Jump to content

Template:Did you know nominations/Skintern

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: rejected by sovereign°sentinel (contribs) 09:59, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

DYK toolbox

Skintern

[edit]
(
)

Created by Daniel Case (talk) and Inks.LWC (talk). Nominated by Daniel Case (talk) at 03:42, 11 June 2015 (UTC).

  • good 2 go, new and long enough, prose checks, image checks, inline citations checked. and i support alt 1. Good 2 go. --BabbaQ (talk) 00:38, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
No way. On the sources now in the article (and I've done an external search) this is a neologism -- [1]. I'm nominating at AfD -- sorry. EEng (talk) 05:04, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
Now at AfD. Whatever the outcome there, a new review will be needed. Statements like this (all without citation, or not supported by the citation given) are classic OR:
Before I begin goign through these, it should be noted that EEng wrote this during a time period when he was increasingly desperate to get someone to vote delete in his little AfD. Since no one did, he lashed out. To call it "classic OR" is to completely fail to assume in good faith that the other editor might just have been imprecise in their choice of words. But anyway ... -- Daniel Case
  • "Around the turn of the 21st century, the congressional staffers who manage the intern programs in the United States House of Representatives began noticing..."
I have changed the wording slightly to reflect that media reportage of this began in the mid-2000s. -- Daniel Case
  • "It was first used in 2005 to describe certain such interns working in offices of members of the U.S. House of Representatives in Washington, D.C."
Again, I changed it to reflect that this is the earliest reported use I can find. -- Daniel Case
  • "On some issues, the staffers and members gave ground as some of those offending interns eventually became staffers themselves."
Reworded to take out the last clause. -- Daniel Case
  • "By the middle of the next decade, the skintern phenomenon had been observed in public and private offices around the country"
Reworded to say that it was no longer apparently limited to Capitol Hill, which the sentences after it and the sources they use support. -- Daniel Case
  • "Searches on different search engines did not locate any earlier uses"
See WP:NOTOR. Any experiment that can easily be replicated by any reader is not original research. If anyone manages to find an earlier use during a replication, they are free to edit the article accordingly. -- Daniel Case
  • "The following year the Kansas City Star ran a similar piece, one of the first in a newspaper outside the large media markets of the Northeast"
Removed the last clause. -- Daniel Case
  • "But it is generally believed that most misattired interns, male or female, are not familiar with professional dress standards"
Reworded. -- Daniel Case
  • "Some other observers also suggest" (When the source quotes one person as saying, "These are young men and women, and they can’t be expected to be decked out in Brooks Brothers", that's not "other observers suggest")
Reworded. Daniel Case (talk) 06:45, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
EEng (talk) 11:15, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
Clearly notable sources. Already a clear consensus to keep. I will leave it up for another user to review the article again. But clearly you are misreading the WP you are referring to in your AfD nom. As pointed out by other users. Regards.--BabbaQ (talk) 11:32, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
"Consensus" comes from the convergence of reasoned argument, not a bunch of drive-by assertions that a subject "meets GNG", with no explanation of why that is. Please be more careful in future reviews. EEng (talk) 12:00, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Nomination on hold until AfD closes. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:01, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
  • AfD closed as "keep". New full review needed, keeping in mind WP:OR issues raised above. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:28, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
New enough, QPQ done, hooks short enough and sourced. I'm not going to comment on length just yet because I fear the sheer volume of original research may cause the article to dip below 1,500 characters. Please remove every sentence that doesn't have a reference to it. I will credit the article with the fact that it does seem to present both sides neutrally, though, and the image is Creative Commons licensed. No reasonable copyright problems noted.--Launchballer 22:35, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Every sentence? We rarely require that of even our most controversial articles. I'm willing to work on the ones pointed out above, but I think that requirement is a bit extreme ... Daniel Case (talk) 06:05, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
This has nothing to do with the "desperation" you imagine I feel, nor the "lashing out" you ascribe. If you think it's OK for an article to state that "Searches on different search engines did not locate any earlier uses" of a word, based on your own searches, then there's something seriously wrong. Same goes for asserting, based on your own database searches, that "media reporting of topic X began in year Y". BTW, my list above was meant to be illustrative, not comprehensive‍—‌I wouldn't be surprised if there's more OR not listed. EEng (talk) 08:01, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
"This has nothing to do with the "desperation" you imagine I feel, nor the "lashing out" you ascribe." Classic non-denial denial.

"If you think it's OK for an article to state that "Searches on different search engines did not locate any earlier uses" of a word, based on your own searches, then there's something seriously wrong." Per WP:NOTOR, which you don't seem to have read:"Organizing published facts and opinions which are based on sources that are directly related to the article topic—without introducing your opinion or fabricating new facts, or presenting an unpublished conclusion—is not original research." I also consider replicating a two-word search to be substantively similar to the math described in the "Simple calculations" section of that page. If others disagree on that and are willing to state their reasons, I'd be interested from hearing from them (as for you, as the common expression ends " ... I would have farted.")

I will not further respond to you except to say that I believe your further presence in this nomination is toxic and objectively disruptive, as I no longer believe you can be considered to be contributing to it in good faith, based on your sniveling here and at the now-closed AfD. I would request you recuse yourself from it. I will not acknowledge any further contributions you make here. Daniel Case (talk) 22:12, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

  • I don't need to make categorical denials re "desperation" or "lashing out" because they're not relevant, though I note you've been posting really quite crazy things on my talk page regarding my alma mater, family background, and alimentary fucntions [2] (continued by your "farting" remark here just above).
  • I'm not particularly interested in whether you wish to respond. My comments are for the benefit of other editors.
  • A database search, used to support an assertion that "Article A appears to have been the first recorded use of Term T", is nothing like an arithmetic calculation, for any number of reasons. What database(s)? What corpus do they cover? How appropriate was the specific search submitted? Since you're trying to establish a negative i.e. there was no use before year Y, it's hard to know nothing was overlooked‍—‌capitalization, spelling variations, hyphenation, etc.‍—‌ and WP editors are in no position to debate such questions, because these search engines are quite complex. This is why we require that a reliable secondary source do such research for us, and report a result we can use. (In this context, "reliable" means that the source is one we can expect will understand how to deal with the uncertainties just listed, such as a well-known language expert.)
For example, a Google ngram search [3] "shows" that there was no use of skintern through as late as 2008. Now, that's obviously wrong, and maybe if you read through this complicated description of how ngrams work, and its various corpora, you'll be able to figure out why, but this isn't the sort of thing WP editors should be getting into, and I don't see how you can know nothing similar is going on in your own searches. Your challenge to other editors to falsify your conclusion if they can, by doing their own searches, does nothing to cure this problem for reasons which at this moment must be all too obvious.
You're completely ignoring the clear statement of the very passage from NOTOR which you quote above:
Organizing published facts and opinions which are based on sources that are directly related to the article topic‍—‌without introducing your opinion or fabricating new facts, or presenting an unpublished conclusion‍—‌is not original research.
The databases you searched are not "sources directly related to the article topic", and the statement re first use, drawn from those searches, is an "unpublished conclusion". It's flat-out OR, as is much else in the article.
EEng (talk) 06:50, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment: Can't use the first hook unless a conditional word like "apparently" is added, because the first recorded use of a word is obviously unprovable, even in the digital age. Even the article wording at present reflects that, and the DYK must reflect statements in the article. (Also, June 22 has passed, so that would have to be altered.) Could use some other kind of wording, like "popularized by ...". Softlavender (talk) 08:43, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
  • It can't be used anyway as EEng is right: this is original research. To state in the article that the 2005 mention in The Hill was the first recorded use you need a reliable source to state that independently; your own web search isn't a reliable source; it isn't published research; it isn't exhaustive; your conclusions in the article rely on your interpreting the data. Belle (talk) 01:04, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Struck original hook; June 22 is long gone, and the OR problems remain. BlueMoonset (talk) 12:49, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
OK, I see everyone's point, especially now that EEng has stepped off. Had there been time, we might have been able to fix this (God, it sucks when we have reliable sources but nothing academic that would state the otherwise obvious). Could someone (other than EEng, whom I don't trust to do this honestly, please further enumerate or elucidate what in the article they would consider to be OR so we can constructively do something about this before the summer ends? Daniel Case (talk) 06:07, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Please cool it with the AGF failures and focus on the article's many, many problems. You still don't seem to get the concept of OR. For example, your changing

Around the turn of the 21st century, the congressional staffers who manage the intern programs in the United States House of Representatives began noticing...

to

In the mid-2000s, the media began reporting that the congressional staffers who manage the intern programs in the United States House of Representatives complained...

does no good, because the fundamental problem remains: you need a source that says that this or that (people noticing, the media reporting) began at/around a certain time. It's not enough to cite the earliest articles you happened to be able to find.

There's also at least one serious RS problem. The statement

one office where the offending intern was asked not to be in the intern class's group photo for the member's website.

can't be cited to a teaser for someone's blog, consisting of vague "like the time" cookie-cutter anecdotes: [4]. And even accepting that source's reference to

Characterizing it as "someone's blog" is misleading. There is a difference as far as RS goes between "someone's blog on blogspot", especially if they don't identify themselves, and "[[WP:NEWSBLOG|someone's blog on the Washington Post's website]]". Presumably (Janet Cooke notwithstanding) the latter would not tolerate a reporter making stuff up for a blog post, nor leave posts on their site for so long if they had been found to do so.

If you can find some specific disclaimer on the Post's part (some news outlets do run them, although I've never seen the Post do it) saying that this person's posts are purely their own responsibility and that they do not routinely subject them to the editorial oversight that is our prime criterion for reliability, then I will relent on the hook (which pretty much would mean the nomination, which I'm sure would make you very happy). But until then (or rather unless then), don't make it an issue. Daniel Case (talk) 18:53, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Here's the entirety of your "source" (the one I linked earlier):
#THATintern: The ‘What dress code?’ intern
By Jenna Johnson June 28, 2011
And it's not just a first-day mistake, it's an ongoing problem.
People in the office try to give that intern less-than-subtle hints — like when the boss pulled out an extra tie and demanded that intern put it on. Or when the intern supervisor asked that intern not to be in the group photo for the Web site. Or when all the other interns staged an intervention at happy hour. Or when that intern suddenly got a horrible nickname like, "The Skintern."
About #THATintern: Every intern class has “that intern” — as in,“Don’t be that intern.” Each day I introduce you to one of them. Share your ideas on Twitter using the hashtag #THATintern. And check out our Intern City page, too.
No disclaimer by the Post is needed to see this isn't meant to be taking as factual. It's a teaser, like if the cover of the travel supplement says, "Inside: Our survey of Washington eateries finds the best kielbasa in the US." Do you honestly think you could turn that into a hook saying, "Did you know ... that Washington has the best kielbasa in the US?" EEng (talk) 00:06, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
[the time] all the other interns staged an intervention at happy hour

how does that turn into the article's

other interns staged an "intervention" during the local bar's happy hour after the workday

- ? Where does the "local" bar come from? The "after the workday"? These are indeed minor details, but it's just not OK for you to make up stuff like this, no matter how logical, minor, or harmless you think it is.

When else is happy hour? Nonetheless, Non-American, or non-English-native-speaking, readers may need some context to understand this, especially if they are reading the article in hard copy where they can't just click the link for an explanation. I have learned that you can't just assume that everybody understands these things intuitively (And see also WP:BLUE) Daniel Case (talk) 18:53, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
Whatever clarification you think readers need, you can't supply it by making up stuff you think is obvious, and if it's WP:BLUE it doesn't need to be said at all. Anyway, an anecdote (even if it's reliable, which this one isn't) that someone, somewhere, was the target of an intervention improves the reader's understanding of underdressed interns... how? EEng (talk) 00:06, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

The entire article's like this, and I'm amazed that you, an admin, don't see how wrong it is.

Unhide for some WP:KETTLE
Please try, once again, to be constructive and not impute some personal failing on my part (note the difference in tone of some of the other commentators here—perhaps they will teach you what you refused to learn at Harvard). My status has nothing to do with this (and yes, I do admit, there are some admins who should do a lot more editing than they do). None of us are perfect editors regardless of what tools we have, or don't. We are working toward a common goal of a better article. If you can't avoid personalizing editorial disputes, stay out of them. Daniel Case (talk) 18:53, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
Let's see... On this page you've said that my "further presence in this nomination is toxic and objectively disruptive, as I no longer believe you can be considered to be contributing to it in good faith"; referred to my "sniveling", "desperation", and "lashing out"; appealed for assistance from "someone (other than EEng, whom I don't trust to do this honestly)"; and have continued the disparagement of my educational background that you began on my talk page, where you called me a "legacy admit" with a stick up my ass [5].
Against all that, I've asked you to "cool it with the AGF failures" and expressed surprise that an admin doesn't know (a) what OR is and (b) that making up details not found in the sources is a no-no. And you're exhorting me, "If you can't avoid personalizing editorial disputes, stay out of them"??? EEng (talk) 00:06, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

In fact, this "it started in year Y" issue is the fundamental problem with this article. Though the lead describes the phenomenon of young people not knowing how to dress at work without reference to any time period, the remainder presents it as something new. You need a source that says that. (Or maybe it's new just in Washington, but then you need a source that says that. I could have missed something, but all I see in the sources are statements that Persons A or B noticed it in Year Y, which isn't nearly enough.) Without that, all this is is an article titled with a new word (skintern) instead of what it's really about (poor choice of dress in the workplace), and gives a string of recent anecdotes (some of which happen to use the new word). EEng (talk) 07:10, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Daniel Case, I've asked you repeatedly (most recently at [6]) to stop interpolating your comments inside of my posts [7] unless (a) it's really necessary and (b) you can do it in a way that makes it possible for others to follow the conversation. Next time you do this I'll just delete your post per WP:TPG. EEng (talk) 00:00, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
Arbitrary break
[edit]
Uh, could you please elaborate on this more? At least EEng above demonstrates conclusively that he actually read the article. Daniel Case (talk) 18:55, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
Most of the alleged "History" section reads like a gossip column filled with unnamed and unattributed salacious anecdotes. Starting it with "In the mid-2000s, the media began reporting..." makes it clear that this relies too heavily on online political gossip blogs and columns and not on the actual, genuinely salacious history of Washington, D.C. Inappropriately dressed interns were as much a problemin the 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s only with different fashion emergencies walking the hallways of the Capitol. There's probably a case for the word "skintern" but the bulk of this article does little to support the word itself. - Dravecky (talk) 20:07, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
This nomination/article needs a fresh set of eyes. Thanks. - Dravecky (talk) 11:05, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
While I wish you would support assertions like "Inappropriately dressed interns were as much a problemin the 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s" with actual sources to that effect, I do agree with this, and with a week's reflection (and EEng having fully crossed the line with this utterly unjustifiable removal of my responses to his ongoing temper tantrum, and since I am in every way a better person than he is, was or ever will be, whatever he thinks he's entitled to think about himself because he went to Harvard, I will not restore them even though a) his concern about being unable to tell who's said what was completely bogus as I signed all my interjections into his comments for precisely that reason and b) yes, there were personal attacks but I also raised legitimate policy issues and c) the proper response to a personal attack is not to remove it yourself but to suggest to the editor making the attack that s/he might care to strike it through), I have realized he has one mildly legitimate concern: that given the way the Post reported on this intervention we might be a little hasty in describing this as a matter of indisputable fact.

So, therefore, for any new reviewer willing to sink his/her teeth into this one before the summer dies a dusty death, I offer a revised hook:

ALT2: ... that the Washington Post reported that in one U.S. congressional office, an inappropriately dressed summer intern was asked to stay out of the intern class's group photo?
This is the elegant way to resolve the long-running verifiability–truth dilemma—rephrase to make the verifiability the truth of the statement, going from "X" to "RELIABLE SOURCE says X". Daniel Case (talk) 16:40, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
Contrary to what you say, your post inserted your words right in the middle of sentences or paragraphs of mine, making a mess which a newcomer could not possibly decode. You've done this repeatedly, and several times I went the trouble of going through and fixing your formatting [8]; finally I warned you [9] that if you did it again I'd simply revert your post. In addition, the post I removed continued the bizarre personal attacks you've been making for some time, and which you continue even your most recent post. You are welcome to reinsert your comments, but in a way that others can tell who's saying what.
ALT2 doesn't fix the basic problem already discussed, which is that this anecdotal "like the time" promotional blurb isn't meant to be taken as a factual report. EEng (talk) 19:54, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
I hesitate to wade into this mess, but this is exactly my feeling as well. The Washington Post source is unverifiably vague and it's difficult to tell from its tone whether it is reporting on actual events that transpired exactly as reported (that insiders might recognize), or making up "truthy" things that are sort of like something that might have happened to someone who told it to someone else who told it to the reporter. I don't think that's good enough to turn it into an absolute factual statement in a DYK. And we can't sidestep the problem by saying that the Washington Post said it was true, rather than just that it's true, because the problem is that it's not clear whether they actually did intend for people to think that it was true, or whether maybe they intended readers to take it as a truthy illustrative fictionalized example. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:56, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
Obviously you're just another nervously twitching congenitally unable widdle-headed obtusely toxic-farting mildly legitimate Harvard-type jerkass with a stick up his ass. EEng (talk) 06:31, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
Well, except for the Harvard part, maybe. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:03, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
As DC would be the first to point out, that's redundant to all the other stuff anyway. EEng (talk) 22:36, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
Didn't realize you took it so much to heart. After further reflection, and thanks to Mr. Eppstein being a little more tactful in his phrasing, I think I can see exactly what argument both of you are trying to make: that the way it was phrased in the blog post suggests the reporter was perhaps fabricating it or passing along a rumor. With respect:
  • I really don't think the Washington Post would just let a reporter put something totally made up on their website, and then let it remain there for several years.
  • The revised phrasing does not indicate that we vouch for the truth (something we never can vouch for, anyway) of the assertion in the Post's blog. It only indicates that we vouch for the truth that the Post reported this, which can easily be verified by clicking on the source link. We report what reliable sources have said, be they articles in major newspapers, historical documents about unusual neurological cases, or papers on the cutting edge of topological research. We do not consider it our place to second-guess them. If readers or editors have concerns that perhaps the reliable sources are not, in a particular instance, reliable, we put more atttribution inline. I think readers can be trusted with their own assessments of the veracity of this without us having to decide that for them. Daniel Case (talk) 03:24, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
  • There's a far more basic problem than using a vague sentence as the underpinning of the hook: the #ThatIntern feature in the Post wasn't exclusively or even mostly about "skinterns". Go look at the columns. They're about interns who think offices should be more like fraternities, interns who "shop" in the supply closet, and so on. (The complete collection is here.) Without some basis for why the possibly-hypothetical was left out of the group photo, there's no way to know that it's related to skimpy clothing, just that they're a fashion victim. The intern who needed a tie, for example, would hardly qualify as a skintern. - Dravecky (talk) 13:21, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
I didn't read the rest of the posts and neither would anyone wanting to verify that the Post reported that. Again, I think you're asking for far more from a source than policy demands here.

And if you read the article in full, you can see that it does briefly discuss (where I found a source doing so) insufficiently-dressed male interns. The word "inappropriate" in the hook is board enough to cover the intern who wouldn't wear a tie, or who did wear cargo pants, and the one in the crop top and miniskirt. Daniel Case (talk) 06:12, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Plus, a glance at just a few of the items listed at the link Dravecky supplied shows conclusively that David Eppstein's analysis is 100% correct. Still not convinced? How about the fact that many items end with, "Want to help me stereotype over-worked, under-appreciated, misunderstood interns? Shoot me an email." One item ends, "Several people suggested this intern, including [XXX], a student at Penn State." The Post expects its readers to be able to distinguish straight reporting from amusing composite anecdotes.
More "No true Scotsman"-isms. None of those are being used as the basis of the hook. They're not relevant. If you want me to take your opposition seriously, limit yourself to the one sentence that matters. Daniel Case (talk) 06:12, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
All the Scotch in the world can't drown the fact that the sentence you want to use is part of larger set clearly not meant to be seen as factual. EEng (talk) 17:20, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
To post this as a DYK, even as "The Washington Post reported..." would make Wikipedia look as ridiculous as if we'd posted something as "The Onion reported...", in a way that suggested we don't realize the Onion is satire. It's unbelievable we're still discussing this.
More importantly, Dravecky's point‍—‌that even the "fashion victim" blogpost isn't actually about skinterns specifically, but about young people who don't know how to dress at work generally‍—‌is a fundamental problem with the article itself. Most of the sources use the word skintern just once (usually in the headline) with the body just being the usual how-not-to-dress stuff you could have seen all the way back to Dress for Success and earlier. The article presents skintern-ism as some new phenomenon that has a bunch of reporting specifically about it, but it's really just a strained-funny new word for an old phenomenon, with the article SYNTHetically hanging a lot of general bad-dress reporting onto it as if it specifically applied to that word. It doesn't, even if the sources use this current-hip word in the headline or lead to catch readers' attention. I tried to point this out at AfD but got shouted down. EEng (talk) 20:03, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
So, in other words, you are using the DYK nom to continue the AfD nom. Daniel Case (talk) 06:02, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
Whatever you want to call it. The article continues to have severe SYNTH and OR problems, which even now you're adding to e.g. with [10] you added
In 2004, Jessica Cutler, a staffer for Ohio Senator Mike DeWine, wrote for a while a blog in which she detailed an active sex life with a variety of men she met through her work, which did little to dispel [the idea that skimpily dressed young female interns were trying to emulate Monica Lewinsky].
The source you cite ([11]) says nothing about whether Cutler's blog did or did not dispel the emulate-Lewinsky idea. You just made that up. (And BTW, I don't see anything in the source that says it was men she was having sex with. You seem to have just assumed that, too.)
EEng (talk) 17:20, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
I sort of thought it was implied by "The sex and politics crossover received another injection of juice with the 2005 revelation of the so-called “Washingtonienne.”" sentence in the source. Perhaps I should reword to something more like the source (because some people around here are not shy about calling even something like that impermissibly close paraphrasing)? Or put that quote in the footnote so the reader can judge whether that's a fair interpretation for themselves? I'd be interested in hearing/reading your ideas for what improvements I can make, as I have been for two months now.

In any event, based on the material I added I'm proposing a new hook:
ALT3: ... that recruiters at KPMG have been putting on a fashion show for summer interns because some had been dressing "not in a way that we would have preferred" at work? Daniel Case (talk) 05:39, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

The ongoing problem is not with the hook but with the whole article. It's a mess of original research, shaky suppositions, and bold misinterpretations. There's probably a good article buried under all that but this can't possibly go on the main page as it stands. - Dravecky (talk) 17:08, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
Then, as I have asked, I would like you to enumerate specifics that we can fix. I appreciate your confidence that there is a main-page-worthy article here ... please, work with me to make it so. Daniel Case (talk) 17:59, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
You'll need to dynamite the existing text, strip it down to just the sources that specifically mention "skintern", and omit the reams of original research, supposition, and unrelated examples. Yes, I think there's an article to be written but I'm not the one to do it. - Dravecky (talk) 04:58, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
You didn't read what I wrote. You described "reams of original research, supposition, and unrelated examples." Presumably you can give examples if you were willing to be that specific in your criticism. Otherwise it is little better than name-calling. Daniel Case (talk) 03:08, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
And we certainly can't have any of that [12]. Look, the very first sentence of the article proper –
In the mid-2000s, the media began reporting...
is OR, as explained over and over. Editor after editor has tried to explain the concept, to no avail. And you're linking IDHT? EEng (talk) 04:37, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
How, exactly, is that OR? Several sources that I've cited date to that time. I will put them all after that section of text, and make it more specific. Daniel Case (talk) 16:38, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
Daniel Case, I've made some notes on the article here (using the whizzy green text template) which I'd encourage anybody interested to add to; they are just quick observations and not comprehensive as I got bored (I wanted to clear this off DYK before it takes over the entire nominations page). I see you still have your web search as a supporting reference for the first use of the term, even after several people have told you, and you have professed to understand, that it is OR; don't take this the wrong way, but are you sure you are not just being stubborn because you don't want EEng to "beat" you? Your other articles that I have reviewed haven't had these sorts of problems; maybe it is just a problem with trying to create an article when there aren't really any reliable sources. Or maybe I'm just full of hits (or some combination of those letters). Belle (talk) 11:32, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
Belle, thanks for understanding that this was a challenging article to write since most of the sources cited are journalistic in nature. I have not taken that note out because I changed the text it supports so it no longer states that the word was not in use before 2005 as further research has undermined this contention. And I don't see how simply stating that a search was performed, something a user can easily duplicate for themselves and change the accompanying text, constitutes OR in and of itself. I'll take it out if there is a consensus of calm, rational editors who assume good faith and understand what I was trying to do (an understanding that can help find a better solution to the problem), like yourself, rather than taking an angry, confrontational tone that accuses me of reckless malfeasance. Daniel Case (talk) 16:38, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
Daniel Case, what do you think about letting this slip gracefully below the DYK waves? I think otherwise it will still be on the nominations page at Christmas when we should have articles about woolly hats and scarves. You can always try getting it to GA and bring it back. Belle (talk) 00:02, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
OK, let's. Summer's ending; stories about interns are so June at this point. Daniel Case (talk) 01:54, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Skintern&oldid=994604497"