Template:Did you know nominations/Skintern

Skintern

(

• Back to T:TDYK
• Article history

)

• ... that the term "skintern", for an inappropriately dressed female U.S. congressional intern, was first recorded in an article in The Hill 10 years ago today?

• ALT1:... that in one U.S. congressional office, an inappropriately dressed summer intern was asked to stay out of the intern class's group photo?
• Reviewed: Jade Helm 15
• Comment: The main hook can be verified by the date of the Hill article in the footnote. If it is used, I request that the article run on June 22.

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)

[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)

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

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)

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 [5]) to stop interpolating your comments inside of my posts [6] 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

• Anybody who thinks this is a 21st century problem should peruse List of federal political sex scandals in the United States. - Dravecky (talk) 16:20, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

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)