The question of whether "in popular culture" or "trivia" sections should be included in articles has been raised many times, and I don't want to hash over the whole debate again (My version of the discussions is something like: "Are they encyclopedic?" "Maybe not, but it's the only way some people can contribute. Also, it makes us more hip and up to date than EB." "Well, I think they are crap." "Well, we agree to disagree."). But I had a recent thought about it. Wouldn't any discussions about the impact or prevalence of something in popular culture need to have been discussed by a secondary source first before it was allowed into an article under WP:NOR? What I'm basically proposing is perhaps one way to deal with it (that a draconian, anti-"in popular culture" person like me would be happy with) would be to restrict such sections or articles to places where there exists a secondary source literature on the subject. For example, [[Nuclear weapon in popular culture]] -- not the best article, admittedly, but there has been ample writing on the subject by scholars, including general appearance and trends of nuclear weapons motifs in popular culture, and even specific analysis of the apperance of nuclear weapons in cinema. Satisifies WP:NOR without any problem, in the hypothetical (exact contents still probably need some work). But [[Space colonization in popular culture]] has no such sources listed. It is a more common article of this sort, based most likely on an overgrown "in popular culture" section of an article on space colonization. Does this constitute "original research" as laid out in WP:NOR? Other articles of this sort include [[A-10 Thunderbolt II in popular culture]], [[Amateur radio in popular culture]], and [[Fullerenes in popular culture]], to pick a few at random. An article which *probably* wouldn't be NOR -- though it doesn't have any secondary sources of the sort I am talking about listed -- would be [[Heroin in popular culture]], a subject which I imagine people have probably written about extensively given the amount of literature and film which have be based on heroin-related topics. Just a thought I had -- not a crusade in any sense -- that I thought I would float on here. I understand I'm a bit cranky on this subject, no doubt due to my personal feeling that an encyclopedia article on the [[Enola Gay]] should not be forced to referenced the fact that Krusty the Klown had an airplane called the "I'm-on-a-Rolla'-Gay" in one episode of "the Simpsons", but I am not trying to be a hard-ass on the subject, and recognize it is not the most pressing problem. FF