Talk:traue keiner Statistik, die du nicht selbst gefälscht hast

Isn't this commonly attributed to Goebbels? --78.50.252.93 20:53, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

RFD discussion: January 2018–July 2020
I don't think that belongs in a dictionary. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 16:56, 19 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Why not? It's used proverbially, ain't it? If the reason shall be, that it's SOP-ish or self-explaining, then as a dog returns to his vomit, so a fool repeats his folly, better safe than sorry should have to be deleted too. -84.161.42.65 00:23, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
 * While I object to those phrases, too, I don't see a clear dividing line. There's still the phrase book appendix, subject to opposition, too. I have a suspicion that negative tone is responsible for the request, partially. 109.41.0.199 05:31, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
 * No. It just doesn't seem proverbial to me. Per utramque cavernam 00:02, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep. — Mnemosientje (t · c) 16:28, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep. I looked at to see prevalence. The OP does not refer to WT:CFI. Then we learn that it does not seem proverbial, but proverbiality is not analyzed in any way. The statement is not literal, to say the least, with a considerable frequency, and reasonably short; its not being proverb, if actual, is unobvious. --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:39, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I'll try to explain what I have in mind: to me, proverbs are inherited units of popular wisdom; they're short and concise, they use simple words, they're old, they express universal truths (as such they often have proverbial equivalents in other languages), they don't make use of irony.
 * The item we're concerned with has a certain "gnomic" feel to it, yes. But I think it is too recent; it uses the word "statistic" (that's not a complex word, but I wouldn't expect everybody to see straightaway what it is about); it looks more like the words of a wisecrack than the genuine product of conventional wisdom. And does it have proverbial equivalents in other languages? All in all, it doesn't look like what I (and others, I'm sure) am used to identify/recognise as a proverb. Per utramque cavernam 22:07, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Per utramque cavernam 11:19, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the analysis. Can you point me to the part of WT:CFI that you think this item fails? --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:34, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
 * The very first: "A term need not be limited to a single word in the usual sense. Any of these are also acceptable: Compounds; Idioms; Proverbs; Abbreviations, acronyms, and initialisms; Prefixes and suffixes; Characters used in ideographic or phonetic writing". is neither a word, nor a compound, nor an idiom, nor an abbreviation of some sort, nor an affix, nor a character... Nor, in my view and as I was saying above, a proverb. Per utramque cavernam 11:45, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
 * That item does not purport to list a complete taxonomy of what a term is. In any case, I would argue that the discussed phrase is something like an idiom. Some German sources refer to the item as "Spruch", one source even as "Sprichwort", as per . As an aside, fact-free and research-free opinions are the cheapest goods in the world: everyone has plenty of them and everyone is glad to share them (I am not the author, nor is it exactly true). --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:56, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
 * "That item does not purport to list a complete taxonomy of what a term is.": what is it meant to do then? Is it merely indicative? What other kind of items could we include? Why don't we mention them there? Per utramque cavernam 14:25, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
 * It plays the role of "including but not restricted to". It makes it explicit that something is not to be narrowly construed, in this case the notion of "term". There was a vote to make the list more extensive, aiming at completeness, and that vote failed. --Dan Polansky (talk) 15:18, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Two obvious examples are infixes and circumfixes. --RichardW57 (talk) 15:35, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Indeed. Per utramque cavernam 15:45, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete. HeliosX (talk) 17:31, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Kept: no consensus to delete. PUC – 11:48, 2 July 2020 (UTC)