Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard/Archive 51

Is this OR by synthesis?

Is this sentence original research by synthesis or not?

"The association between mice and eating cheese appears as early as the Roman period, in the writings of Seneca.”

My position is that it’s NOT original research:

1. The text of Seneca clearly makes an association between mice and eating cheese. This is just describing what the text says. That is not OR. Similar examples of using primary sources can be found in good articles such as Pigs in culture:

One of the earliest literary references comes from Heraclitus, who speaks of the preference pigs have for mud over clean water in the Fragments. Plato in the Republic discusses a "healthy state" of simplicity as "a city for pigs" (Greek: huōn polis).

2. The source also notes that Seneca lived in the Roman period. Since Seneca makes this association in the Roman period then concluding that the association appears in the Roman period is an immediate undisputed logical step, akin to 1+1=2. This is not forbidden synthesis.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Vegan416 (talk • contribs) 19:57, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Well, an issue is that the ancient sources are often considered primary for our purposes, so transparent interpretation of them not citing a secondary source is often considered original research, yes.

The comparison you gave is not wholly comparable, because it directly quotes Plato, rather than simply stating an uncited interpretation of him in wikivoice, which is more comparable to what you've done. Remsense诉 20:12, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

@Remsense

1. And what about the Heraclitus reference? The sentence in wikipedia says that Heraclitus "speaks of the preference pigs have for mud over clean water". It doesn't directly quote him. What the Heraclitus fragment says is actually this: "Swine wash in the mire".
2. I don't interpret Seneca. I just mention the fact that he makes an association between mice and eating cheese. Can anyone dispute that he makes such an association?

Vegan416 (talk) 20:22, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, that quote seems a bit fishy too. I would be much more comfortable with a secondary attestation in any case: not for OR reasons, but for WP:DUE reasons. Remsense诉 20:27, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

@Remsense

I don't understand how WP:DUE is relevant here. There is no dispute about the facts here. Perhaps there is a misunderstanding here on your side. This sentence about Seneca is not put forward in order to support the idea that mice eat cheese. In fact it appears in the context of a paragraph that describes (based on other sources) that this belief is a myth and mice actually don't eat cheese (unless they have no choice). The sentence about Seneca just gives it an historical background.

The sentence about Seneca is also careful not to claim that Seneca himself believed that mice eat cheese, or that it was a common belief in his time. Though these conclusions seem reasonable they indeed do not necessarily logically follow from the source. I was very careful to frame it just as a description of what Seneca makes in his text, which is associating between mice and eating cheese. Vegan416 (talk) 20:39, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

I think if you just stated the quote it would feel less like OR. The connective clauses may imply that this may be the earliest time such an association was made, or something else other than the plain existence of the historical statement itself. This editorial stuff is murky, which is why we like to lean on secondary sources. Remsense诉 20:42, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

@Remsense

1. I can of course also give it up. I have no stakes in this fact being mentioned in wikipedia. But I'm trying to understand the definition of "original research".
2. What do you think about the following option: "The association between mice and eating cheese appears at least as early as the Roman period, in the writings of Seneca.”? [that BTW was the original version, I changed it because it sounded too cumbersome]
3. Your suggestion is something like this: "Seneca in the first century AD mentions that 'a mouse nibbles cheese'"?

Vegan416 (talk) 21:05, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

1. You can never give up, I won't allow it.
2. That reads significantly better, but I would still be more comfortable with
3. This, yes.

Remsense诉 21:07, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

@Remsense

Ok. So the full paragraph might be something like that:

In the first century AD, Seneca mentioned that "a mouse eats cheese". Today many people believe that mice are particularly fond of cheese. But in fact most mice do not have a special appetite for cheese. They will only eat cheese when lacking better options.

BTW, all the other sentences are already supported by other sources without dispute. The dispute was only about the first one. Vegan416 (talk) 21:38, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

There'd be no OR claims that I can see, but it'd still help to have a secondary source establish DUEness. Remsense诉 21:51, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

@Remsense

I don't understand how DUEness is relevant here. There are no conflicting opinions whether Seneca said that or not. There is unanimous agreement that this source is authentic. You can read the preface written for this prestigious edition of Loeb Classic Library. Vegan416 (talk) 22:40, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Well, let's say (to be symmetrical with your comparison above) that the article is Mice in culture. That's "in culture", not List of mice traits by earliest mention. So, there's a cultural provenance aspect that has an element of WP:DUEness. Remsense诉 22:51, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

@Remsense

I still do not understand. In my understanding DUE means giving the due weight to different views according to their prominence in case there are different views on a question. Such as the example given there - not to give equal weight (or any weight) to flat earth theory as a "scientific" theory opposed to spherical earth view. What are the conflicting views in this case? What is the minority view and the majority view that I don't give the right weight to? Vegan416 (talk) 07:19, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

It's about prominence of ideas in general, not just opposing ones in a debate. Remsense诉 13:30, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

@Remsense

Isn't Seneca prominent enough?

So according to you without secondary sources the Heraclitus reference in Pigs in culture is also UNDUE? Vegan416 (talk) 15:05, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Sources cannot generally attest their own importance. Plenty of important works contain unimportant statements. That's why we, as a tertiary source, use secondary sources. Remsense诉 15:10, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

@Remsense

OK.

Would you think that this is a reliable secondary source for this info?

http://www.todayifoundout.com/index.php/2012/09/mice-dont-like-cheese/

They do seem to get a high rating here:

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/today-i-found-out/ Vegan416 (talk) 15:50, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

I wouldn't generally consider TodayIFoundOut a reliable source, see this discussion. I also really dislike those bias fact-checking outlets, I think they largely do more harm than good for peoples' media literacy. Remsense诉 15:56, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

@Remsense

Here is an interesting twist. This pseudo syllogism of Seneca involving mice and eating cheese is actually prominent in the sense that it had been mentioned and discussed in several scholarly articles. For example here

https://www.jstor.org/stable/44029555

https://www.jstor.org/stable/44079814

https://www.jstor.org/stable/2251454

But all these articles discuss it in the context of logics and humor, and not in the context of the feeding habits of mice. So I suppose this is not good enough for you? Vegan416 (talk) 08:13, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

@Vegan416 it’s a DUE issue because a citation to a primary source gives no indication as to why it matters this source talked about mice and cheese. Mach61 21:02, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

@Mach61

I don't understand you point. But maybe it will be clearer if you see the full context. It's something like this:

“Today it is very common to associate mice with eating cheese. This association appears at least as early as the Roman period, in the writings of Seneca. But in fact most mice do not have a special appetite for cheese. They will only eat cheese when lacking better options.” Vegan416 (talk) 21:12, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Primary sources can be reliable. Is someone saying they can’t? Blueboar (talk) 20:27, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

@Blueboar@Remsense

Actually all primary sources are OK as sources for simple claims about their content that can be verified by a non-expert by simply reading the source. This is official wikipedia policy here "A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge". In my opinion this is clearly the case here. Vegan416 (talk) 21:07, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

DUE does not mean that something can be sourced, it is about determining what sourced information belongs in the article. IOW do any reliable sources note that Seneca wrote about mice and cheese? If not then inclusion is UNDUE. You will appreciate that articles are not an accumulation of every fact available, but need to focus on what is most important which is determined by coverage in reliable secondary sources. TFD (talk) 17:29, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

• While primary sources have their uses, in this case, you went beyond what the primary source says. The author is not creating an association between mice and eating cheese, all they are doing is giving an example of how one can play games with words. I'm not saying that there was no such association back then, but the text does not allow us to reach any conclusion in this regard (one way or the other). M.Bitton (talk) 15:42, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

  @M.Bitton

  I disagree. When Seneca says "a mouse eats cheese" he most definitely makes an association between mice and eating cheese. Of course he was not writing here an essay about the feeding habits of mice, but rather he demonstrates some sort of logical fallacy, and his use of the mice feeding habits was as a random example for his demonstration. But that doesn't stop it from being a testimony to the existence of an association between mice and eating cheese, at least in Seneca's mind, and I didn't claim anything more than that. Vegan416 (talk) 07:54, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

  He said it and that's all we can say. He didn't make any association, in fact, he could have said "dances in the prairie" instead of "eats cheese" and it wouldn't have changed anything to his example. M.Bitton (talk) 11:59, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

  @M.Bitton

  First of all when anyone says that a mouse eats cheese he associates mouse and eating cheese, even in the most technical sense. That's obvious. Second your argument actually proves that Seneca had a preconceived association in his mind between mice and eating cheese. Like you said, for his example he could attribute any other random action to mice and it would have worked just as well, so why did he choose this behavior if not because it was his association? Vegan416 (talk) 16:47, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

  so why did he choose this behavior I don't know and nor do you. M.Bitton (talk) 16:52, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

  @M.Bitton

  But I do know. People choose this kind of things based on their preconceived associations. Vegan416 (talk) 17:34, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

  That's WP:OR (unless you can prove, using RS, that his choice was based on a preconceived association). M.Bitton (talk) 17:40, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

  @M.Bitton

  Nope. That's tautology. Anything a person says is based on what's in his brain/mind. How can you seriously deny that? Vegan416 (talk) 18:20, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

  I don't intend on repeating what I said. I'm done here. M.Bitton (talk) 18:27, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

• It definitely is not original research to note that Seneca said this (we have multiple sources noting that he did so). As to the Due weight/relevance issue (ie: should a specific article mention that Seneca said this)… that is a different question and should be decided by consensus at the article level. Blueboar (talk) 11:55, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

References

Synthesis of published material

A discussion is taking place here about whether or not the use of this source to claim the Libertarian Party (Australia) follows the ideology of conservatism is a violation of WP:SYNTH. Further input would be much appreciated. Helper201 (talk) 13:32, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

At issue is the interpretation of an ABC article. For reference the Libertarian Party (Australia) were previously called Liberal Democratic Party (Australia). In the newspaper article they're referred to simply as Liberal Democrats.

From the article are two key paragraphs which read:

"It comes after One Nation finalised an alliance with two other conservative minor parties to form a powerful five-member bloc in WA's Upper House, giving it huge power in a chamber where the McGowan Government will have to rely on external support to pass legislation.

One Nation's three successful candidates will be sworn in as MPs next week, after which they say they will work as a bloc with returning Shooters, Fishers and Farmers leader Rick Mazza and new Liberal Democrats MP Aaron Stonehouse."

I find it clear that the first paragraph I quote directly leads directly into the second. Thus when it is talked about in the first paragraph that "One Nation finalised an alliance with two other conservative minor parties", that leads to it talking about who those parties are in the second paragraph when it states "... after which they say they will work as a bloc with returning Shooters, Fishers and Farmers leader Rick Mazza and new Liberal Democrats MP Aaron Stonehouse". I find this to be explicit. TarnishedPath^talk 12:46, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

OR redirect page titles

What should be done about redirects whose titles (or rather, association between the title and the redirect target) constitute WP:OR or WP:SYNTH? What concrete policies exist for this situation, if any?

For example, suppose an article is created for a valid topic (one that meets notability guidelines and all other relevant Wikipedia policies for existence), but under a title that is OR, i.e. no one actually refers to the topic of the article under the given title; the page author just made it up. The page is subsequently moved to its WP:COMMONNAME title. By default, in this case, a redirect would be created from the old page name to the new one. Should the redirect be deleted, or kept, and what specific policies, if any, can be used to support either decision? Brusquedandelion (talk) 08:28, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

I think it really depends on the nature of the connection, but usually leaning on the side of 'keep'—given that redirects are meant to be navigation aids primarily. As you know, WP:RFD is full of cases where the usefulness or harmfulness of redirects are discussed in this terms. Remsense诉 09:04, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Weaponization of antisemitism

The Weaponization of antisemitism article seems to me to be heavily based on original research, but maybe I'm wrong. There is a stiff argument on the talk page, but a very small number of editors participating. Would benefit from more eyes. BobFromBrockley (talk) 23:35, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Ugh. This is one of those articles where the sources are likely to mostly be opinion pieces, isn't it? Truthfully a better title might help; the current one is non-neutral and while it might reasonably pass WP:COMMONNAME if we want an article consisting of nothing but a bunch of quotes from opinion pieces, we could probably fold the topic into a more neutral descriptor that would allow for more academic coverage - verbage like "weaponization" isn't something you'd see much in academia. --Aquillion (talk) 00:52, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

I agree that a change of title is needed and could result in a more neutral article. Even the first source currently cited in the article applies scare quotes in two of its three instances of using the words "weaponization" or "weaponized", and the source's third use of the words also does not endorse the idea. Llll5032 (talk) 06:02, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

I think this is one of those articles where the neutrality and the quality of the sourcing will always be disputed by someone. I'm not criticizing you for bringing it up here, mind, but I think it will always be troublesome. 🌺 Cremastra (talk) 02:12, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Cite 1 on the page is Keren Eva Fraiman, Dean Phillip Bell, ed. (1 March 2023). The Routledge Handbook of Judaism in the 21st Century. Taylor & Francis. p. 170. ISBN 9781000850321. In 2013, the Committee on Antisemitism addressing the troubling resurgence of antisemitism and Holocaust denial produced two important political achievements: the "Working Definition of Holocaust Denial and Distortion"...and the "Working Definition of Antisemitism"....The last motion raised much criticism by some scholars as too broad in its conflation of anti-Zionism with antisemitism. The exploitation, the instrumentalization, the weaponization of antisemitism, a concomitant of its de-historicization and de-textualization, became a metonymy for speaking of the Jewish genocide and of anti-Zionism in a way that confined its history to the court's benches and research library and its memory to a reconstruction based mostly on criteria of memorial legitimacy for and against designated social groups. How's that OR? Editors asked for cites, they were provided and promptly tagged as OR/failed verification, smacks of WP:IDONTLIKEIT, since it is clear that the topic exists. What else would you call the leveling of false charges of antisemitism?.Selfstudier (talk) 11:17, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Selfstudier, the source you cited is a paragraph within Consonni's section in the Routledge handbook that includes the phrase and some other descriptors. Although she appears to only use the phrase once, I don't believe that any editor has tagged that source for problems. Perhaps her usage of it should be described within the article, instead of only cited in the first sentence. Llll5032 (talk) 20:04, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

I started a discussion about renaming the article to gather options for a new name. Llll5032 (talk) 11:11, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

References

2004 European Parliament election

On the 2004 European Parliament election article, there seems to be a mess with OR when it comes two tables, one for the 2004 estimated results, and one for the 2007 notional results.

The 2007 notional results by EU party section, which was created due to the accession of Bulgaria and Romania, doesn't seem to have a source of where the number of votes come from and according to one of the footnotes, it incorporate the results of the latest parliamentary election of both countries before their accession, which are not related to EU Parliament elections. I was unable to find the source of the 2004 estimated results either.

I'm curious of editors' input of this as these two sections takes up a decent portion of the page with seemly no source to back them up. WebKit2 (talk) 20:06, 1 April 2024 (UTC)