Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard

Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
    Welcome to the no original research noticeboard
    This page is for requesting input on possible
    synthesis
    .
    • Include links to the relevant article(s).
    • Make an attempt to familiarize yourself with the no original research policy before reporting issues here.
    • You can also post here if you are unsure whether the content is considered original research.
    Sections older than 28 days
    Wikipedia:Purge
    )
    If you mention specific editors, please notify them. You may use {{subst:NORN-notice}} to do so.

    Additional notes:

    • "Original research" includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position. Such content is prohibited on Wikipedia.
    • For volunteers wishing to mark a discussion resolved, use {{Resolved|Your reason here ~~~~}} at the top of the section.
    To start a new request, enter a name (section header) for your request below:

    it is OR to use census data to produce a map?

    I saw this map and was wondering if anything needs to be done. The immediate source website seems to have disappeared, the data is apparently from the US census. Without OR can one produce a map like this?

    File:Absenceblacks.png JMWt (talk) 11:40, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I would say yes, it is. Blueboar (talk) 13:13, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Definitely OR by my lights. Even if relatively straightforward, making a map requires a level of interpretation and input from the editor that I would say is beyond policy. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 13:49, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok. What's the procedure for an xfd of this type? Seems to me it doesn't fit the normal criteria for files for deletion discussions. JMWt (talk) 14:59, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The original file is on the Wayback machine: https://web.archive.org/web/20240000000000*/http://www.valpo.edu/geomet/pics/geo200/no_blacks.pdf. Even if it was created by the uploader, I would not call it OR if the source had a list of these counties and all the uploader did was highlight them on a map. HansVonStuttgart (talk) 16:29, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, it would not be OR if the only thing an editor did was to take data directly given in a table from an RS (like the US Census Bureau) and fill in a state or county map based on those numbers, as long as the data is cited in the resulting image file. If the data required some massaging before this transformation could occur, then one is getting into OR. — Masem (t) 16:38, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    but if it is just a visual way to present the data, with no manipulation beyond simple math, then its OR status is no different to using a wikitable or a bar chart/pie chart etc. A picture is worth a thousand words. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 17:00, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Not commenting on this particular example, but I can think of lots of ways you can intentionally or unintentionally mislead people by converting numbers into bar charts/pie charts.Scribolt (talk) 17:26, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    True, but I think that would be a POV or
    WP:FRINGE issue. The POV-weight of an image is maybe the same as a paragraph? HansVonStuttgart (talk) 18:15, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Well. If the data itself has been uploaded to wikidata and then has been tabulated or converted, that seems to me to be a different thing. Here we have a map which we are told has been produced using the data. But there's no simple way of going back and forth to the datapoints, so I'm not sure how we tell if there has been manipulation. Which, one could argue, is part of the point of the
    WP:V guidelines. JMWt (talk) 17:34, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    The raw source, Summary File 1, is here [1] and it's description implies that the raw data supports direct, no OR translation to the US county map. — Masem (t) 17:55, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok so can you link to to the table where we can see the data presented without any manipulation or scraping needed? I've looked and I don't see it presented in that way, but maybe I'm looking in the wrong place. Knowing that it comes from the census doesn't really help identify and/or check the data has been accurately presented. JMWt (talk) 18:15, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    How do we know that the map itself is free to be copied to Wikipedia? The file says that the data is from the US census so is fine to be uploaded, but does that apply to derivative works based on it? I doubt it. JMWt (talk) 17:31, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As long as the original Census data is used (and referenced) and there is no OR involved, remaking a map like this, where it is just 1-coloring counties that meet a threshold, is not a copyright issue. That would all be PD. — Masem (t) 17:52, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Its going to depend on the exact context, sometimes the answer is going to be yes and sometimes its going to be no. The key is if any original interpretation or analysis is required to turn the data into the map (or vice versa). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:38, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It is OR. The Census does not have a list of counties with fewer than 25 blacks. The only value in this type of map is if someone has used it to explain a position in a reliable source. TFD (talk) 17:58, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Off the top of my head, there are several counties with a population of something like fifty or sixty, so I would say that this map makes some misleading implications and is a bad illustration, whether or not it falls under our definition of original research. jp×g🗯️ 02:41, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Not OR provided that the data (assuming it is reliable) can be transparently mapped to the er, map. Selfstudier (talk) 18:19, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Selecting some arbitrary data cutoff not present in the source, to demonstrate a point not mentioned in the source, is blatant OR. JoelleJay (talk) 02:15, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The raw data point that certain counties have fewer than 25 black residents is of negligible value. In California, where I live,
    Alpine County has 1,204 residents. Nobody should be surprised that an isolated, rural county high in the Sierra Nevada mountains with a tiny population has fewer than 25 black residents. What matters is the total percentage of black residents per county, not the raw number of black residents per county. Any map structured in this deeply flawed way will inherently place disproportionate emphasis on lightly populated rural counties outside the areas where black people have historically resided. The granularity of black population statistics in states like Idaho and Montana is completely lost. What encyclopedic value does it bring to learn that Esmeralda County, Nevada, which has 829 residents, also has less than 25 black residents? None. Cullen328 (talk) 04:40, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    After checking the two possible statistical tables that could have been used to create the map, the first thing I noticed is some counties that are highlighted in yellow are in fact missing from the tables. Examples include, but are not limited to

    Kusilvak Census Area (02158). I also noticed the same thing regarding the other map (used in the African Americans article) which shows some 30 counties as having less than 2% when in fact they are not mentioned in the source. Is there something slightly wrong with these maps or am I missing something obvious? M.Bitton (talk) 02:12, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    Missing data possibly? In which case this could be another reason to delete the file. JMWt (talk) 10:03, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Simply taking data from a reliable source and presenting it in graphical form is not OR. However, guessing extra data that is not in the source (as M.Bitton suggests) would definitely be OR. There are other arguments that might be brought against the map, for example whether the choice of 25 as a cutoff gives a fair impression, but that's an NPOV issue, not an OR issue. Zerotalk 03:02, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I would note that this image is located in Commons which does allow both OR and NPOV content. MKFI (talk) 15:16, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think I found a way of presenting what the problematic map is trying to highlight without choosing a random cut-off point. The counties that I mentioned previously as missing are in fact those with no Black population. I missed an important note (Population Greater Than Zero) while scrapping the tables. What this means is that we can use "zero" instead of an arbitrary number like 25. Obviously, I'm not suggesting the creation of a similar map, as I don't see the point of it, but there is nothing stopping us from creating a map for the 2020 census (to complement this one), but for the Black alone population (I noticed that they released two maps for the 2010 census, one for the "Black Americans (alone)" and the other for the "Black Americans (alone or in combination)").
    Here's the finished map. Please let me know what you think and whether anything needs changing (I have no issue with removing the zero if some editor object to it). M.Bitton (talk) 14:18, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    My issue here is whether all of these counties have full coverage by the census authorities or whether the 0 is actually lack of data. Do you know? It feels important when the map is being used to make a point on a page. JMWt (talk) 08:24, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I can confirm that all of these counties have full coverage by the census authorities. Here's the link to the official source that was used. M.Bitton (talk) 00:04, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Plural in "Foot (unit)"

    At the Foot (unit) talk page in the thread "Plural : feet" there is disagreement, when describing the proper usage of the plural (fee), whether it is necessary to cite a reliable source that is specifically about word usage, such as a dictionary or style guide, or whether citing several reliable sources that just use the word "feet" in a certain context is good enough.

    The suggestion from several IP addresses seems to be that a statement could be put in the article that an exchange such as

    Q: "How tall are you?
    A: "Six foot."

    is common usage. Such a statement would only need examples from a few reliable sources that are merely using such language, without evaluating it the way a dictionary or style guide would. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jc3s5h (talkcontribs) 23:35, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    @
    WP:RFC although I wouldn't advise that for a couple of IPs with no sources. I don't know, but I can tell you that {{convert
    }} has a unit to allow plural foot due to popular demand from people brought up where that is said to be common.
    • {{convert|12|ft}} → 12 feet (3.7 m)
    • {{convert|12|foot}} → 12 foot (3.7 m)
    Johnuniq (talk) 07:01, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    My perception is that both plurals are in use. If I had to guess, I would say it was more common to use foot for low number plurals and feet for larger number plurals. But it might also be different norms in different kinds of English. JMWt (talk) 07:23, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Using “foot” in the plural may be common, but it is colloquial usage… almost slang. Blueboar (talk)

    Seems like the consensus is that "foot" is indeed a commonly-used alternative plural - the fact that some editors consider it "colloquial" or "incorrect" isn't really relevant. Wikipedia should just describe things as they are, rather than as some editors would like them to be. All we're discussing is whether the article should list "foot" as an alternative plural to "feet" in common English usage, not that its the primary plural or anything. I see no valid reason to suppress this information. I would also note that its not common practice for demarcation of plurals to require citations at all. There's no citation in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sheep explaining that the plural of sheep is sheep for example, and that was just the first page I checked. 2.222.13.214 (talk) 10:12, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I take a different position on this. When someone says "six foot" they are not using "foot" as the plural of "foot". Rather, they are using the singular form in a common exception to the rules of grammar. Note how it is similar to "a six foot man"; one never hears of "a six feet man". We also hear of someone taking a "two mile run", which isn't a use of "mile" as a plural of "mile". In short, no evidence is provided here that "foot" is ever used as the plural of "foot". Zerotalk 23:31, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    you're confusing two different things. Yes it's common to use the singular rather than the plural when forming a portmanteau adjective. But that's not what we're talking about. We're discussing the fact that 'foot' is commonly used *as the plural* in place of 'feet' in phrases like 'six foot of rope' or 'he was standing twenty foot away', and 'my girlfriend is only five foot'. None of these are phrases where you'd use the singular, just pick a different unit and repeat the phrases and see for yourself. 2A02:C7C:7483:CE00:ED55:A559:F64B:B65F (talk) 22:58, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    For encyclopedic (ie formal) writing: “He stood twenty foot away” is simply incorrect. I would also say that writing: “Mrs Smith was only five foot tall” is incorrect. However, I am less sure when it comes to writing: “Joe, at six foot eight, was the tallest member of his basketball team”. Blueboar (talk) 23:14, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The "foot" in "a six-foot-three guy" or "a twelve-foot ladder" is a little more like an adjective. It is like the "horse" in "a one-horse town" -- you would not say somewhere was a "two-horses town". All of this crap notwithstanding, is this really an original-research issue? jp×g🗯️ 02:44, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Summarizing award nominations/wins for notable award events

    This is coming from

    WP:ITNC but likely should be considered across the board. At articles like 77th British Academy Film Awards, 96th Academy Awards or 75th Primetime Emmy Awards (among many others), there is typically a section named Statistics or similar where the total number of nominations and wins by a work or other body (such as networks with the Emmys) are listed. Two possible SYNTH problems have been identified with these.
    First, whether these lists being compiled by WP editors based on the nomination lists or winners lists is a violation of SYNTH, or whether that qualifies as a basic CALC. This also leads to the case when editors add in the footnotes as seen on the BAFTA film awards, which, when unsourced, feels like an attempt at SYNTH.
    Second, whether these lists even belong in the articles. I can generally show that for these major awards that there is generally some reliable soruce that has shown interest to identify the most nominated or most winning work (eg for the Oscars, this Variety articles) but these articles usually do not fill out the full list down to those that are nominated or won a minimum of 2 awards. So it still is a question of whether such a full list is appropriate given this lack of completeness in the sourcing.
    It would be a good idea for community input on where the line between inappropriate SYNTH and allowed CALC would be drawn for these cases, since this is a practice reflected across nearly any major award ceremony for any media. — Masem (t) 01:33, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    It's more a matter of
    WP:CALCs. —Bagumba (talk) 02:41, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    @StarkReport wrote in History of Hinduism that:

    In the 16th century, the Mughal Empire was established. Under the Mughals, India experienced a period of relative stability and prosperity. The Mughals were known for their religious tolerance, and they actively patronized the arts and literature. ...

    But after I checked one of the sources:

    • Chua, Amy (2007). Day of Empire: How Hyperpowers Rise to Global Dominance – and Why They Fall. Doubleday. .

    It seems that this is not entirely the case:

    P. 183:
    It is true that Babur, the founder of the Mughal Empire, rode to power on a wave of bloody zealotry. To defeat the great Hindu Rajput kings, whose troops outnumbered his by as many as ten to one, Babur inflamed the passions of his Muslim soldiers by calling his war against the Hindus a jihad, or holy war. To demonstrate his own commitment to Islam, Babur had his entire wine collection poured onto the ground and his wineglasses and flagons smashed before his men. This act of sacrifice is said to have infused his men with religious fervor and brought them victory at the decisive Battle of Khanua. To be sure, it probably helped that Babur's men had firearms while the Rajputs did not. In any event, after days of slaughter, the Rajputs fled the battlefield, leaving Babur triumphant over northern India.

    .

    P. 184
    It was only under Humayun's son Akbar, and his next several successors, that the Mughal dynasty consolidated its power to become one of the greatest empires of the time. Not coincidentally, Akbar and the other kings of the Mughal golden age were among the most religiously and ethnically tolerant rulers in the history of the pre-modern world. Indeed, without this turn to tolerance, it is highly unlikely that the Mughal Empire could have lasted as long as it did, or reached its dazzling heights of cultural grandeur. Conversely, the period of Mughal decline is associated with some of the most brutal episodes of ethnic and religious persecution in India's history.

    .

    P. 185
    Akbar's patronage extended to men of all faiths. Though illiterate himself, he (like his distant relation Khubilai Khan) strove to fill his court with men of arts and learning. Among his courtiers the nine most illustrious were known as the navratna, or nine jewels of the Mughal crown. Four of these "nine jewels" were Hindu.

    .

    P. 186
    To a surprising extent, Akbar did not favor Muslims. In war, he crushed resisting factions with the same brutality whether they subscribed to Hinduism or Islam. He attacked corruption among the Muslim clergy and initiated sweeping reforms equalizing land privileges for holy men of all persuasions. Along with Muslim festivals, he celebrated Diwali, the Hindu festival of lights. Defying orthodox Islamic law, he granted non-Muslims permission to repair their temples and to build new places of worship. He also decreed that Hindus who had been forced to convert to Islam could reconvert without being subject to the death penalty. Most dramat ically, in 1579 Akbar abolished the jiziya, a mandatory tax levied exclusively on non-Muslims.

    .

    P. 189
    In 1658, the Mughal Empire came into the hands of Aurangzeb Alamgir, the third son of Shah Jahan. Aurangzeb became emperor after killing his eldest brother, Dara—whose head he sent on a platter to their dying father. Dara had been an intellectually curious, open-minded scholar with a strong interest in Hinduism, Judaism, Sikhism, and Christianity as well as Islam. As Aurangzeb explained, "The fear of seeing the Muhammadan religion oppressed in India if my brother Dara ascended the throne" was what compelled him to seize power.

    .

    P. 190
    Aurangzeb's Muslim zealotry tore the fragile religious and political unity of the Mughal Empire to pieces. His vicious campaign to eradicate Sikhism—including the destruction of temples and the execution of a revered Sikh holy man (on charges of converting Muslims)—earned the Mughals the hatred of tens of thousands in northern India and paved the way for Sikh militarism.

    TL;DR: According to this source, the Mughals rose and fell with bloodshed caused by the "Muslim zealotry" of their rulers at those times. It was only in the middle period of the empire, during the reign of Akbar (and his several successors), who defied "orthodox Islamic law," that the Mughals became tolerant and experienced a golden age. Akbar embraced all other religions, allowed non-Muslims who had been forced to convert to Islam to return to their religions, abolished jizya, etc. But @StarkReport only wrote in the article that: "In the 16th century, the Mughal Empire was established. Under the Mughals, India experienced a period of relative stability and prosperity. The Mughals were known for their religious tolerance, and they actively patronized the arts and literature." Isn't this gross source misrepresentation and cherrypicking? I haven't checked the rest of his addition, but much, if not all, of the section of the article was replaced for this "neutral" version of his. And a lot of what he has removed seems to be critical of Islam. Isn't this also considered

    WP:CENSORSHIP? — Kaalakaa (talk) 22:22, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    Absolutely not. The article is a general article about
    WP:Balance
    . Consequently, it necessitated adjustment to present the better overall balanced representation.
    This is more suited for the talk page of the article rather than shoving it on WP:ORN. A more constructive approach would involve specifying the information requiring proper sourcing and applying the [citation needed] tag accordingly.
    And read ahead, there was already the content "Aurangzeb in particular was criticized for his policies of religious intolerance towards non-Muslims and destruction of temples" But if you want to write deeply about only the critique, I suggest you create a dedicated article about it. StarkReport (talk) 07:04, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Was Aurangzeb a Mughal ruler or not? Was Babur the founder of Mughal Empire or not? According to the above source that you cited, they ruled with "Muslim zealotry" and engaged in the "slaughter" and "eradication" of non-Muslims. It was only in the middle period of the empire, during the reign of Akbar (and his several successors), who defied "orthodox Islamic law," that the Mughals became tolerant and experienced a golden age. Akbar embraced all other religions, allowed non-Muslims who had been forced to convert to Islam to return to their religions, abolished jizya, etc. But you simply wrote in the article:

    "In the 16th century, the Mughal Empire was established. Under the Mughals, India experienced a period of relative stability and prosperity. The Mughals were known for their religious tolerance, and they actively patronized the arts and literature."

    You don't think that's source misrepresentation,
    WP:BALANCED is here? — Kaalakaa (talk) 09:43, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Kaalakaa, I'm uncertain why neutrality concerns are being raised here since they can probably be better discussed elsewhere. So I'm only going to address the OR issue, specifically the sentence: "The Mughals were known for their religious tolerance, and they actively patronized the arts and literature."
    This sentence doesn't seem to be an appropriate summary of what the source states which, according to p.184 above, is: "Akbar and the other kings of the Mughal golden age were among the most religiously and ethnically tolerant rulers in the history of the pre-modern world." The source is referring to specific rulers during a specific time period, which is the the Mughal golden age during the Mughal rule.
    So to generalize the statement isn't accurate because the source is referring to specific rulers during a specific time period and to better reflect the source, the sentence should read: "The Mughal kings of the golden age were known for their religious tolerance, and they actively patronized the arts and literature." Eucalyptusmint (talk) 17:19, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Is a book published
    WP:HISTRS? also agree that the paragraph is a misrepresentation of the sources. TryKid[dubiousdiscuss] 20:57, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Seems tough to me to claim that the Mughals were known for religious tolerance. I think you'd need a lot of sources and specific references to support this claim. JMWt (talk) 08:18, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm curious to hear opinions on this and similar pages. It seems to me that this is

    WP:SYNTH
    - in the sense that the page is pulling together results from competitions in an era when a "season" meant essentially nothing. Travel was obviously difficult at the time, so what actually happened was local/regional events which happened in the same year. There were champions of multiple championships, but that's still not a "season" as we might think of it today. They likely lived in countries where there were multiple events, elsewhere not so much.

    Is there any value in pages which attempt to put modern language onto sporting events in the past? Is it

    WP:OR given the effort needed to collect the data and knit it into a coherent page? Thanks. JMWt (talk) 08:15, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    My immediate thinking is that, while the content on the article doesn't constitute a season per se, I think the SYNTH concerns might clear up with just a small change in framing: retitle the page to 1888 in women's tennis and replace any language (e.g. the "Summary of season" header) that portrays it as a unitary season. There's certainly plenty of precedent for "[year] in [topic]" articles; I see them most often in arts/entertainment topics (2024 in jazz, 1976 in film, 1998 in video games, etc.) but I think they'd make sense for sports articles as well. ModernDayTrilobite (talkcontribs) 20:21, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I also agree here with @ModernDayTrilobite. Suggestion for changing "season" term in section title - change the section "Season results" to "Tournament results". Not sure about "Summary of season" section, but may be "Rise of Women's International Tennis" Asteramellus (talk) 02:44, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I looked into this further and it seems what's there is correct. It is a series - from 1888-1912 it's called Tennis Season - signifying the growth of tennis at international level. So, there are some other similar pages in that series. So, don't think any changes are needed. Asteramellus (talk) 12:10, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply
    ]
    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",[1] and the source's third use of the words also does not endorse the idea. Llll5032 (talk) 06:02, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]

    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.

    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)[reply
    ]

    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)[reply]

    Need input on whether a certain argument contains OR

    There is currently a discussion

    OR. They naturally disagree with my assessment. We would appreciate any input from third parties on this question. Brusquedandelion (talk) 17:10, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    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.”[2]

    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.[3] Plato in the Republic discusses a "healthy state" of simplicity as "a city for pigs" (Greek: huōn polis).[4]

    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 (talkcontribs) 19:57, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    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 20:12, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @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)[reply]
    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 20:27, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    @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)[reply]
    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 20:42, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @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)[reply]
    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 21:07, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @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)[reply]
    There'd be no OR claims that I can see, but it'd still help to have a secondary source establish
    DUEness. Remsense 21:51, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    @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)[reply]
    Well, let's say (to be symmetrical with your comparison above) that the article is
    WP:DUEness. Remsense 22:51, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    @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)[reply]
    @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)[reply]
    Primary sources can be reliable. Is someone saying they can’t? Blueboar (talk) 20:27, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @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)[reply]