Talk:democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner

RFV discussion: August 2011–March 2012

The following information has failed Wiktionary's verification process (permalink).

Failure to be verified means that insufficient eligible citations of this usage have been found, and the entry therefore does not meet Wiktionary inclusion criteria at the present time. We have archived here the disputed information, the verification discussion, and any documentation gathered so far, pending further evidence.
Do not re-add this information to the article without also submitting proof that it meets Wiktionary's criteria for inclusion.

---

democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner

Can this be attested? Just two hits on Google Books. ---> Tooironic 01:40, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

It can if one relaxes the search slightly to Google democracy "two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner" (Books • Groups • Scholar).

I don't know if we should consider it a proverb, which is the only basis for keeping it, unless we now just keep all metaphors. DCDuring TALK 02:04, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

It's a "saying" more than anything else, and not even a particularly old one. See q:Democracy#Misattributed. bd2412 T 03:38, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, that belongs on Wikiquote, not Wiktionary. — Robin 08:08, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Confer a camel is a horse designed by a committee. --Mglovesfun (talk) 10:23, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree with DCDuring, I'm not sure we have a basis for keeping it, even if attested. - -sche (discuss) 01:08, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

There will be cases where Wiktionary and Wikiquote content should overlap. This is not one of them. bd2412 T 15:42, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Also, hardly any of our proverbs have any significant political content. I'm not sure that political content is a fatal defect, but I think proverbs are generally accepted as true and not controversial or partisan (or sectarian, for that matter). DCDuring TALK 16:49, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Sure, but 'relevance' is not an RFV issue, it's an RFD one. --Mglovesfun (talk) 15:36, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Deleted. If you disagree, reopen the issue here or at WT:RFD. - -sche (discuss) 01:23, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

There's no basis for me to disagree, it was never attested per WT:CFI. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:08, 2 March 2012 (UTC)