Talk:Lies, damned lies, and statistics

Origin
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)#

That would be Leonard Courtney, 1st Baron Courtney of Penwith Jooler 09:27, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 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)

<>

Google Books
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)

coyp edit tag
"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)
 * Thanks. I'll try to keep your suggestions in mind but I thought that after a quick look at the article's History section, my reasons for putting up the tag would require no interpretation. — Rankiri (talk) 23:23, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Birth and Death year of Charles Wentworth Dilke incorrect in article
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)

Erroneously attributed
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)


 * 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)


 * I've put a better reference in the intro to the whole uncertainty. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 01:50, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Chart
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)

Edit of History section based on Prof Lee's work
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 -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)

Citation for 1986 book
Not quite sure how to fix the "citation needed" spam (I mean Editorial Comment) on the page, but here is full citation to one of the books from Worldcat:

Bibby, J. (1986). Quotes, damned quotes, and-: An anthology of sayings, epithets, and witticisms - several of them something to do with statistics. Edinburgh: J. Bibby.

Refering to what type of statistics ?
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)

Origin of the expression is way older
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): Ainsi l’altération de la vérité qui se manifeste déjà sous la forme progressive du mensonge et du parjure, nous offre-t-elle au superlatif, la statistique. 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)
 * There were no arguments against the change, added. --Викидим (talk) 20:56, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Quote from Magendie
In July 2022 you added the citation White, Colin (December 1964). "Unkind Cuts at Statisticians". The American Statistician. 18 (5): 15–17 to Lies, damned lies, and statistics. In October 2022 you added the quote on the first page of Wright's article as well as an English translation to François Magendie; the JSTOR link added in January 2023 leads to Unkind Cuts at Statisticians.

Wright gives his source as Delaunay, P., "Les doctrines médicales au début du XIXe siècle. Louis et la méthode numérique" in Underwood, E. A., (Editor), Science, History and Medicine, Vol. 2, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1953, though https://archive.org/details/sciencemedicineh0002unde/page/n9/mode/2up shows the volume's title begins "Science, Medicine and History". The quote is on page 326 just above IV. Looking at that page and the others it appears that they are Delaunay's words rather than those of Magendie. Mcljlm (talk) 05:57, 30 June 2024 (UTC)


 * An interesting investigation, thank you! I have, of course, relied on the secondary sources, without checking the original. I would like to point that the quote is attributed to Magendie also in "Un jour, ce fut mon tour..." by David R. Bellhouse (see  on p. 45). I am digging now. Викидим (talk) 06:12, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
 * See some results below. The continuation looks like research work, similar in intensity to what I do in real life (although in a completely different field). So I am stopping and leaving it to to ascertain if the two other sources I have listed (that attribute to Magendie) also relied on Colin or a typo in Delaunay's work caused a citation to look like his own speech. I have inserted a check to assist the future diggers. Викидим (talk) 07:20, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

List of citations
Final results of the digging. Search through the available archives of Revue des cours scientifiques yielded nothing. --Викидим (talk) 07:14, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Apparently attributes to Magendie (I do not have the book, Google snippet is too small to tell for sure)
 * Does not seem to contain relevant material, except that the polemics apparently was published in Revue des cours scientifiques (La Revue scientifique)


 * Apologies for only replying now. I only noticed the notification indication a few hours ago. Checking the works you listed at the Internet Archive {I tend to search IA for anything I want to check} I found Quotes, damned quotes, and..... attributes the quote to Magendie without mentioning a source. In the last paragraph of the book's FINALE Bibby says "The ring of the phrase is more Twain-ish than anything else. I personally would blame M.T. for the abominable quote.". Theoretically I could ask him about the quote via Facebook {we have a mutual friend and his profile includes two mutual locations} but I wouldn't want him seeing my timeline posts which are visible to anyone coming across it. His profile includes Works at University of Edinburgh but searching its site only leads to a Jordan Bibby who isn't John Bibby. After so many years since the book was published there probably isn't any point anyway.
 * As you said Fragments de Critique Médicale doesn't seem to contain relevant material. Mcljlm (talk) 14:32, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * In view of how the "quote" appears in Delaunay's essay perhaps you should edit the paragraph on Colin White and François Magendie. Mcljlm (talk) 17:49, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * ✅ Викидим (talk) 22:06, 7 July 2024 (UTC)