Talk:Animal Farm in popular culture

Moral Orel
"In the first episode of Moral Orel, there is a book in the pile "to burn" clearly labeled "Animal Farm" in all caps."

I never saw that... did anybody else notice this? EDIT: It's in the second episode.

Twilight
In the second book of Twilight; New Moon, Bella Swan mentions Animal Farm as an easy subject matter in Chapter 4, on top of page 99. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dragnier (talk • contribs) 05:42, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Merge
this article should be cleaned up and merged into Animal Farm--camr nag 19:26, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I quite agree. This sort of article ("___ in popular culture") is typically a section within a larger article on a popular subject. -- Denzera (talk) 04:39, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed, and I've taken the liberty of pulling the refs with no apparent significance as I indicated I would months ago. Doniago (talk) 13:45, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Lack of Sourcing
Given that the lack of refs has been noted as an issue for over two months now, is there any reason the alleged-but-unsourced references shouldn't be deleted? If this was any other article or there would be less extensive removals involved I wouldn't even bother asking. Doniago (talk) 05:16, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Finally got around to doing this. Doniago (talk) 13:46, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

IMDb as a Reference
I have removed and will continue to remove anything sourced to IMDb per WP:RS/IMDB. Additionally, nothing should be being added to this article without reliable third-party sourcing that clearly indicates its significance per WP:OR. If you have a problem with this, please discuss it here and cite the relevant policies that support your views. Thank you. Doniago (talk) 21:55, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'm an inclusionist, but what do you want this article to be? Should it not strive to give the reader the fullest depth and breadth of, oh, I don't know, references to Animal Farm in popular culture possible??? Obviously, the answer is yes. Any and all instances of its name and use in popular culture should be here. You are acting very non-professionally and in a quite impolite manner. You seem to think you have proprietary rights over this article and have the final say over this matter. Who are you to decide IMDb is not a reference, when it is referenced elsewhere in this very same article??? Why not wholesale delete every article about films and actors while we're at it? You are not acting civil, you are not acting in good faith, and you are wantoningly and arbitrarily acting as a vindictive steward against whatever Almighty Doniago does not find worthy of an esteemed place in oh-so-very important critical article. JesseRafe (talk) 04:41, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Focus on the issues, not the editors. Please don't invoke personal attacks. 2) I linked to the policy that explicitly states that IMDb is not considered a reliable source, so I don't know why you would claim that I'm making a decision on my own. 3) If I was determined to make decisions on my own I certainly wouldn't have started a Talk thread. 4) The article should not be a list of any and every perceived reference to Animal Farm without any sourcing provided. It should be a list of significant references, as determined by reliable third-party sources. If you feel otherwise, please, per my original message, cite policy that supports your perspective. Thank you. Doniago (talk) 16:25, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
 * You may also wish to review this discussion involving a similar article. Doniago (talk) 16:41, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
 * You obviously cannot see the difference between a "personal attack" and an objective statement. You were the first to point to Civility and other Wiki-Pillars, and I am merely stating the fact that it is you not being Civil and it is you not respecting Good Faith edits by other wikipedians. You are ignoring the issue, as I have said many times, IMDb is still being used as a reference in this article after you undo my changes, therefore since you are using the fact that one item us based on IMBd (because OZ is not a current show and no longer has a show website) as a means of deleting it, while ignoring the other items based on IMDb citations, you are being arbitrary and petty about the choices that you and you alone have spuriously made for this article. Wikipedia is supposed to be a collaborative effort and your actions are indicative of being an Ivory Tower petty pedant. JesseRafe (talk) 18:06, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Right. We'll continue this conversation when you're willing to speak to me in a civil manner and show a little good faith. Cheers. Doniago (talk) 18:34, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Random lists of Wikipedia edtiors saying "Lookey! Lookey I saw Animal Farm here!!!!!!! are not encyclopedic. Encyclopedic content would give the sighting a context that would actually help explain the impact on popular culture. But such analysis absolutely requires the commentary to have a reliable third party source. Active Banana    (bananaphone  18:48, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
 * wow, this article topic has such potential and so many potential reliable sources that the current sad state of the article is depressing. Active  Banana    (bananaphone  18:57, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Just pointing out that a source might not be reliable is significantly more mature than just using "revert" for another editor's good faith addenda. Question: Why is the "unreliable source?" tag still NOT applied to other IMDb references? Why are only some uses of IMDb questioned? And I never once made the assertion that IMDb was the end-all be-all of citations, I just used it as it was easy as Doniago undid my first edit because there were no references, and that seemed easy enough, and there are literally tens of thousands of references to IMDb on wikipedia. Further, there are some items on this list that have absolutely no references at all of any kind, for instance that Swedish band does not even have their advertising/spamming/COI band website listed. Only my good faith efforts to point out an additional instance of Animal Farm in popular culture were targeted for immediate removal and not civil questioning on their merits. JesseRafe (talk) 20:24, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
 * the "trivia" sections at IMDB are simply user generated with no eidtorial oversight. the tecnical credits are generally acceptable as they are supplied by the site owners/editors who have bonefides for credibility on those matters. commercial sites such as itunes are generally not considered reliable sources as their prime mission is to move product. Active Banana    (bananaphone  03:02, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Did you read what I said? When did I ever mention the trivia sections on IMDb? There is an episode of the show named after this novella. I added an item about that with internal wikilinks. Doniago deleted it saying there were no references, so I added a reference to IMDb - the most obvious one to look to. I never said a thing about the IMDb Trivia sections. And iTunes and Amazon (which was blocked) are obviously there to sell, but also they should be seen as reliable barometers for the names of episodes of television shows, just as they are for names of tracks on albums.
 * Furthermore, for perhaps the 7th time, no one has addressed what I said from the beginning: IMDb is elsewhere on the "Animal Farm in popular culture" page cited as a reference! Oh, they hypocrisy! That however wasn't cited as questionable until I did so a little while ago. This is the arbitrary and nit-picky manner that I take issue with. This is proof-positive of not acting in good faith, when one editor targets another's contributions but ignores similar actions that he or she approves of.JesseRafe (talk) 03:30, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

some guy at Baldwin-Wallace college as a reference?
This is silly. This "script" if it is real was found on someone's college user page. What could be more original research than that? Either the "jcurtis" who wrote the script and uploaded it on his bw.edu site, or the editor (possibly the same person) who searched for it and found it? That is original research anyway you slice it, unlike say, the box of DVDs of Oz season 2, which one can buy and read the title of episode seven on. That, in comparison, is something that is self-evident and not even research, let alone "original research". The scope of this article should be to alert the reader (likely a student reading the book for the first time) the full depth and breadth of George Orwell's creation's reach. And by being arbitrary in denying Oz's place for a silly made-up and only selectively-enforced rule is not the right way to go about things. JesseRafe (talk) 03:35, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
 * As we have noted above, yes, we agree this article is in poor shape. Active Banana    (bananaphone  17:20, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Bob Dylan
On reviewing the lyrics of Ballad of a Thin Man I find no evidence that "Mr Jones" is a reference to Animal Farm. The song discusses Mr Jones at great length in terms which bear no relationship to the character in Animal Farm or his actions. I am removing the reference from the article.

On a more general point, I would caution against assuming that any coincidence of names in a song and a novel are adequate evidence of an intentional reference by one author to another's work. This is especially true of Bob Dylan, who has a massive corpus of lyrical work, and of Animal Farm, which is replete with names that are common in day-to-day life, literature and/or history. Hence it's easy to find uses in his lyrics of other names that appear in Animal Farm. For example, in Like a Rolling Stone he sings "You used to be so amused at Napoleon in rags and the language that he used" but what basis would we have for affirming that this is a reference to a pig? NebY (talk) 10:41, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks NebY. Your second paragraph encapsulates my principal concerns regarding the current state of this article. Unfortunately getting feedback from uninvolved editors has proven difficult thus far. Doniago (talk) 11:05, 22 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Surprise, surprise, someone has actually done what was suggested all along, verified the contents of the primary source. You could have done this yourself, Doniago.  μηδείς (talk) 17:02, 22 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Sadly, I have not verified any assertions at all. I have found them fallacious and deleted them. But wouldn't it have been better to demand good sources for these fallacious statements from the start? NebY (talk) 20:41, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Frankly, my perspective, which WP:BURDEN seems to concur with, is that unless a good source is being provided from the outset these items shouldn't be in the article to begin with. Ordinarily I'd just tag the appropriate items with "citation needed", but the article itself has been tagged for problems for well over two years and apparently none of the editors who support the inclusion of the items are able/willing to do anything about it. The "a primary source is good enough" argument seems to have been debunked by the sheer number of erroneous items that we've found, and we still are in violation of WP:LSC for not having clear list criteria despite multiple requests for such on my part. Of course, when I tried to address the problems myself we ended up where we are now. Frankly, if all else fails, I'm considering proposing that the article be merged back into Animal Farm or deleted outright. Doniago (talk) 03:45, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Your logic is "Since some X are Y, then all X are Y" which is ridiculous. Of course there are some poor exemplars in the article, but how does that mean that all primary sourced material is erroneously listed? It simply does not. Each should be analyzed on its own merits, and not pre-judged just because it is a song or television episode and another song or television episode was previously found to be improperly included. This should be a resource to the reader, not a secret club with secondary sources only. If there are overt references to both the theme of Animal Farm and a clear overt reference to the title Animal Farm in the primary source, then it should be included here no secondary source needed. JesseRafe (talk) 03:52, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying they all are, I'm saying that policy requires reliable sourcing (WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:BURDEN, WP:SYNTH). We should assume the material is not correct unless and until reliable sourcing is available, not vice versa, and there is no policy that supports including material in articles without said reliable sourcing...if I'm wrong, then by all means point me to it. I'm not even sure what you mean with the whole "secret club" bit, so I can't respond to it. As for "overt" references...it's already been clearly demonstrated that supposedly "overt" references were in fact nothing of the sort. Either source it, remove it, or provide one, just one example of a primary source listed in this article that unambiguously references Animal Farm. Because short of a primary source that actually says, "This is a reference to Animal Farm", I can't imagine such a thing, certainly not among the items listed in this article. Editors had over two years to verify this material...and yet now that someone's actually trying to do something about it, it's a problem? Doniago (talk) 05:08, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Every part of your reasoning is backwards, as usual, this is why nothing gets accomplished here and no consensus can be reached because you say the same thing over and over again without hearing the other side. 1. You explicitly are saying that they are all without merit because you found some that were not: "it's already been clearly demonstrated that supposedly "overt" references were in fact nothing of the sort" How is this not an example of "Since some X are Y, then all X are Y"? 2. You still cannot comprehend what a primary source is. You do not need to provide "reliable sourcing" when the material is the source itself. 3. The Johnny Bravo episode mentioned first in the television list, which I have not seen, is an unambiguous reference to Animal Farm. 4. The "secret club" bit is what I've been saying since we first came to loggerheads that you think you have some proprietary control over this article, and pick and choose what belongs, without any input from other established editors. You have deemed yourself final arbiter of all that is eligible for inclusion, and began this spat by reverting without dialogue. 5. The fact that you say "Editors had over two years to verify this material" is a perfect example of how you view your dominion over the article. It's laughable that you think all wikipedia editors in the world were aware of this verification situation, and concerned with it. Maybe you have cast your watchful eye over this page for over two years, but I made my first edit here only a couple of months ago, and many of the items were added by new contributors after you placed the notice on some admin board. Two years? 6. All things considered, I just do not comprehend what you hope to gain by eliminating useful information that can do nothing but help people learn, it's not like this is or has any chance to be a Featured or Good Article. Just relax a little bit on your narrow interpretation of what the policies are, and what you think a proper source is, and the burden of proof is not to dismiss entire classes of items categorically, but to judge each included item on its own value of how its a reference to Animal Farm in Popular Culture. JesseRafe (talk) 12:45, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * A. How about focusing on my concerns rather than me? A little more civility would be nice, and might help your case.
 * 1. Without reliable sourcing, yes, I am assuming they aren't necessarily accurate. That's how WP works, and you have not provided any policy suggesting that "add it to the article first, verify it later" is a supported way of handling these, while I have provided links to several policies supporting my view.
 * 2. I know exactly what a primary source is, but I don't believe how you're attempting to use them in this case is a valid approach.
 * 3. Where you see an unambiguous reference, I see synthesis and a statement that needs reliable sourcing. You are assuming it is a reference to Animal Farm. I will agree it likely is, but there is no verification as it currently stands.
 * 4. How is your refusal to consider my points in any way less an example of article ownership than my own stance, exactly? You have yet to have any uninvolved editors support your own views, and as I have not attempted to make further edits to the article since my last effort was reversed, I don't believe you have any justification to claim I am attempting to "own" the article.
 * 5. The article was proposed for deletion in 2009. I reviewed that discussion, and multiple editors spoke up and were made aware of the concerns with the article. Maybe you didn't participate, but you are surely aware of the tags and have, by your own admission, had months to work on the article and provide more reliable sourcing.
 * 6. Unsourced information is not useful. It's theory and synthesis and misleading. At best it's exactly why people believe Wikipedia is a poor reference (because a reader can't readily verify the information) and at worst it's fallacious, as has been demonstrated with regards to the Dylan song and other supposed "references" that have been removed. I would rather see this article reduced to 3 well-sourced and easily-verified items than 30 items that consist of little more than hearsay and wishful thinking. If you feel I should relax my views, then stop talking down to me and start answering my questions regarding inclusion criteria and actual policies that support your opinions. Because frankly, without providing any hard data beyond your own words, you seem to be making this much more about what you would like to believe than my understanding of how Wikipedia is supposed to work. Even editors who you believed supported your views have explicitly stated that they disagreed with you. Doniago (talk) 13:44, 23 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Understanding what the word "civility" means would go a long way to me taking you seriously. When the issue is you and your actions, I am not being uncivil by pointing that out. It's an objective fact. With respect to #1, do you not see how you've contradicted yourself? The same way you contradicted yourself over inclusion of IMDb references earlier? Do you not see this as logically inconsistent? There is no ad hominem attack in pointing out poor logic, it is as pure an assessment one can make. As for #3 It is not "assuming" it is "recognizing". When you walk into a room do you assume that your mother is your mother, or do you recognize her? As to #4A, I see you points and I refute them. I understand where you're coming from, and I think you have an overly narrow interpretation of the rules, policies, etc. #4B Having your opinion is not and never was what I referred to as your purported ownership of the article. I am referring to your habit of reverting without dialogue and not listening to other viewpoints. Just assuming what people are saying and dismissing them. Read above. You said some noise about IMDb Trivia not being reliable, when no one had EVER mention IMDb Trivia. You just saw IMDb and smugly dismissed it. That's haughty dismissive behavior, as if you are above actually hearing what others have to contribute to the discussion. #4C I am not in the business of seeking out other editors. Wikipedia is something I do for fun, and I don't go around seeking things to fix. I use it as a research tool, when I come across something that could use some help, and I know how to provide it, I do so. Quite frankly, the secret cabals and newspeak wikipedia editors have been relying on over the past four-plus years is rather off-putting and it's part of the reason new users routinely complain (in other fora obviously) that it's fruitless trying to edit, when people routinely revert without explanation or dialogue as you are wont to do. (Again, NOT a personal attack, a fact.) #5 I make my valid contribution and move on. The onus is on you, to simply click the link and see if it's valid or not. Not for me to provide screenshots of the references. #6 I agree. However, the contention is whether things are sourced. Once again, you fail to understand these are primary sources. Since they are sourced by virtue of their existence they are not not useful.
 * The only other recent editor I recall agreeing with is Medeis, and it seems he does agree with my views, so I don't really understand what that last bit means. JesseRafe (talk) 14:15, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * 1. I'm not sure what specifically you're referring to regarding IMDb. It's not a reliable source, as WP:RS/IMDb makes rather clear. If you'd like to discuss this issue more specifically I would be happy to offer apologies if I have in fact contradicted myself.
 * 3. What you call "recognizing" is synthesis and original research, especially given that other editors may not make the same recognition. It is you making the call, not a reliable source. You're assuming that X is a reference to Animal Farm, when it could be coincidence. We need reliable sourcing to remove this element of doubt. The Simpsons makes references all the time, but unless we have a quote from someone involved with the show saying, "I loved the reference to Animal Farm that we threw in, with the X", it is original research to state that X was in fact a reference. There's no proof without a citation, and I don't believe this article should contain unproven alleged references. You have yet to cite a policy that supports your opposing view that a primary source is sufficient.
 * 4A. You're welcome to feel that way, but you haven't yet cited anything supporting your interpretation of policy.
 * 4B. I almost always include an edit summary explaining why I am making a change, and I am not required to engage in dialogue before making changes. Read WP:BRD - Bold, Revert, Discuss. Someone makes an edit, I revert it (with an explanation, usually), and if there's an issue, then we discuss it, as we are now doing. If you are going to keep accusing me of ownership, please provide a more concrete example. Otherwise I feel that is an unsubstantiated personal attack. As far as not listening to other viewpoints, I don't exactly feel that you're listening to mine either, and Medeis has shown a history of not respecting others' concerns when they don't agree with his own, so you can understand why I might feel he was not giving me a fair hearing either. And really, how can I feel you're listening to me when you (both) have consistently failed to answer my very direct and clear IMO questions, for instance regarding WP:LSC?
 * 5. Per WP:BURDEN the onus is clearly not on me to verify that links are valid, the onus is on the editor adding or modifying information.
 * 6. As I already indicated, I don't believe that primary sources are satisfying your arguments in this case. Their existence is not proving anything other than that they exist. If I randomly say "Animal Farm is cool!" that is not a reference to the novel unless I explicitly say so "Animal Farm is a really cool book!" (which even then might leave some room for ambiguity if there were multiple novels with the same name). I may have misspoken earlier, but my intention was to note that you have not acknowledged the concerns expressed by any editors other than myself, even when those editors expressed the same concerns that I have regarding the current status of the article. Neby's comments near the bottom of this page, for instance. Doniago (talk) 15:18, 23 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Everything you have just said has proven my points. You were the start edit-warring, which is not an approved practice, which is why I said you did so without dialogue (which, yes, you are correct, is not mandatory, but it is uncivil to use the revert or undo for meaningful content-adding posts from established editors). I don't speak your secret language, and I am not obligated to cite my opinions, which makes no sense by the way. As for the IMDb discussion, simply scroll up. I have better things to do than click all over your silly links, I know the policy about Original Research and Primary Sources. How could it not be your onus to click the link to verify if it exists? That's nonsense. Otherwise, everyone could just make references to anything and no one would be able to refute anything just because there was a reference cited. As far as listening to your viewpoints, that's exactly what I've been doing and I've been putting out exact counter-points, whereas you respond with canned responses that show no indication of having read what I had said. JesseRafe (talk) 20:08, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Right-o then. I think we can both agree this is going nowhere. I shall wait to hear from additional editors. Doniago (talk) 20:16, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

What is appropriate to include in this article?
As evidenced on the Talk page, there has been significant debate regarding what items are appropriate for inclusion in this article. That conversation and a request at WP:DRN failed to draw significant comment from neutral editors. Opinions from uninvolved editors would be welcome. Doniago (talk) 11:05, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Threaded discussion
Having recently edited the article, I may not count as an "uninvolved" editor any longer. What's more, I'm about to edit it again, removing the listing of Animal Farm by The Kinks. I fear whoever included it was unfamiliar with The Kinks and had not even read the article here on the album The Kinks Are the Village Green Preservation Society, describing the theme of the song as "bucolic escape" in a "concept album lamenting the passing of old-fashioned English traditions," let alone read the lyrics:

''"I'll take you where real animals are playing

''And people are real people not just playing  Its a quiet, quiet life  By a dirty old shack  That we called our home  I want to be back there  Among the cats and dogs  And the pigs and the goats  On animal farm"''

This highlights a problem with these listings. An author does not acquire a lien on a phrase by using it as a book title, however famous it may become; other writers can use the phrase quite independently without making a reference. If as editors we rely on coincidence and our own reading of primary sources, we will lead the reader into error. We need to substantiate our claims and we cannot do that by original research; we need secondary sources.

Similarly, I must excise the recent addition "In the August 14, 2011 Pearls Before Swine strip, Rat writes a book where sheep rebel againist their farmer very much like the book. But, they flee when they see he has shears." The claim that this brief cartoon is "very much like" Animal Farm is the judgement of the editor. That one editor perceives a similarity does not mean that the strip's creator explicitly inserted a direct reference to Orwell's Animal Farm. It's possible, sure; it's equally possible it's a reference to a modern children's book about farmyard animals, or even to The Strike At Shane's (possibly by Gene Stratton-Porter). We don't know what Stephan Pastis has read or whether he was referring to anything he's read. The claim needs substantiating.

I realise that substantiation by secondary sources might be difficult in several cases listed here. However, there is also a wider point as to whether a reference to Animal Farm should be more than passing to be worth including here. If a camera pans across a stack of books and one is Animal Farm, is that a reference worth recording, any more than a sighting of a branded cola bottle or hamburger? If we were clear about this we might not even have to consider whether some cases were truly references. NebY (talk) 16:53, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I for one am pleased with the current direction of the article, Neby. The main issue Medeis and I were having with Doniago's wholesale edits/deletions was the lack of understanding the difference between primary and secondary sources. I agree that passing references should not be included, but any and all thematic references that also have the title (therefore do not require interpretation, which would be Original Research) should be here, as their own source, without necessarily any secondary sources. JesseRafe (talk) 17:53, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree. Neby has taken the needed step of verifying the sources themselves.  This is necessary whether we have a reference to an original work or to a secondary source.  μηδείς (talk) 18:15, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you, but I disagree. You suggest it's appropriate to include "all thematic references that also have the title (therefore do not require interpretation...)". There were several such inclusions here but they did not stand examination. They were misleading to the general reader. Some of them had been misleading the reader for a long time. Unless we are in the business of digging traps for unwary high school students, we should demand the same standards here as we do in the rest of Wiipedia: don't just observe a coincidence, find and refer to a reliable source that asserts there is a connection. NebY (talk) 20:29, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I would add that without reliable sourcing there's also (in most cases) no way to establish that these references are intentional references to Animal Farm. Just because someone says, "Some people are more equal than others", doesn't mean they're aware that they're quoting anything, much less Animal Farm in particular. Doniago (talk) 13:51, 23 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Secondary sources required - The best policy to only include material if a secondary source says there is a relation. In other words, the popular reference itself cannot justify the connection.  For example, if there is a Simpsons episode that mentions the phrase "animal farm", that would not be sufficient, even if Orwell were mentioned.  Permitting that as a source would run afoul of WP:NOR and uses discouraged primary sources.  Instead, a WP:Secondary source should be required that states something like "Simpsons episode #52B contained a parody of Orwell's Animal Farm ...".   Using secondary sources will meet the WP:Verifiability and WP:No original research policies. --Noleander (talk) 16:47, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Phrases that are common (like "animal farm") or memetic (like "equal, but some are more equal than others") are not necessarily references. Per WP:LSC, list inclusion should be "unambiguous, objective, and supported by reliable sources". The Kinks song mentioned above is probably none of these. Proper secondary sources are uncommon in X in popular culture lists, but they would probably fix this problem. / edg ☺ ☭ 23:42, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Renominate for deletion/merge?. Think it's surprising that the previous AfD failed. It's such an unusual way to WP:SPINOFF an article. Other than that, yes secondary sources are needed. --FormerIP (talk) 12:26, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I thought about doing so, but I was attempting to avoid exacerbating what was already proving to be a contentious situation. Animal Farm is almost 45K right now while this article is almost 3K; per WP:LENGTH moving this information back in wouldn't be unduly increasing the size of the parent article. Off the top of my head I'm pretty neutral as to whether it's better to merge this or keep it as a standalone, though I will agree that this article seems somewhat unconventional, and IMO it became tangential enough that when experienced editors were needed to offer feedback it was difficult to solicit feedback without going higher up the ladder than I would have preferred. Doniago (talk) 13:01, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Removing Unreliably Sourced Items Per WP:LSC
I am removing items on the list that have not been reliably (i.e. unambiguously) sourced and cannot be easily verified by a reader, at least until Selection Criteria for this article are established and agreed upon, as required by WP:LSC, which in any case mentions that list items should be reliably sourced so as to establish their eligibility for inclusion. I requested such criteria on multiple occasions, and said requests were disregarded. A discussion at WP:DRN failed to reach a resolution, but all previously uninvolved editors emphasized that more reliable attribution was needed; an opinion that has been echoed by the uninvolved editors who have contributed to the discussion here. Dissenting editors have repeatedly failed to provide any links to policies or discussions supporting their assertion that primary sourcing is sufficient for the listed items. Per WP:BURDEN I intend to revert the addition of any material that is not either clearly unambiguous or does not include reliable secondary sourcing. Let's be clear - a song name is not unambiguous, that an episode of television includes a quote from the book is not unambiguous (it could be coincidence). Dissenting editors are welcome to discuss the matter here, start a new thread at WP:DRN, or solicit feedback from appropriate project pages. Doniago (talk) 12:35, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Lest I be perceived as a hypocrite, I will submit that an appropriate selection criterion would be a reference to the novel that has received coverage in a reliable third-party source. Doniago (talk) 12:39, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

You have already been advised repeatedly that significance is an article-, not item-level criterion, and that identified primary sources act as the source for their own description. Please stop edit warring to remove items which are clearly identified and which have blue links implying the subject has been accepted as significant. All unidentified and red linked comments have been removed. μηδείς (talk) 20:15, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Re-read the discussion. Consensus did not support your views. Go ahead and charge me with edit-warring if you'd like, but you're the one acting against consensus and policy. Doniago (talk) 20:51, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Are you suggesting that every mention of "To be or not to be" over the last five hundred years be listed in Hamlet in popular culture? NebY (talk) 21:12, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * You are quite aware that significance is an article level criterion. On that alone, the criticism fails.  But describing items from Animal Farm as mere memes doesn't disprove their significance--it proves them.  You are quite aware that I removed all the items from the article which did not give a verifiable source, primary or otherwise, and that I removed all the redlinked entries in the good faith assumption that if there wasn't a blue linked article the item wasn't worth posting.  You have my support removing unspecified additions, additions that have no blue links, and additions which the source does not connect to Orwell in an understanding clear to a layman.    But this is a comprehensive encyclopedia, and a small article, where reliably published verifiable primary sources are fine and do not harm but may benefit the reader.  There is no justification for this repeated deletion on an arbitrary personal basis.  I don't claim to care about these sources.  But I do accept them since they follow the policy criteria.  μηδείς (talk) 21:33, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Are you really suggesting that if a subject is significant enough to have an article, then any information about it, however insignificant, should be included in the article? NebY (talk) 21:54, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * At item should only be included in this article if a secondary source explicitly connects the book/music/item to Animal Farm. It is not sufficient for us editors to make the connection, and it is not sufficient that the item just contains the phrase "animal farm".  The secondary source must be provided in a footnote. --Noleander (talk) 01:40, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

You are just making stuff up. Per wp:notability: : "The criteria applied to article content are not the same as those applied to article creation. The notability guidelines do not apply to article or list content (with the exception that some lists restrict inclusion to notable items or people)." Note that all items within this article link to blue linked (i.e., notable, or they would have been deleted) items.μηδείς (talk) 02:22, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * User:Medeis: The issue here is Verifiability (WP:V). Not notability. You are correct that the WP Notability policy only applies to entire articles, not to individual sentences/paragraphs within an article. (BTW: That is captured in the WP:NNC policy).    But the WP:V policy requires that you supply sources (see WP:RS) that state "music A is related to Animal Farm".  Without such sources, those items fail the WP verifiability requirement.   Can you spend some time looking for sources that make that connection?  If you find the sources, then the material can go in the article.  --Noleander (talk) 02:42, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Noleander, the issue of verifibility is handled by these items being primary sources, so they don't all need secondary support. A lot of the prima facie elements are unambiguously a reference to Animal Farm. In my opinion, every permutation of "# __ good, # __ bad" or "All X are equal, but some X are more equal than others" belongs as a reference to Animal Farm in the other work without any secondary sourcing needed, traditionally in every media-related article episodes to television are just mentioned, and it is just as up to the reader to choose to verify it by viewing the episode as it is for the reader to verify by reading the book that's mentioned or the documentary to be viewed, if the material is not available in print or AV online. Some of the last bit of things included are not meritorious, such as the Jericho show mention for one. NB: I am not endorsing all of the latest round of edits, just those that are unambiguous and primary sources. So I am not advocating for any reference to Napoleon or Snowball or animals in a farm or pigs talking or a character reading the book for class (and not saying anything about it in the carrier show or book, etc.). JesseRafe (talk) 03:16, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I would be cautious of saying "Other articles do X, so this one can too," as that may be an indication that the other article has problems more than anything else. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS discusses this in further detail.
 * I maintain that primary sourcing is not a way to establish unambiguous references. If one hears "All X are equal...." on The Simpsons for instance, and then repeats it, they are not referencing Animal Farm, they are referencing The Simpsons. And I suppose that's my argument for why primary sourcing fails in a nutshell. It's original research no matter how "obvious" the reference may appear to be. Doniago (talk) 03:34, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't want to sound rude or uncivil, but once again, you are simply just not "getting it" -- I did not make the "other stuff exists" argument, I was referring to the official manner of references. I don't spend hours on wikipedia policy pages to know their cute little acronyms and links, but I know the actual policies. Look here, this is what I mean, see number 7? It's a TV show, it would have to be viewed, it's not linked, but it's a valid reference. Look at 9 or 16, they're newspaper articles before the Internet was big. They're not unverifiable per se, just not immediately so with one quick click. Look at 25, it's a book. It's someone's copyrighted intellectual property, so an interested party would have to go and read the book, either buying it or checking it out of a library. This is not the WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument, nor is there anything wrong with the Conan O'Brien page, just the way things are for those types of sources. Any of the television shows can be watched with no greater difficulty than an episode of the Tonight Show or Inside the Actors' Studio, they are PRIMARY sources. Furthermore, it is implicit in your example that if The Simpsons said "All X are equal..." then that is a reference to Animal Farm. I do hope you see that, otherwise there's no rhyme or reason to your example in the internal logic of your view. Also, random fans of the show go around quoting The Simpsons, not other creative published works that would be mentioned here. Joe Schmoe at the bowling alley quoting The Simposons referring to Animal Farm is, I agree, not a reference to Animal Farm in popular culture, however, it is also not an example of "why primary sourcing fails in a nutshell" at all. Primary sources exist. It is not a synonym for Original Research no matter how many times you say it is. You want to to deny their existence entirely, and that is a fundamental misunderstanding of how to source material. JesseRafe (talk) 04:08, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Nope, sorry. One does not need a secondary source to tell one (how many secondary sources explicitly say "this is kosher for wikipedia"?) that a primary source supports itself. According to POLICY: "Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them.[4] Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements that any educated person, with access to the source but without specialist knowledge, will be able to verify". Is it to be our interpretation that when an educated person reads "some animals are more equal than others" he cannot say that that is what Orwell said? These deletions have no basis in policy whatsoever and the edit warring to continue them must halt immediately.μηδείς (talk) 04:02, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * @Jesse & Medeis:  The WP Verifiability policy is not optional ... it is a requirement.  Editors are not allowed to draw conclusions or make assumptions.  A secondary source is required to establish firmly that the music/book/item is referencing  Animal Farm.   Now, there may be a rare item that says explicitly: "I am about to reference Animal farm and here it comes ....", in those cases, perhaps the item itself (a primary source alone) would suffice (but even then it would have to be a pretty famous item:  WP is not an indiscriminate collection of information).  So,  I repeat my question:  Which of these items have secondary sources?  For the ones that do not have a secondary source, are there any that explicitly say "I am referencing Animal Farm"?   If they do not say that, as User:Doniago says, we cannot assume that the item is referencing Animal Farm:  they may be referencing something that referenced Animal Farm; or they may just be repeating a catchy phrase they heard somewhere.  The pattern for WP articles these days is a footnote for every sentence ... that is the essence of WP:V.  This article is not exempt from the Verifiability requirement.  --Noleander (talk) 04:11, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Jesse: your recent additions do include citations now, which is a step in the right direction.  But I suggest we refrain from adding material until we get consensus here on the Talk page.   The next step is probably to ask for guidance from Reliable sources/Noticeboard ... there are several editors there that are experts in sourcing, and can give guidance on this issue.  --Noleander (talk) 04:45, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

I've posted an inquiry at Reliable_sources/Noticeboard. I suggest we get some input from those RS experts, and get consensus here on the Talk page, before adding any more material. --Noleander (talk) 04:50, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * No problem, I understand and appreciate your efforts. I just wanted to segregate some of the added edits that started this whole thing, as some were a stretch, or needed more work than I cared to do, but others are pretty self evident. Also, the S&TC episode is pretty much exactly what you hyperbolically were imagining wherein the source all but explicitly says "I am referencing Animal Farm", by the way. I won't add any more episodes, just reinstating what I thought were some good additions. I know all of those references will not hold up, but it's a good time-saver and maybe someone can find more/better ones (I literally just googled the named of the episode and Animal Farm, no quotes or extra effort or advanced search or anything), rather than just remove them. Also, and this time it is an "other stuff exists" observation, but not a justification -- the entire References to Hamlet article has only 4 references and before I deleted what was almost certainly a gag collection of "Instrumental Music inspired by Hamlet", consisted of over 100 entries. Not using it as a barometer to which this page should be held to, but that is perhaps a more important page and maybe some of the users here could direct their noble energy whence. JesseRafe (talk)
 * Using References to Hamlet as a guideline is not a good idea.  Before 2005, most WP articles did not include citations (footnotes).  Editors just wrote whatever they wanted to and, maybe, listed some reference books at the bottom of the article.  Starting around 2006, the Verifiabilty policy started to get seriously enforced, and now most new (good) articles have a footnote in nearly every sentence.  Many articles, especially lists, that were started before 2005 have no citations.   The WP:CHALLENGE and WP:BURDEN policies make it clear that the burden is on the editor that wants to add material to find the sources.  It will take probably 10 or 20 years before editors get around to adding sources to all those old articles. In the meantime, they cannot be used as guidelines.  Pointing at other articles that have no citations carries no weight at all. --Noleander (talk) 05:13, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Please don't respond before READING what I actually said. This is what makes this medium so difficult to communicate in because many editors assume what someone is saying instead of actually reading others. It's not like I didn't CLEARLY SAY, "Not using it as a barometer to which this page should be held to"... You took the time to make three edits to your post, evidently reading and rereading your own words, but clearly not enough time to take a second glance at what I said before rushing to reply, so it resulted in you arguing with me about a point nobody ever made. Well done. JesseRafe (talk) 05:24, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * My mistake, I apologize. It sounds like we are in agreement, then.   So, you agree citations are required for this article, and the only question remaining is whether the TV show (or whatever) is sufficient, without a secondary source.  Let's see what other editors have to say. --Noleander (talk) 05:29, 20 October 2011 (UTC)r

From RSN
(A section here for outside input) Here from RSN, commenting here rather than there as requested. My understanding of policy, including WP:DUE, WP:PSTS, and the guideline WP:TRIVIA reflects the essay WP:IPC: If a cultural reference is genuinely significant it should be possible to find a reliable secondary source that supports that judgment. While the criteria for notability (whether or not an article should exist) and due weight (part of whether content merits inclusion) are not the same, the principles behind them are. We should not be making connections that the real world doesn't make, nor over-puffing trivial information as more significant than it is. So I'd say we'd generally need reliable secondary sources that note the appearance of quotes from the book. The alternative would be horrendously long lists of trivia.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 05:17, 20 October 2011 (UTC)


 * More comments at RSN - There are several additional comments at the RS noticeboard: so far 3 out of 3 suggest that an independent (2ndary) source is required. Plus the one above here in this Talk page. --Noleander (talk) 14:39, 20 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Essays are essays, not policies. If the material is reliable and regards a work which is notable (has its own bluelink) and which an educated reader can verify without interpretation there is no justification for pulling it.  That doesn't even address the fact that we have people who are ideologically against "in popular culture" as such saying that 15 items rather than 4 in the entire article is just too much.  That strikes me as counter to reader interest in a comprehensive encyclopedia.  JesseRafe's recent edits seem eminently reasonable.  Anyone who checks a work and finds it does not actually reflect Orwell can do so, and as before I will remove the item myself.μηδείς (talk) 16:55, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Medeis: What do you think of the other comments at the RS noticeboard?  --Noleander (talk) 17:01, 20 October 2011 (UTC)


 * (ec) Medeis, you misread what I wrote, and you say something untrue about probably all the people offering opinions from RSN. I cited the essay because I felt it expresses the meaning of policy well, not that the essay itself is an authority of any kind. (The string of policy and guideline references I had put beforehand somehow escaped your attention - accidentally, I trust) That's what the best essays are generally good for: articulating common interpretations of policy.
 * Something featuring in popular culture is certainly important - it demonstrates the resonance a work has had. The point I think all of us were making was that it's not up to Wikipedia editors to pick and choose which examples of popular culture are significant. Such a position is categorically different to being "ideologically opposed" to pop culture mentions per se. It provides criteria for inclusion. It's not clear what your position is, and how it would prevent a list of a thousand or more random examples. General consensus is that long, random lists of trivia are not encyclopaedic.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 17:23, 20 October 2011 (UTC)