What?
@Noflaps said in #38:
> If others might doubt the sincerity or existence of the sources from which I learn and then present, I often try to quote at least one of my sources, rather than merely offer my own conclusion or interpretation. See #36 for an example of this preference for supplying an actual quotation in the post itself.
Huh, this almost makes it sound like you cite sources so that other people can check them.
But in my experience you hardly ever cite sources. I hesitate to go as far as to say "never" only because I do not have time to read all of your posts. But I honestly cannot remember the last time you properly cited a source if you ever did. You sometimes quote without proper attribution but that's not to be confused with a citation. You only used the word "quote" in #38, not the word "cite" so you are technically correct. But you seem to confuse the usefulness of a citation with the uselessness of an unattributed quotation.
Case in point you did not cite a source in #36, yet you genuinely seem to believe that you did ("If others might doubt the sincerity or existence of the sources from which I learn (...)"). In #36 you wrote:
> From just two days ago, verbatim: "Among Republicans, 89% approve of Trump’s job performance, up from 85% last week. "
>
> Is that poll absolutely accurate? Who knows. But it's not likely to be wildly inaccurate, either.
What you (presumably) did here was to quote from a source. But a verbatim quote on its own is not a citation. And it does not help others to figure out more about the subject at hand, does nothing to inform them, doesn't help them learn anything.
In particular it makes it hard for others to check your source. Your "sources" are inaccessible because you do not reference them properly, neither by name nor by a link. Your extremely vague unattributed quotation means that we indeed cannot know whether or not the numbers you appear to quote have any meaning.
I've noticed that your "citations" usually take the form of:
"According to what appears to be a reputable source: X, Y and Z. But who knows?"
Which always leaves the reader wondering: "What apparently reputable source? And why wouldn't Noflaps say which one?"
A verbatim quote without proper attribution is utterly useless. It's like a first-year engineering or physics student giving you a measurement or calculation result without an uncertainty or a unit of measurement. "What do you even mean, the bridge will collapse at a load of 600? Six-hundred what? That doesn't make any sense." You wouldn't want them building your bridges yet. A quote without attribution is similarly incomplete. It's not a citation and it doesn't help your readers figure out where you got your ideas. It literally does not bridge the gap between what you know and what the reader knows.
What's more, when other people cite a source to underscore their point of opinion or a factual statement they made, you've been known to gratuitously admonish them for "not expressing their opinion in their own words [paraphrased]" and refuse to even look at let alone engage with said source. You seemingly do not care one bit about the sources especially when they are inconvenient or detrimental to your position. Instead you insist that your interlocutor "offer their own conclusions and interpretations [paraphrased]". Ironic given your statement in #38 don't you think?
ColorParrot's post #37 satirises your style of "citation" quite succinctly. And it makes a good point:
It is generally not unknowable whether a poll is "absolutely accurate or wildly inaccurate" as ColorParrot puts it. Reputable opinion polls always come with supplementary information about
- the sample size (how many people they asked),
- the time frame (when were these people polled?),
- the methodology (what kind of survey, in person, by phone, by internet, with or without age verification? How is the data weighted to account among other things for the socioeconomic makeup of the country?) and
- the (estimated) measurement uncertainty (or margin of sampling error, usually given as ±X percentage points).
Here's a random example of how that may look like:
Press release of a poll:
https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2025/06/17/how-americans-view-the-gops-budget-and-tax-bill/
Questionnaire used:
https://www.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/20/2025/06/PP_2025-6-17_trump-immigration_questionnaire.pdf
Methodology used:
Example quote: "The margin of sampling error for the full sample of 5,044 respondents is plus or minus 1.6 percentage points."
Attribution/source: The American Trends Panel survey methodology; Pew Research Center (June 17, 2025)
Link: https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2025/06/17/trump-immigration-methodology/
@Thalassokrator, I quoted the pertinent numbers accurately. I didn't need a post of many paragraphs to do that.
If you feel the numbers are insufficiently accurate, by all means provide your own.
But what I wrote and quoted was perfectly adequate, without trying to beat the point into the ground, for the very limited purpose I was pursuing: to indicate that it was hardly plausible that Trump's popularity among Republicans has seriously degraded.
Believe what you wish, of course. And you are welcome to your own writing style. I prefer my own; but we can each properly choose for ourselves and I don't really need instruction; I've both had and later provided to others, formally, plenty of writing instruction over the years.
Furthermore, my own posts already tend to be lengthy, as it is. I don't need to work on making them still longer when nothing important is to be gained by that.
If you suspect that I merely invented the numbers (which I did not, of course) and so wish to locate my source, you might merely copy and paste the quote into a search engine. I assume that most can do that if the source is genuinely important to them. The numbers I posted are hardly outside the range of similar numbers that can be found elsewhere, I believe. I don't think the numbers I quoted are genuinely far off any reasonable estimate.
But do you ACTUALLY consider the challenged contention "debatable" ? Do you ACTUALLY think Trump no longer has large Republican support? Or is any call for elaboration really a contentious waste of time and energy, under the circumstances.
I've noticed that sometimes when some are displeased with the substance presented by another, they attack the form of presentation (if they're too polite to simply insult the presenter, which increasingly happens a lot, too).
But let's not wander too far from my actual substantive point: it appears that Trump STILL has large Republican support, despite any claims to the contrary.
Yes, THAT was my point, which I believe remains accurate.
Did that point REALLY require a still-longer post?
@Noflaps said in #43:
> Thalassokrator, I quoted the pertinent numbers accurately. I didn't need a post of many paragraphs to do that.
I didn't claim that you made the numbers up. They seem plausible enough. I only observed that you did not (and continue not to) cite a source and as such nobody can know for sure where you got them, how the polling worked, what the margin of sampling error is.
> If you feel the numbers are insufficiently inaccurate, by all means provide your own. But what I wrote and quoted was perfectly adequate for the limited purpose I was pursuing: to indicate that it was hardly plausible that Trump's popularity among Republicans has seriously degraded.
>
> Believe what you wish, of course.
You seem to have missed my point. I don't believe Trump is widely unpopular with his voter base.
I also agree that self-evident or very plausible statements don't always need to be supported by a properly cited source in casual conversation. My point is a more general one that you seem to never see the need to cite a source, even when it's warranted.
> And you are welcome to your own writing style. I prefer my own; but we can each properly choose for ourselves.
It's not a matter of writing style whether or not one makes one's sources available to the reader. Inaccessible sources are a matter of transparency. And I simply observed that you often lack transparency while apparently believing otherwise (#38).
Unattributed quotations muddy the waters and should be avoided if one hopes to help others better understand one's own position. There, I said it in a single sentence.
My position was quite clear, @Thalassokrator . And you apparently don't actually disagree with it. As you say in #44, "I don't believe Trump is widely unpopular with his voter base."
My post adequately supports that obvious notion, which was made in the context of an earlier and apparently unqualified statement that Republicans hate Trump.
Yet you didn't seem to worry over or address the surprising generality of THAT statement, or decry its own lack of accompanying citation, of feel it "muddied" any "waters."
Instead, you decided to respond to my own post that simply attempted to provide some pertinent numbers making it clear that Trump had NOT actually been widely abandoned by his Republican base, something with which you apparently agree.
Now we've spent many minutes typing -- for what reason? Because you wish to instruct me about citation? Thanks for the effort.
But please keep in mind, I DON'T like to direct others to internet "links" for the same sort of prudent reasons that I don't typically click on links provided by others who I don't really know or at least "know of."
But I can assure you, I don't really need further instruction in the practice of citation. And when I think the point is genuinely debatable, so as to make careful citation really important, I'll generally do it not by providing a mere link but rather will rather provide a citation in words, which takes more effort. But in this thread, there didn't really seem much need for that elaboration. The numbers I provided don't seem particularly startling or difficult to believe. Nor do I think they are difficult to find or at least approximately verify from other sources, as carefully I noted earlier.
And if any DO wish to disbelieve what I quoted because I didn't "link" or otherwise carefully cite, I have no objection and take no offense. We can each research and explore the internet as we choose. And I'll be surprised if anyone finds anything that seriously shows the numbers that I quoted to be wildly inaccurate.
So, I think my original point was adequately presented and not actually "muddy" and in need of clarification.
Trump is NOT hated by most Republicans. As you seem to acknowledge. That was my simple point.
And that isn't REALLY very debatable, is it? So, I didn't intend or need to write a carefully constructed term paper, as opposed to a brief opposing note to remind readers that numbers CAN be found to help address the point.
Is this about school anymore?
@ColorParrot said in #46:
> Is this about school anymore?
Well, it's off-topic, so being on-topic is off-topic, therefore staying on-topic here is equivalent to derailing the thread.
(my logic right now) :)
Ok? I'm go derail some other forums rq
İts ok if kids dont eat breakfast and lunch,Illegal aliens must be stopped
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.