Talk:Little Boxes

Song lyrics

I've removed the song lyric listed as it appear to be copyrighted. --Tsaetre 00:26, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

As have I, twice now. PKtm 01:16, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Removed copyrighted lyrics again. —MJBurrage • TALK • 14:52, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Why are there two external links for the lyrics? They're both the same lyrics, seems a bit redundant. I'd say get rid of the second one, as the first one also has some other information which might be of interest, while the second is just the lyrics and nothing else. --Lurlock 17:52, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Orchestral version

There are three composers by the name of Charlie Barnett listed at IMDb:

1. Does anybody know if the two present day film-and-television composers listed on IMDb—Charlie Barnett I and Charlie Barnett III—are related, or are they possibly the same person, with IMDb being in error?
2. Is one of them the composer of the orchestral version of “Little Boxes” that was used on Mrs. Botwin's Neighborhood (Weeds episode), or was it Charlie Barnet?

—MJBurrage • TALK • 09:39, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Similar tune

The "little boxes on the hillside" phrase is very similar to a bit of the tune "Pittsburgh Pennsylvania" by Bob Merrill, which was a hit in 1952. It's best known as "There's a pawn shop, on the corner, in Pittsburgh Pennsylvania". No accusation of theft to Malvina Reynolds here, but she might have unknowingly lifted the tune. The lyrins (and the rest of the tune) have nothing in common. http://ntl.matrix.com.br/pfilho/html/lyrics/p/pittsburgh_pennsylvania.txt I'm sorry but I can't find a good file of the tune online, if you scroll down this Amazon link you can hear a tiny bit: http://www.amazon.co.uk/My-Truly-Fair-Recordings-1950-1953/dp/B0001JSS1I.Saxophobia 00:27, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

One similar line does not seem notable to me. I just removed a claim on the page that the songs shared the same melody. I could find no source for such a claim, and the clip on Amazon sounds pretty different to me. —MJBurrage • TALK • 14:14, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Now there’s this: Pittsburgh Pennsylvania

The tune was also used and credited to Bob Merrill by the Swedish singer Karl Gerhard in his song En katt bland hermelina, released in 1955. Gobbel (talk) 15:45, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

the reverse of the medal

Why there is no one single word about the negative meaning of the lyrics? In my opinion this is a [Marxist] song that criticizes the middle class values without a solid ethical base. I.e. envy is at the bottom of it. I suppose that Malvina Reynolds was happier when seeing the slums.--Mazarin07 (talk) 06:28, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Because that would be unnecessary editorializing. Presenting the song and it's intended meaning is within the realm of being informative. Adding additional content to criticize it -- unless that criticism itself was somehow considered particularly relevant -- would be inappropriate. Also, trust me, I live about two or three blocks away from the Westlake neighborhood of Daly City, CA (there's a big shopping center there where I often shop for groceries) and it's exactly what you'd think from the song: typical mid-century suburban development. Houses on tiny lots and conforming to about four or five different designs with very obvious repetition. Very dated suburban style architecture. I could tell just by looking at it that it had obviously been built shortly after the war. If anything it's a very dated representation of suburbia. It's not slums, but it definitely feels like lower-middle class housing. At the same time it's much more classically suburban than the just-barely-over-the-city-limits San Francisco residential area I live in only a few blocks away. 69.181.55.239 (talk) 10:25, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I think the entry's quote from Tom Lehrer, that 'Little Boxes' is 'the most sanctimonious song ever written' is the most appropriate and devastating criticism possible. AtomikWeasel (talk) 18:45, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Image

I have removed the image because the song has no connection with the location, and is therefore only synthetically associated with the song retrospectively by the inserter. The location of the image I inserted was referenced in the quote about the origins - we do not know the precise location, only the city, which inspired the song, according to the source who gives the origination: "My mother and father were driving South from San Francisco through Daly City". Not sure that image is of insufficient quality, but when there is not a more appropriate image, we use the one we can find. Having an image of the city linked to the song in the article is preferable to one in a different state that has no relationship to the song - which can not be justified. Mish (talk) 07:59, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

An editing conflict has developed over an image that I added to this article. It is being claimed that the photograph, which shows Levittown, PA, is not appropriate for this article, because that development is not directly connected to the song. The editor replaced the image with a fuzzy, indistinct image of Daly City. But the song "Little Boxes" isn't about Daly City, that was merely the inspiration for the song being written. The song is about "ticky-tacky" suburban housing developements, of which Levittown was a prime and prominent example. Thus, using the image is not remotely "synthesis" as the editor claims, it is simply an illustration of the song's subject matter.

Using Levitttown wasn't my first choice, I looked high and low for an image of the actually hillside houses which inspired the song, which can be seen when driving from San Francisco to SFO, but no images were available. I then looked at images of Daly City, including the one the editor used, and considered that they were just not strongly evocative of the theme of the song, or, like the one the editor picked, just technically and visually unsuitable. I finally settled on the Levittown photo because it aptly illustrates the subject matter of the song and is a distinct and visible image which nicely complements the article.

I would ask the other editor to stop removing this perfectly good and completely allowable image from the article. "Little Boxes" hasn't survived and remained popular because people like a good song about Daly City, California, it has continued to be popular because it makes a point about a social trend and a certain kind of enviornment. The image I choice illustrates that. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:21, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the song is about Daly City--in fact, it was inspired by a car trip Malvina Renolds took (with her family) through Daly City. There are plenty of images--and stories--of the respective area, but most of them, of course, are copyrighted. One would think there is an enterprising editor who lives in the area who would go out and snap a picture of the Westlake district to place it here. But one would be wrong, apparently. Alex.deWitte (talk) 15:05, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Little Boxes in sermon

An editor has been removing the mention in the article of a sermon which quotes "Ticky Tacky". I've researched this on Google, and while I've been unable to find the text of the sermon, or a reliable source to add as a cite, there is sufficient mention of the sermon on various unconnected weblogs to indicate that:

1. The sermon exists (an audio tape of it is for sale on the person's website)
2. The sermon's title does contain "Ticky tacky"
3. The use of the phrase is not simply a "mention" of the phrase, the sermon uses the song "Little Boxes" as its basis

Given this, the proper thing is not to delete the reference from the article, which this editor has been doing, but to tag it with a "fact" tag, as I have done, and continue to look for a reliable source to support it. The existence of the sermon cannot be questioned, and the evidence for its general contents is sufficiently convincing, that deletion is not appropriate. I would ask that the editor cease to do so, and perhaps join in to look for a citation to support the entry. I, too, will continue to look. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:37, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

• The proper thing to do with trivia is not to lard articles with it. It is not in any conceivable way anything beyond the realm of trivia that a preacher, even a very famous preacher, quoted the lyrics in a sermon. He quoted the song. So what. He used the word "ticky-tack" (and not as asserted above the word "ticky-tacky"; "ticky-tack" does not appear in the song) in the sermon's title. So what. It tells us nothing about the song. It increases our encyclopedic knowledge of the song by exactly zero. That there exist no reliable sources that discuss the song in the context of the sermon and vice versa should be a big ol' clue to the triviality of it. He also uses the word "Kingdom" in the title; shall we run off and include the sermon in the article "monarchy" too?
• The same goes for being "brought up" in a novel and "referenced" in a non-notable song. If we listed off every single time that the subject of an article was merely mentioned somewhere regardless of established importance or context then we end up with articles filled with hundreds of lines of trivia. The performance of the song in other media is exactly the sort of thing that should be and is included, not every time every random character in a TV show says "ticky-tack". Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 20:48, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree (re the god-botherer) so what if this term was used it in a sermon? Do we have an independent WP:RS that pins this to the song itself as being noteworthy? Otherwise it is WP:OR, and possible WP:Synth - we cannot tell just from the title whether he was even referring to the use in the song, or the popular use of the term. Take this to the Ticky tacky article... Mish (talk) 20:56, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, I was just coming back to make this very point about the OR nature of the entry. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 20:59, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Third opinion: Ecotopia

I thought this had all been thrashed out months ago. For the same reason that the sermon can't be included, "Ecotopia" can't be included. There has to be a reliable source that establishes that the words "ticky tacky" are drawn from the song and not some other usage or appearance for it to be listed here. The mere inclusion of the words "ticky tacky boxes" does not establish the link between the two. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 22:43, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

The words in Ecotopia are not "ticky-tacky" the words, used to describe houses are "ticky-tacky boxes", which is sufficient. Reverting. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:39, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

No, it's not, unless you can cite a reliable third-party source that states that the author took the phrase from the song and not some other source. For all you know Callenbach could have come up with the phrase independently or read or heard it somewhere that had nothing whatsoever to do with the song. This is textbook original research by synthesis. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 00:01, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, that's just not the case. The phrase "ticky-tacky" entered the popular vocabulary because of the song, and when it is applied to houses, it is clearly a direct reference to the song, sufficient enough for a popcult entry that is entirely descriptive, with no analysis or interpretation.

In the meantime, you might want to refresh your recollection of what WP:BRD means, which is that you are Bold and make a change, I disagree so I Revert your edit, and then we Discuss on the talk page. You do not continue to try to re-establish your edit while that consensus discussion is going on, the status quo, which I returned to when I reverted you, remains until consensus is established. So, please stop edit warring, and let this discussion run its course as we find out what other editors think. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:16, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Please cite the reliable source that establishes that this is a "direct reference to the song". Generally speaking, if you have to say that something is "clearly" a reference to this or that, and there's no source that says so, it's original research.

While it is true that the entry as written is descriptive. The entry advances the position that the mention in the novel is an example of a pop cultural reference to the song. That is analysis and interpretation.

And let's be real about what's happened here. There was a discussion between you, me and a third editor that resulted in the removal of this item. You violated that consensus be re-introducing the item. Unfortunately I missed your sneaking it back in, otherwise I would have taken it out when you did it. So you can just climb down off your high horse and stop your lectures on process, because you're the one who isn't following it.

Despite already having received a third opinion independently a month ago I am now making this a formal request in the hopes that round three will be the last one. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 00:22, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I did not reintroduce it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:26, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

My bad, I misread the edit summary. The rest of my point still stands. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 00:31, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I've removed your addition of a disclaimer to the item, which I think is rather WP:POINTy and unnecessary. Either consensus is going to say the entry can stay, or it's going to go away, there's no need in the meantime to put a red letter on it. Please exercise some patience, there's no reason this has to be settled in the next five minutes, there's time to get some other opinions and see where consensus lies. Just let things be inthe article, please, and direct your attention to this discussion instead. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:37, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request:

I would agree that the statement (or, rather, implication) that the line in the book was inspired by the song needs sourcing. Although it certainly seems plausible, perhaps even likely, that this is the case, a source is still required to ensure that it is verifiable. The book itself isn't a sufficient source, unless it specifically mentions the song. Even then, it seems a rather minor reference, and arguably not very notable.—Anaxial (talk) 09:18, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your opinion. Although Cow of Pain went and immediately deleted the item, I've reverted them, since consensus isn't established everytime someone expresses their views, it's something that needs a bit of time to develop. Right now, three editors think the item needs a specific reference to be included in the article, while three (the editor who originally added it, myself, and the editor who recently restored it) do not. Let's hear from a few more people, please -- once again, there's no particular rush, the fate of the free world isn't riding on this. Rest assured that if consensus is on your side, I'm not going to fight you on it, but you've got to slow down a bit and let it come about. Beyond My Ken (talk) 10:42, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

You are, of course, free to ignore a Third Opinion. If you find it unsatisfactory, I would suggest an RFC as a more appropriate avenue to obtain consensus from uninvolved editors. Anaxial (talk) 10:54, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

No, I don't find your opinion "unsatisfactory" in any way, I simply disagree with it, as do several others, while an equal number of editors agree with you. My understanding of the purpose of the "third opinion" is not that someone comes by, expresses an opinion and voila, the world changes, but that the third opinion can be useful in breaking a deadlock which editors have been unsucessful in breaking themselves. In this case, I believe there are two different editing philosophies conflicting, and perhaps also different views about the encyclopedic value of popcult items. Your opinion is helpful, in that it adds weight to one side of the question, but I don't think it's at all determinative, which, apparently, Cow of Pain does, judging by their rush to remove the item. Me, I'm perfectly willing to follow consensus, but that means getting a number of views, which is not the case as of yet. I don't think an RfC is called for yet, but you may be right that it could be useful at some point. Beyond My Ken (talk) 11:06, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

To clarify, when I say "unsatidfactory" I meant that you found the 3O process unsatisfactory for this particular problem, since it's not breaking a deadlock. Which is fine by me. Anaxial (talk) 11:12, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Ah! Ok, thanks, sorry for misunderstanding. Beyond My Ken (talk) 11:16, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

(ec)And just to be clear, my opinion is that if in an episode of Family Guy, Peter Griffin says to Quagmire "Alas, poor Cleveland, I knew him well", it doesn't require a citation from a reliable source to point out that he's (mis)quoting from Hamlet. That's the situation here as well. While a case can certainly be made that not every use of "ticky-tacky" is related to this song, when the reference is to "tick-tacky houses", it's a different matter entirely; and since the item doesn't interpret the meaning or analyze why the author quoted it, it's a reasonable and legitimate popcult reference entry. Given that we're not dealing with a situation where people are adding items to the section indiscriminantly left and right, I think it's reasonable to allow the entry as an example of the permeation of the meme throguh the culture. What it means is another matter, one which would definitely require a citation. Beyond My Ken (talk) 11:16, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

It seems it doesn't matter that a consensus has never been established, and that there are perfectly reasonable and legitimate arguments on both sides, User:Are You The Cow Of Pain? has apparently decided the matter unilaterally, and they're willing to continue to edit war to enforce their decision, while I am not. So much for collegiality and consensus! Oh, well, as I said, the fate of the free world doesn't hang in the balance, but it's always discouraging when the spirit of Wikipedia is rudely violated. Beyond My Ken (talk) 11:30, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

What utter nonsense. Leaving aside the ridiculous Hamlet example (and an argument can certainly be made that such a reference requires sourcing) the simple fact here is that there is nothing extant that demonstrates that this particular usage of this particular phrase is in any way related to this particular song. To build on the silly Hamlet example, it is entirely possible that someone writing "Alas, poor so-and-so" may be completely ignorant of its origin in Hamlet, may be drawing it from a separate source that itself draws from Hamlet (or draws from another reference that draws from another reference etc. that draws from Hamlet unknown times removed) or may believe that she thought up the phrasing all on her own. In the absence of a reliable source that tells us of the inspiration, we are left to guess, and guessing or assuming the inspiration of a phrase with no evidence is unquestionably original research. "XYZ exists" is not OR. "XYZ exists and it refers to ABC" is OR and requires a reliable source. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 11:32, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, you don't get to have a collegial conversation immediately after you've shoved someone aside and spit in their eye rather than deal with them fairly. You decided to get your own way via brute force, and you have succeeded, so you had better learn to be happy with that, 'cause it's all you're gonna git. Signing off. Beyond My Ken (talk) 11:38, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

The world's tiniest violinist called; he'd like his tiny violin back. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 12:03, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Regardless of the respective merits of the arguments raised, I fail to see how this kind of comment is in any way constructive. Doniago (talk) 15:12, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Really? What I said is so horrible that it merits comment but my being accused of spitting on people and using "brute force" and being told it's all I'm gonna git doesn't? I fail to see why your outrage is so one-sided. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 15:44, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I hadn't realized I was outraged, thank you for pointing it out to me. Of course being accused of spitting on people and using "brute force" isn't particularly pleasant, but I fail to see how responding in kind will improve the level of discourse. Unless you're not interested in doing that to begin with?

In any event, I'd recommend that if people can't discuss the topic civilly that they not discuss it at all. Doniago (talk) 16:11, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I can hardly believe that this is so hotly debated, because it is painfully obvious that the book makes a reference to the song, to anyone knowing about a) Pete Seeger, his life and work and b) the novel Ecotopia. Are You The Cow Of Pain?, I suggest you do some research (the respective articles here on Wikipedia should suffice, if you don't care to listen to songs and read the book). I hope, the consensus can be reached that this book makes a reference to this song, because it would be silly to assume it didn't. --Mtu (talk) 11:03, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Come up with a third party reference that says so. If it's so "painfully obvious" then someone who isn't a Wikipedia editor should have said so. That's what we go by here, third party reliable sources. Not assumptions about what is or is not "painfully obvious". Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 11:16, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. "It's obvious" is insufficient grounds for inclusion. Doniago (talk) 15:01, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I have just written the following to the author, Mr. Callenbach:

Dear Mr. Callenbach,

I am hoping to get clarification from you in a dispute regarding your work. Among some English Wikipedia authors, there is disagreement as to whether or not it is justified to say that in your novel “Ecotopia”, namely in the chapter “The Streets of Ecotopia's Capital”, you are making an allusion the the Pete Seeger song “Little Boxes” when saying that Ecotopians refer to suburban housing as “ticky-tacky boxes”.

Some consider this to be ‘obvious’, while others uphold that a reliable source must be provided for such a statement. You inarguably being the most authoritative source on this subject, I am hoping you can help resolve the dispute with a statement on this.

Thank you for your time!

Yours,

[me]

I am hoping this information will be helpful in resolving the dispute, although I am sure you will object that a statement by the author made privately is not a viable source, or even that I might have forged the email. We will deal with that if and when the question as to whether or not the disputed statement (i.e. the reference we are talking about) is resolved by an answer from Mr. Callenbach. --Mtu (talk) 16:13, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

• This is a textbook example of original research. A private reply to you is not verifiable. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 17:02, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, just as I expected. Well, we'll see if and how the information can be published so as to count as reliably sourced, maybe with the author's help. if it does turn out to be true. I trust that you would be willing to help with that, because we're all on the same team – wanting to include true information, based on reliable sources. --Mtu (talk) 20:30, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

First, I'd just like to say I agree with Cow of Pain. The statement is unsourced, and as such, should not be included, plain and simple. I'd also like to interject, I don't think Rise Against actually meant to cover the song, I mean, it's possible that it was just a huge coincidence, we don't actually know. Just a thought. ScottMcTony (talk) 13:52, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

This is satire?

What's the basis for calling this song political satire? Doesn't seem to me to qualify at all. Satire requires an edge, and should at the very least appear to say one thing while actually saying another. Openly expressed ridicule of other people's lifestyles is not satire. --13:53, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

"Satire requires an edge, and should at the very least appear to say one thing while actually saying another." Have you got a source for this rather strange definition of satire? How about these instead, from Google "define:satire":

• A literary technique of writing or art which principally ridicules its subject often as an intended means of provoking or preventing change. Humour is often used to aid this; A satirical work

en.wiktionary.org/wiki/satire

• A literary work which exposes and ridicules human vices or folly. Historically perceived as tending toward didacticism, it is usually intended as a moral criticism directed against the injustice or social wrongs. It may be written with witty jocularity or with anger and bitterness. ...

www.poeticbyway.com/gl-s.html

• is the exposure of the vices or follies of an indiviudal, a group, an institution, an idea, a society, etc., usually with a view to correcting it. Satirists frequently use irony.

academic.brooklyn.cuny.edu/english/melani/lit_term.html

There's no requirement that satire, to be satire, be good or effective. Satire can fail, satire can be weak -- but it's satire nonetheless. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:20, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, I would say say that simply saying "look at these silly people" is not satire. In any case, from the point of view of the article, the claim that LB is satire is in fact an unsourced assertion. If you can find a reputable literary authority who classifies it as satire, fair enough! The Time article in note 3 does not use the term satire at all, so that claim the that "The profundity of the satire is attested by a university professor" is not justified by the source. --Pfold (talk) 19:00, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

It certainly "exposes the follies of a group". 00:51, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Ticky-tacky

There should be a redirect for ticky-tacky to this article, as someone's attempt to construct an independent one has been deleted. Also need some history on the ticky-tacky material--any trademark and/or etymology, etc., where possible. Note that ticky-tacky is in virtually every major dictionary, including the OED, American Heritage, Merriam-Webster, etc. Yet, no one seems to know the history and no association with the song is ever mentioned (except by Telstar Logistics).Alex.deWitte (talk) 15:04, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

The redirect is  Done Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:56, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Possible parody section? Possible use of the word 'mockery' in addition to characterization of the tune as 'satire'?

I came acrss a parody of Little Boxes, and there are others, of course – would a section on parody/parodies of the tune make sense, and/or a few external links to parodies of 'the most sanctimonious song ever written' as Lehrer put it?

Also, while I agree that referring to it as 'satire' is accurate and appropriate, might it also be appropriate and accurate to refer to it in addition as a 'mockery' as a means to accurately and objectively characterize its particular form of satire? In a way that seems to me to capture the character of it as to its particuar form of satire.

Any thoughts? AtomikWeasel (talk) 05:28, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

What's the difference between "satire" and "mockery"? BMK (talk) 05:44, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

If we look at Wikpedia's own description of 'satire', we find that satire tends to be viewed as inclined toward a broad social purpose, and it's a fairly broad term, covering a lot of different territory. If we look at the quote in the entry from Tom Lehrer characterizing Little Boxes as sanctimonious, I think that may very well have to do with it being mockery. It's as if one were to say 'You look funny' or 'You're ugly.' In the end all these things, all definitions, all categorizations, are to some extent judgement calls, and I agree that the broad term of 'satire' as a description of Little Boxes is appropriate, but there's also very little if any wit in it with respect to irony or word play of the sort often employed in even the most trenchant satire. If one compares it with any of Tom Lehrer's own work, for example, I think that distinction may be fairly clear. Little Boxes is a catchy little tune that mocks, makes simple fun of, those modest dwellings and by extension those who live in them and the part of society Malvina Reynolds feels they represent. That's all well, and good, and it's satire, but t seems to me it's a particular form of satire. I wouldn't dream of re-characterizing Little Boxes as anything other than a form of satire, which it is, but it seems to me that to add the term 'mock' or 'mocks' or 'mockery' improves the characterization, just as one might suggest that describing a particular shade of color as 'purple' might be improved by describing the particular shade as being, for example, 'a dark, bluish purple'. I don't see this as a value judgement, pro or con, but perhaps a more particular description as to the form of satire which Little Boxes represents. Thus my suggestion. AtomikWeasel (talk) 06:52, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

My main concern is that this would become an in popular culture-type section that would attract cruft. If we can keep it fairly tightly controlled and ensure that all entries include sources establishing that they are in some manner significant...maybe, but I'd like to hear from others. DonIago (talk) 14:50, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Any parodies should just be mentioned in the popcult section, I don't think they're going to be deserving of a section of their own. As for "satirical" vs. "mocking": meh. BMK (talk) 18:01, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

In popular culture

As discussed at WP:IPCV and established via RfC, IPC style items should have reliable secondary sources to establish that they are significant in some manner. Several of the items on the list within this article do not. When I tagged the section accordingly (as opposed to simply removing those items), I was reverted and asked to start a Talk page discussion. So here you go. DonIago (talk) 16:52, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

I have reinstated Template:In popular culture. I will be happy to remove it when there is a clear consensus that it is inappropriate in this instance. DonIago (talk) 17:03, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Right now, there is now consensus for it to be there. You want it in, I want it out, that's not a consensus. Wait for a consensus to put it in before you do so, per WP:BRD. BMK (talk) 00:11, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Some of the items do feel like trivia to me, and the section could do with some work. Hchc2009 (talk) 08:43, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

I have no objection to that. I have never objected to weening out the least interesting or important entries in a popular culture section. All I've ever asked is that the problematic entries be discussed on the talk page, and that specific objections be raised about each one. There is not, and has never been, support in the Wikipedia community for the wholesale removal of popcult items, and -- unfortunately -- I have found that some editors (and I'm not accusing Doniago of this) just throw out a general "it's all trivia" complaint and expect to be able to get rid of them all. Such an action is not supported by consensus. So - which items do we want to discuss? BMK (talk) 05:26, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

BMK, as I believe you're aware, and as I mentioned and linked to up above, there was an RfC that resulted in a closing statement, regarding whether secondary sourcing is required to establish the significance of IPC list items, of "The consensus is very clear that a secondary source is required(emphasis theirs) in almost all cases. A tertiary source is even better, if available. In the rare case that a primary source is judged to be sufficient, it should be properly cited. The source(s) cited should not only establish the verifiability of the pop culture reference, but also its significance." By that consensus I would have been within my rights to outright remove the unsourced items. Rather than take that measure, I felt it would be more appropriate to tag the section, in order that people invested in the unsourced items would have time to provide references. Personally I wasn't planning to take further action in terms of deletion for at least a couple of months.

By refusing to allow me to even tag the section, you're denying editors, invested or otherwise, to become aware that there is a problem with the section and take steps to improve it. Tagging the section does no harm to the article and may lead to improvement.

I have provided a consensus that both tagging and removing the unsourced items would be supportable actions. If you are going to continue to oppose, please provide policy-backed reasons why no removals should occur and why tagging is inappropriate.

TL;DR my concern is with every item that is either unsourced or that lacks a secondary source establishing the significance of the item. We can start with the unsourced ones if you'd prefer, but I see no reason the section shouldn't be tagged while discussion is ongoing. Perhaps other editors may find references where you evidently to this point have not. DonIago (talk) 06:10, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

I repeat, which entries do you wish to discuss? This is not the place for a meta discussion, this is the talk page for this article, so if you have objections or problems with popcult items in this article, please bring them up here -- but please be specific concerning each item, "broad stroke" objections are not appropriate. BMK (talk) 06:51, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

NB: Given the poor state of the section, and the fact that Doniago is hoping to alert other editors for help, I think that adding the tag in question would be quite reasonable. Hchc2009 (talk) 06:57, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

The purpose of the tag is to foster a discussion -- well, here is the discussion, so let's discuss., not continue to have a discussion about having a discussion! BMK (talk) 07:02, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Incorrect. The purpose of the tag is both to encourage editors who are monitoring this article to provide sourcing and alert editors who may not be monitoring this specific article of the problem. Removing the tag removes that alert. As I have already stated, the tag does no harm to the article. If you have another argument for the removal of the tag, please make it.

Every entry with no sourcing, which violates the consensus set up at the RfC, is eligible for deletion. The section should be tagged or the unsourced entries removed. If that is to be contested without providing a legitimate rationale, I will assume editors are intentionally being obstructionist. The RfC is, IMO, pretty clear-cut. If there are questions regarding the interpretation of the RfC, they may be asked. No rationale for the wholesale defense of the section has been provided, nor established why any of the unsourced entries should be allowed to remain in violation of the consensus I quoted verbatim. We are not required to pick and choose specific entries to discuss in terms of deleting them; rather, editors wishing to preserve entries that are unsourced should provide their rationale for the entries' preservation. DonIago (talk) 07:08, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Long, but you've just essentially said the same thing I did: the purpose of the tag is to foster discussion. This is about the fourth or fifth time I've invited you to discuss your specific objections, and you continue to hold a meta-discussion which is not relevant here. So -- would you like to discuss the entries in the popcult section, or are you simply interested in having a theoretical discussion? My interest is almost completely in improving articles. BMK (talk) 04:27, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Do one of the following: 1) Provide a policy-backed reason why the section shouldn't be tagged. 2) Provide a policy-backed reason why the unsourced entries shouldn't be removed. Nice and easy. Thank you. DonIago (talk) 05:42, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

There is only a single option: outline your specific objections to specific entries, and I'm happy to discuss them with you. I await your comments. BMK (talk) 05:54, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Already provided per the RfC. I am reinstating the tag as at least one other editor considers it appropriate. If you remove it I will consider it disruptive and warn you for it. If you continue to remove it I will ask that appropriate action be taken against you. I have a consensus established at an RFC and another editor supporting me here. You have a ridiculous demand that we argue over every item when that's entirely unnecessary. If you want list items included, either source them or provide a defense for them. You're also welcome to pursue other forms of dispute resolution. Good Day. DonIago (talk) 06:03, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

All the covers and parodies should be moved from the popular culture section to the covers section, especially the paragraph for Weeds. The artists covering it for that show should have its own paragraph and not be mixed with the other artists who covered the song. That should leave the popular culture section for novels, shows and other media. Any Wikipedia-notable show that uses it as a theme song can use primaries as that already shows notability. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:03, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Per the request above to discuss specific entries: I removed the entries shown in this diff because each lacks a reliable secondary source to support it. Absent the provision of one, they should stay out. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:15, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Since one of the editors refused to give their specific reasoning in the above discussion, I see no consensus for these removals. Each is sourced by the media item itself. Primary sources are not forbidden, especially when they are the best available source. BMK (talk) 02:33, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

It was the consensus of a much broader RFC that IPC entries should be supported by reliable secondary sources. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:39, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Unfortunately, an RfC cannot violate a Wikipedia policy, and the use of primary sources - which media items are - is controlled not by any RfC anywhere on Wikipedia, but by WP:V. That Doniago chose to go ahead with an invalid RfC is his problem, but not relevant here or anywhere else on Wikipedia.

Secondary sources are necessary (and required) when analysis or interpretation is involved (to avoid WP:OR), but the simple existence of the reported item can easily be verified by reference to the primary source, and that is perfectly legitimate, no matter how many RfC anti-popcultists mount. BMK (talk) 02:57, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

In this particular case, the RfC clarified that community consensus holds WP:V to require secondary sourcing for "In popular culture" entries, since their inclusion is based on an interpretation that they are in some way significant to the primary topic. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:07, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Multiple editors have now noted their concerns about this material; after vigorous debate above, the material was tagged to alert other editors. Little has been done to address those concerns since, although Angus found a reference for one item (thanks Angus!). An RFC was been recently raised to cover the general approach, which BMK participated in, which came out in support of Doniago and Nikkimaria's position. I believe that the removal of the queried items is in line with consensus, and that the tag should then be removed as well, which has been done. Hchc2009 (talk) 07:29, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Little Boxes. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100527213443/http://www.sho.com/site/weeds/music.do to http://www.sho.com/site/weeds/music.do

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:02, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Little Boxes. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071222231203/http://music.homegrownseries.com/?p=5 to http://music.homegrownseries.com/?p=5

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:43, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Entry Should Present Fair, Accurate, Neutral Presentation of Critical Opinions, Not Reflect Any Particular Editor or Editors Personal Judgement or Assessment

I made two minor edits to the entry so as to correct the fact that the existing presentation of statements were non-neutral and clearly biased with respect to a particularly favorable perspective re the merits of the tune, whereas the cites presented included both positive and negative, and ought to have been comparably weighted, neither one perspective nor the other perspective favored in the presentation of the entry. I also shifted a secondary observation re the popularity of the phrase ‘ticky-tacky' to the final, less important position within the section as it did not bear upon the question of critical assessment provided by the cites, and therefore should not be placed between them, as it's fairer and far more neutral to simply juxtapose the two differing critical perspectives presented by the cites and to let them speak for themselves, whereas to place a tangentially related matter as to popular use of a phrase objectively diminishes the comparison and therefore shifts the balance away from neutral presentation, favoring the first view presented, diminishing the second view, with no objective reason provided for that subjective skew.

I presented those edits fairly and in good faith, and presented my reasoning in the edit summary.

Beyond My Ken reverted, simply saying ‘better before’, with no further explanation, clarification, or justification.

This seems to me extremely subjective, if not simply capricious, and therefore clearly unreasonable, and I would ask for other opinions on this, as what matters here is fair, accurate, neutral presentation per Wikipedia criteria.

It seems important to me that critical assessments of the worth of the tune in question be presented simply, fairly, neutrally, per the cites provided, rather than reflecting any preference as to merit of the tune with no justification presented other than ‘better before’, a quintessentially subjective preference.

WP is not meant to pander to any particular subjective preference – but to fairly, accurately, and neutrally present the information from the cites available.

AtomikWeasel (talk) 05:48, 28 May 2018 (UTC)AtomikWeasel

Well, I'll say that "perhaps less favorably" is pretty wishy-washy language that doesn't, IMO meet the WP:TONE we should be striving for. It also implies that we do feel the view is less favorable but are trying to couch it in uncertainty. The original statement appears, to me, to be a more clear statement of the situation without expressed or implied perspective on it. But this is a bit TL;DR for me personally right now. DonIago (talk) 15:53, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

I'd agree that that's a fair point. I have difficulty, though, with the fact that at present the statement about the popularity of the phrase 'ticky-tacky' is placed immediately after a positive critical quote, and seems to me, therefore, to effectively reduce the quote from Tom Lehrer, a very well-known satirist of that time, which is negative. Might it make sense to simply lose the 'perhaps less favorably' language, and shift the Tom Lehrer critical quote to immediately follow the professer's positive quote, and then simply place the statement about the popularity of the phrase 'ticky-tacky' at the end. A possible simple fix? AtomikWeasel (talk) 05:04, 30 May 2018 (UTC)AtomikWeasel

That makes sense to me. Positive critique followed by an "on the other hand" statement, and the bit about ticky-tacky can stand on its own, especially given that Lehrer's criticism is related to the song entire, not that particular phrasing. DonIago (talk) 14:09, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Okay, then, I'll just let this sit for a few days, I guess, to see if anyone else disagrees or has other thoughts, and if there are no differences I'll make the change as we discussed in a few days. AtomikWeasel (talk) 06:30, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Okay, just posted these changes as per discussion. AtomikWeasel (talk) 00:01, 6 June 2018 (UTC)