Talk:Lies, damned lies, and statistics

message: I believe the phrase "Lies, Damned Lies and Statistics" was originated by Leonard Courtney (Lord Courtney); see my web page
http://www.york.ac.uk/depts/maths/histstat/lies.htm
Peter M Lee (math16@york.ac.uk)
: Your argument looks pretty persuasive. Why not write it up into a one-paragraph summary and include it in the article? Maybe we should remove the Disraeli reference from the intro, as well. - DavidWBrooks 17:11, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Prof. Lee's webpage offers no argument against Disraeli; and if it orginally was, as I recall, "church statistics", web-searches would not find it. (Church statistics were inflated both for denominational pride and because the state subsidized sectarian education programs...) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 13:48, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Origin 

message: Check out this.  Some of the cataloging of dates might be off a bit, but it looks like several publications there predate the ones we mention, particularly the 1845 one.  See also a listerv post from someone who noticed the same thing.--Pharos 07:17, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Google Books 

message: "Retagging with  for improper use of inline references, unnecessary capitalization, shortage of Wiki markup, and so on.)" That is the Edit Summary for the copyedit tag that was just added by another editor User:Rankiri. Rather than remove the tag and ask for explanation, I'm cut-and-pasting the Edit Summary here - but please note, explaining a tag merely in the Edit Summary is not enough, because it becomes invisible after the next edit. Most tags, particularly vague ones like this, need explanation in the Talk page. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 21:01, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  coyp edit tag 

message: I have noticed that in this article, probably another Charles Wentworth Dilkes data has been used.
I suspect that the correct years should be 1789–1864.  Jbalk 18 Sep 2010  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.226.236.175 (talk) 15:11, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Birth and Death year of  Charles Wentworth Dilke incorrect in article 

message: The lede states "not found in any of Disraeli's works". It also states "often erroneously attributed to Twain". The cited reference only says (please correct me if I missed something) "usually attributed to Mark Twain or Benjamin Disraeli". So, if it is not found in any of Disraeli's works and is "usually attributed to Mark Twain or Benjamin Disraeli" (per the ref); how does the lede jump to the conclusion that it is "often erroneously attributed to Twain"? Granted, I'm not suggesting Twain coined the phrase (even Disraeli may not have - according to other sources), but should the lede state as a matter of fact that Twain did not coin the phrase? And without any supporting reference? (x == A or x == B  therefore x != A is not a logical conclusion, any may be OR regardless.) Velojareal (talk) 04:03, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, Twain himself claims not to have originated it (the quote at the top of the "History" section) so can't we take him at his word? 2.25.149.104 (talk) 00:59, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I've put a better reference in the intro to the whole uncertainty. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 01:50, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Erroneously attributed 

message: I have removed a chart of made-up statistics that was designed to illustrate this article but which, IMHO, was confusing and unnecessarily complex. The chart has been there since May - I hadn't noticed it before, not sure how! - so perhaps it served a purpose. But if we want an illustration, we should choose a real one, not a made-up one (as is done in Simpson's paradox). - DavidWBrooks (talk) 13:19, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chart 

message: Thanks to DW Brooks and others, for attention to this article. 
In a thorough edit today of the History section, I sourced all material apparently derived from Prof Lee's carefully constructed chronology (which was an apparent source for many of the inferences heretofore appearing). I then noted the one case where there appears still to be WP:OR—where an editor here introduced their own inference regarding first appearance, rather than stating the published conclusion of a reputable source. At the same time, because that editorial opinion differed from that of the published conclusion of Prof Lee, I made note of Prof Lee's conclusion in the article, without disrupting the earlier argument. At the same time, because the citations to the form of this quote that reference "[expert] witnesses"—which precede the earliest source for the "statistics" variant by a half decade—I moved up this material to an earlier, chronological place in the History section.
At the same time, the form of citations in the article were non-standard and contrary to WP guidelines and formats, because they varied greatly in style and completeness, and because they appeared, for the most part, entirely in the text (rather than in suberscripted footnotes). As such, I spent the most time in editing to leave mention of the source in the text (in abbreviated form), while researching, completing, and moving most citation content into the standard <ref>-type markup (hence making the citation list much more uniform). 
Unfortunately, the work also results in an imbalance—because nearly all the earlier work appears to have been drawn from just one secondary source (with the vast majority of sourcing being to primary sources cited by Prof Lee), there is an overreliance on the Lee source. As good as that is, there is still need for more secondary sources, and this need was noted via a template message. 2601:246:C700:9B0:5145:BAB5:FA70:E43 (talk) 20:28, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Edit of History section based on Prof Lee's work

message: Two types of statistics.
--Data: 
Phrase
--Projection (guess):
Unknown, but attributed to ...
--Lies ( 3rd ?)
Disagree with Datum 2001:569:5646:B700:4C05:1347:1050:9718 (talk) 20:42, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Refering to what type of statistics ? 

message: I have added a reference to a 1964 article on the subject authored by Colin White. In his work White traces the phrase to its French origin (at the beginning of the 19th century): . I propose to modify the current text based on this secondary source. The current history section appears to be mostly WP:OR based on analysis of the primary sources. Викидим (talk) 20:31, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Origin of the expression is way older