple of people had seen a hidden message in Watership Down that said "we should all move underground and only eat vegetarian food" and had written and published criticisms to that effect, THAT would be a valid "theme"?!" If this view had somehow been published by several wp:RS sources (enough that it was obviously a notable theme to discuss), then it would be very encyclopedic of us to discuss such a theme. Thankfully, this fantasy has no chance of being a reality this is a not a comparable analogy to the real situation.

• "It was imagined by these women in the early 1970's and their academic exercise snowballed." Do you have a source for this or is it something you imagined in early February came up with yourself?

• "Some times a story is just a story..." And sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. NJGW (talk) 02:04, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I and others that have criticised this "misogyny" section are members of the Wikipedia community, our arguments and suggestions have equal weight. Please limit your commentary to discussing the actual suggestions people are making instead of tearing apart ancillary wording.

1. The author's intent, his statements, and quotations by the author should be given more weight and more space than those of a few critics, period, full stop, no argument.

2. My calling Lanes and her ilk "feminist critics" is an accurate and obvious observation of their work. In fact, they are described as such either on Wikipedia or in other online descriptions of their work. If my memory serves me correctly, and I'm positive it does. And if, just for the sake of argument we throw out authorial intent out the window as you suggest, then the argument is moot. I'm calling it like I see it, just as they did with Adams' novel.

3. My illustration was just that, an illustration, not a red herring as you implied. I was trying to, via an analogy, to illustrate a concept that you seem to have not grasped yet.

4. Make one more remark like the one about my imagining something in early February and I will report you for harassment. I should have done so already for misusing the reporting process to bully me into submitting to your viewpoints. Ad hominem attacks WILL NOT BE TOLERATED!

5. Yes, some times a cigar is just a cigar, and this is one of those times. Thomas and Lanes saw more than just a "cigar". By Adams' own words, "it was just a story..." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rapparee71 (talk • contribs) 06:16, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Do you have a source for "It was imagined by these women in the early 1970's and their academic exercise snowballed," or is this an idea you came up with? NJGW (talk) 19:10, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

The "misogyny" (sub)section would be better off entitled "Gender." Misogyny is not thematized in the book; gender is. In fact, I may just be bold... --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 07:29, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I changed the section title to the more specific "gender roles", as this is what is being discussed (gender as a theme makes it sound like a story about transvestite rabbits). Thanks for the help finding a section title which is both very descriptive and neutral. I have to agree with older statements that the section is long. I think however that this is a function of the need to increase the length (and, as you Jbmurray point out, the number) of the other sections as opposed to a need to ax this section. NJGW (talk) 21:38, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

That makes sense to me. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 00:02, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Anniversary Edition

Idea for mention in main article... WATERSHIP DOWN IS THE EASTER BUNNY'S EVIL COMPUTER SCIENCE DEPARTMENT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.150.32.149 (talk) 15:42, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

The BBC reported (see HERE) that a 40th anniversary edition would be published in 2012 - and that it would include paintings by Aldo Galli; but only in the USA edition.

Aldo's paintings were first shown to the public in Whitchurch, Hampshire by Whitchurch Arts. Richard attended the show and signed autographs (he lives in town). See HERE. AndrewRH (talk) 23:07, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

References to Watership Down in other works

This is a list of trivia. I have moved it to the talk page in case someone wants to make some use of it elsewhere. But it does not belong in the article per Wikipedia's guidelines for literature, for many discrete reasons, among which: the work is what is significant to the article, not how (or how many) other artists or writers have quoted or referred to it, and lists like this, if permitted, would and do go on and on forever and would eventually drown out the text of the article. ZarhanFastfire (talk) 06:41, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Watership Down has been referenced in other media.

• In the Stephen King novel The Stand, Larry Underwood mentions Harold Lauder reminds him of Silverweed, a character in Watership Down.
• In the 2001 film Donnie Darko, the book and its film adaptation are viewed and discussed in a classroom setting. According to writer/director Richard Kelly, there was a longer subplot about Watership Down that was cut out, with "a whole sequence about the Deus ex Machina and the God Machine and arguing about the rabbits, and the meaning of rabbits. This subplot was restored to the film in the 2004 Director's Cut.
• In the Doug Worgul novel "Thin Blue Smoke", a mentally ill character named Warren regards Richard Adams as a prophet, and often speaks or writes in Lapine.
• The furry fandom website Flayrah gets its name from a Lapine word and describes itself as "unusually good information".
• In the Hillary Jordan novel “When She Woke”, the main characters reference the secret of Cowslip's warren in regards to their situation.
• In the 2008 direct-to-video film Conspiracy the book is discussed.
• In the novel "Libby on Wednesday" by Zilpha Keatley Snyder one of the characters writes a parody called "Watertrap Down" and criticize the book as being chauvinistic.
• In the Rainbow Rowell novel Eleanor & Park, Watership Down is one of the novels Eleanor's mother saves for her in a bag of her belongings.
• In The Vicar of Dibley 1996 Easter special episode called The Easter Bunny. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frade (talk • contribs) 09:23, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
• In the Junot Díaz novel The Brief Wondrous Life of Oscar Wao, Lola recalls reading Watership Down at the moment her mother discovers she may have breast cancer.
• OWSLA, a vanity record label, was named after the novel

Also, on the television show Lost, the character Sawyer is shown on the beach reading the book in the first season (shown in multiple episodes, iirc). TySoltaur (talk) 06:09, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Comment/Question If this is the case, should it also apply to the 'Music' subsection of Adaptions?Coolabahapple (talk) 14:01, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi folks, not sure who may be watching this page - I actually was just adding citations to the Music section, and came here to note my changes. I see the concern about trivia was raised, as was the question of whether the Music section (possibly the other "referenced by other media" sections as well) should be considered trivia and removed. Perhaps these sections need a list page, where they can reflect the work and not detract from the article's focus on the work.

I'm a newish (less than 2 months) editor and would defer to those with more air-time. My toes won't be stepped on if that Music section get's moved - it's important that the article is clean and up to Wiki standards. Curdigirl (talk) 17:53, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

References

Citations - added and needed

Hi folks! Spent some time visiting and grooming this article last night. The summary of my updates are as follows:

• Added numerous citations for statements under Music section, where citations could be found
• Removed several statements under Music section which could not be sourced (for instance some analysis about lyrics that connected very specific lyrics back to a book chapter. As I write this, I may have found a source to back up the statement, in Spark Notes, which simply lists the chapter name. Couldn't find a source making a direct analytical statement however perhaps this will do. I'll find that statement in the change history and can add it back with a citation...will have to be later tonight or tomorrow morning after work. Will check first on whether SparkNotes might be considered a legitimate source
• Removed template for "no citations" over Music section; left the refimprove template as some citations are still needed
• Added several citation needed templates
• Added citations for some other statements that I could source
• Rephrased some statements that weren't fully supported by available source material, for both neutrality and accuracy

That's the gist of what I did. Some of the statements I could only source in blogs or fan-sites, so those were removed (although they may be true, I couldn't find an RS for them.) I did not add any new prose sections or do research outside of verifying existing claims which needed sources. Love Watership Down and happy to participate in minor grooming for this book's article. Curdigirl (talk) 17:47, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Good work. In general when I see a list of trivia, in my first pass through it I eliminate any items that don't have associated Wikipedia articles. Then I eliminate ones for which sources cannot be found; if RS could not be bothered to provide coverage of the list item, then neither should we. You left some of those in, but they seem like they could be notable, so it's fine to leave them with a {{cn}} tag for now. A few months from now I may go through the list and try to find missing sources, and if I can't I'll remove them. ~Anachronist (talk) 20:33, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi Anachronist! Thanks for the feedback; this is useful to hear. I especially like hearing about your technique for addressing trivia - it makes good sense to me and it's helpful to have some kind of method that makes sense. I'd like to start using that approach, as well. So, do you think this trivia section should stay here? I'd noticed there were comments about whether the trivia belonged in the article at all, and my toes won't be stepped on if it is either moved to a sub-page or removed. Curdigirl (talk) 00:08, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

I'd keep it in this article. Items that are relevant or significant are also relevant to the subject.

I observe that the overall section is called "adaptations" so I would go through the list and remove (or move into a "popular culture" section) anything that isn't really an adaptation. Some of the music items, for example, aren't adaptations of the story at all, but rather they are independent works inspired by the novel. ~Anachronist (talk) 01:30, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Change to character description - Vervain

an ip made a change to a character description here, as this is a 'good article' thought it would be better to udo the edit and bring it here for other editors to check, thanks Coolabahapple (talk) 06:28, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

From the book on the final fate of Vervain: "Without Campion, probably not one rabbit would have got back to Efrafa. As it was, all his skill as a patroller could not bring home half of those who had come to Watership. Three or four had run and strayed too far to be found and what became of them no one ever knew. There were probably fourteen or fifteen rabbits -- no more -- who set off with Campion, some time before ni-Frith, to try to retrace the long journey they had made only the previous day. They were not fit to cover the distance by nightfall: and before long they had worse to face than their own fatigue and ow spirits. Bad news travels fast. Down to the Belt and beyond, the rumor spread that the terrible General Woundwort and his Owsla had been cut to pieces on Watership Down and that what was left of them was trailing southward in poor shape, with little heart to keep alert. The Thousand began to close in -- stoats, a fox, even a tomcat from some farm or other. At every halt yet another rabbit was not to be found and no one could remember seeing what had happened to him. One of these was Vervain. It had been plain from the start that he had nothing left and, indeed, there was little reason for him to return to Efrafa without the General." 162.44.245.111 (talk) 19:30, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

The article says correctly that he was never seen again. There is no confirmation in the book of his death. Therefore, the anon's edit was correctly reverted. ~Anachronist (talk) 08:54, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

The article says "Fiver's supernatural calmness and prophesising of his (Vervain's) death terrify him into fleeing, and he is never seen again." A plain reading of this description is that after encountering Fiver and leaving his presence, he immediately fled the entire area as a consequence of the fear and no rabbit saw him ever again. The text does not support this. It is clear he fled Fiver's presence, but he stayed around the area and interacted with other rabbits from Efrafa. From chapter 47, we get "Stumbling and blundering, he found his way to the opened run and dragged himself up it. At the top he came upon Woundwort, listening to one of Groundsel's diggers, who was trembling and white-eyed." Then, chapter 49: "Campion, crouching in a patch of nettles with Vervain and four or five more, met with nothing but shivering agreement when he said that he was sure that they ought to leave at once this dangerous place, where they had already stayed far too long.". To the degree this was "fleeing", it was not connected to Fiver specifically, rather the general failure of the mission. In short, Vervain was seen multiple times between the encountering Fiver and dying - first by Woundwort, then by Campion and the other survivors. Nor was his death connected to the "fleeing" from Fiver, it was during the retreat, and connecting to giving up on life knowing he had "little reason to return to Efrafa without the General". The article's description is plainly inaccurate 162.44.245.111 (talk) 14:27, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Anachronist. You're wrong. Dlabtot (talk) 16:04, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Quoting the actual book, it's very clear that the "fleeing" in question was out of the warren. He was seen several times afterwards, and presumably participated in the discussion to return to Efrafa. His disappearance was clearly not tied to feeling terrified by Fiver, the book makes it completely clear it's because he realized he no longer had a place in Efrafa without Woundwort, and thus kinda gave up on life. I'm only bothering to say something because after reading the book, I read that description of the character and it leaps out as wrong because the detail about giving up on the journey home is an important narrative detail. It should read (as supported by the text) "The head of the Council police in Efrafa, said to be one of the most hated rabbits in the warren. When Woundwort's forces storm the Honeycomb, he is ordered by Woundwort to kill Fiver, but Fiver's supernatural calmness and prophesising of his (Vervain's) death terrify him into fleeing. On the return to Efrafa, he succumbs to discouragement and disappears." 162.44.245.111 (talk) 16:49, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

the article needs reviewing some of the information is incorrect (like when it said bigwig died in the snare) and other times it repeats it twice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.66.201.217 (talk) 22:10, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Undue weight.

Is the criticism section perhaps just a tad WP:UNDUE? The "feminist criticism" consists of modern and 2nd-wave feminists critiquing a fictional book about rabbits, and making conjecture as to the motives of the author. Are these feminist critics even particularly notable themselves? Are there views fringe or widely held? I know the book is inaccurate in that it shows male rabbits setting up a new warren when in fact, much in the same way for ants and elephants, rabbit society is rather matriarchal - yet the criticism part just seems bloated in contrast with other sections in the article. --86.159.213.48 (talk) 12:28, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Good point. I tightened it up a bit. ~Anachronist (talk) 16:57, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Tightened up a bit more. ~Anachronist (talk) 06:06, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Adams is quoted somewhere as saying that 'Watership Down' was just about rabbits. Rodolph (talk)

How is that relevant to the discussion? Dlabtot (talk) 00:16, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Relevant? Possibly relevant because the author had no feminsim or whatever in mind and thus any interpretations placed upon the book by people like you or me are mere fancies.Rodolph (talk) 00:24, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

I find that to be an extremely simplistic view. So works of art and literature are always exactly what their creators say they are about and nothing more? Is that really what you believe? So you don't, for example, think an author could ever unintentionally reveal biases, opinions, themes, whatever, that they did not set out to write about? Everything is on the surface, at all times?

I think I would enjoy playing poker with you. Dlabtot (talk) 01:30, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

" I know the book is inaccurate in that it shows male rabbits setting up a new warren " -- Lampshaded in the novel itself. Hazel has some difficulty in getting his all-male band of tramps to actually dig themselves in properly, and it's only because he is a highly unusual leader that Watership Down gets dug at all. Captain Pedant (talk) 22:21, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Lapine Language Section

I absolutely agree with every word of the beautifully written Lapine Language section in the article. Unfortunately, it is not appropriately written for Wikipedia. It is rife with speculation posing as fact, including at least one place where it presumes to know how all readers will react to the use of Lapine in the book. The objectionable material was added in a series of three edits on the same day (joint diff shown here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Watership_Down&type=revision&diff=819988378&oldid=819115740 ) by anon editors with no other edits listed.

As I said, it's beautifully written, and I don't want to be the one to tear it apart. I'm just pointing this out, and am open for other suggestions. I don't want to just revert it, because I think some of the material in there is valuable and worth preserving. Unschool 03:24, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Anyone who wants to can look up the revisions you linked. I have replaced the section with a light paraphrasing of the main article Lapine language, which is all it should be, when there is a larger article available. Material that isn't in the main article shouldn't be introduced in this section here. ~Anachronist (talk) 05:09, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Trying to avoid in-universe perspective

In an attempt to avoid in-universe perspective, I've been removing too much character detail about Fiver. Interestingly, while I've been providing edit summaries explaining my edits, another editor has been terming it "vandalism" on my Talk page while leaving out any explanations on why she is adding the material and reverting my edits. Please provide an explanation.173.72.140.146 (talk) 10:35, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Please do. This book is so British I still remember to this day as difficult to comprehend. Reading the plot summary, I still have no idea what it's about.70.184.31.2 (talk) 16:04, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Claimed inspiration (Salten)

There is an on-line seller who has listed a copy of Felix Salten’s Fifteen Rabbits, allegedly owned by Richard Adams: “A book from the writer of Bambi that inspited Adams to have talking rabbits. From the library of Richard Adams the writer of Watership Down. Full provenance and with a supplied Richard Adams bookplate attached to the front endpaper.” — Is this claim true or can it be confirmed whether Watership Down was indeed inspired also by Fifteen Rabbits? Perhaps Adams acquired his copy of the Salten book only after 1972? --Mlang.Finn (talk) 16:57, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Ending of Watership Down

Actually I am quite sure that it is the Black rabbit of inle that appears to Hazel at the end. As I do not have time to make my argument this article says it pretty good. I also don't have time to figure out how to edit a wikipedia article. maybe another time but if somebody could do it for me that would be great. Basically the black rabbit of inle's owsla is contained of great cheif rabbits (I think i havent read the book in a few months(i read it a lot)) http://www.angelfire.com/nc2/watershipdown/literarytheory.html

thank you for reading this — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gwenqwerty (talk • contribs) 03:29, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Watergate Down

I added a reference for the National Lampoon article, "Watergate Down," mentioned in the Parodies section. I added it as a journal reference and then added a URL to a PDF version someone has posted online. Not sure if the URL should remain, though, because it's almost certainly in contravention of copyright. Any thoughts?Zaxbys Mom (talk) 20:12, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

@Zaxbys Mom: Thanks. I removed the link but kept the rest of the citation. Anyone who wants to find it online, can find it. We shouldn't link to a copyright violation. There is no requirement for a citation to link to online sources, particularly if the source predates the World Wide Web. ~Anachronist (talk) 21:15, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Gender roles

As I've seen here, there was significant debate about the section on gender roles, but it was eventually kept. The article passed a good article review when that section was in it. Then, in 2011, it was removed by an unregistered editor, who called it "feminist crapolla" (sic) and it was never restored. Why? Aquila89 (talk) 18:37, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Possibly because the editors who where watching the page at the time of removal didn't care or weren't aware of the context. Do you have a diff? Regards, Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 20:02, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, do I have a what? I think the section had valid points and it should be put back n the article. Aquila89 (talk) 11:28, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

A "diff" is one of the standard ways in which editors refer to prior revisions of a page. If you can find the section you're talking about in the page's history, you can copy the link to that revision from this history here so we can see what you're talking about. Alternately, you can just be bold and copy the section back in, and if someone objects, they can discuss here. Regards, Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 18:02, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. I restored the section. Aquila89 (talk) 19:20, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

I removed the section again a it violates NPOV and notability. While section like this might fit in a book discussing gender roles, it does not fit in an encyclopedia article about a book where gender roles do not play any role of importance. Wikipedia is not a political action platform. Yetanwiki (talk) 18:36, 21 August 2020 (UTC)