Wikipedia talk:No original research

Synthesis by juxtaposition

A discussion here has introduced the concept of synthesis by juxtaposition. As I understand it, this says that juxtaposing two assertions so that they relate contextually in an article implies a need for the relationship between the assertions to be shown in a reliable secondary source. In the exampled case, an assertion supported by a Primary source was inserted closely juxtaposed with an existing assertion supported by a Secondary source, and its introduction is being opposed on SYNTH grounds — asserting that its insertion implies an unsupported argument about the relationship between the two-separate cite-supported snippets. In fairness, I'm the editor who introduced the objected-to snippet with Primary source support. I can see the point of the objection (which I've tried to describe neutrally here) as well as the point of a counter-argument made by another editor for allowing the information, thereby allowing WP Readers to judge and follow up for themselves if they wish.

I wonder whether editors here focused-in on OR policy might care to comment either here or in the exampled discussion. It does seem to me that if this opposition to the introduction of supported material has merit, it should be supported by some explicit statement of policy, and that perhaps SYNTH, here, should be extended to make an appropriate explicit statement. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 08:05, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Certainly looked like synthesis to me. And even more importantly the primary source did not have anything saying it was in any way directly related to the topic of the article. One would really need a source referring to it in the context of the topic and then say what the secondary source said it said. Dmcq (talk) 09:32, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. what's clearly happening is that that whoever added that text was trying to demonstrate a novel point (that someone in the bureaucracy was lying) by introducing evidence for it into wikipedia. It's not even really synthesis - it's actual original research on the part of a wikipedia editor in which the research conclusion is implied rather than stated explicitly. As Dmcq says, there'd need to be some published source actually laying out the steps of this argument - that the conflict between published statements and Hawaii legal code implies an active conspiracy around Obama's bc - and then we could present that argument with proper attribution. --Ludwigs2 19:10, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Juxtposition is an implicit statement of relation between the items. Much of Wikipedia has been written by mild uncontested synthesis, but the is neither mild nor uncontested. North8000 (talk) 10:14, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Given that, and given that SYNTH defines Synthesis and enunciates WP policy regarding same, should not SYNTH cover Synthesis by juxtaposition? Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 11:50, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

That's exactly what it does cover; the example about plagiarism is essentially the same as the issue discussed here about Obama's birth certificate. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:16, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm not trying to make an argument here re the Obama example, I'm trying to make the point that SYNTH could/should cover SbyJ a bit more explicitly than it presently does. See also the discussion at Talk:Natural born citizen#US Constitution - Law of Nations referenced for what appears to be a second example where more explicit information here about SbyJ could be useful. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 12:40, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

PSTS: I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that

The regulars at this page already know that determining whether a source is primary or secondary is not simply a matter of counting up the number of sources, so that when I say something, it's primary, and when Blueboar quotes me, it's secondary, and when SlimVirgin cites him quoting me, it's tertiary, and so forth. Or, worse, when I say something in the newspaper, it's magically secondary from the beginning, so when Blueboar quotes me from the newspaper article, his comment is tertiary, and SlimVirgin's citation is quaternary or something, and we start inventing number-names if someone else refers to SV's statement.

But most of our less-experienced editors probably don't know that, and we don't really explain it all here. We try to hit the basics, but the territory is large, the terrain is bumpy, and we don't cover it all.

I'd like to improve this situation, but after looking over the policy, I'm not sure that this is the page for it, unless we really want PSTS to be half the policy (I don't).

So here's my question: Are there any decent essays or guidelines out there that help folks figure out these details? I wrote WP:Party and person a while ago, but it mostly deals with the sloppy conflation, in which all sources are either secondary–reliable–independent–third-party–good sources or primary–self-published–non-independent–bad sources (the alternate title is WP:Secondary does not mean independent), not really with figuring out how to classify a given document (or a given part of a document, because a document can be primary for its own title, secondary for content summarized from other sources, and tertiary when it quotes a dictionary definition).

What do you think? How can we improve this? WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:25, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

• We could always write an essay on it together? Fifelfoo (talk) 03:37, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

  If we need to, sure, but if someone else has already done that work, then I'd be equally happy to send folks to an existing page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:14, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

  I've occasionally done stuff on History / NOR / RS / PSTS; but, I don't have anything prepackaged for expansion. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:35, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

  I've never seems a good treatment of the issue, which may be because (like many places in policy) it's a an effort to pound a round peg into a square hole. The PST rubric is useful for people doing historical research who need some metric for the validity of different historical claims; It is not so useful for encyclopedia purposes where establishing validity is not the issue. Primary sources are highly desirable in historical research; not so much so here. --Ludwigs2 15:08, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I think an essay (or better yet a guideline) outlining how to appropriately (and inappropriately) use primary sources (including a discussion of situations when they would be considered the best, most reliable sources... and discussion of how to use them without violating WP:NOR) is a great idea. I would love to participate. Blueboar (talk) 16:22, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, there was Wikipedia:Primary_Secondary_and_Tertiary_Sources, which failed as a proposal (for unknown reasons) back in 2009. I think it was later supplanted by the wp:PRIMARY in NOR. We could co-opt that page and rewrite it as needed, but I still think we need to get away from the PST model, which doesn't fit right to our needs. What we want is (a) publishers with a reputation for impartiality and fact-checking (b) authors with a reputation for scholarship and/or a demonstrable knowledge of the topic, and (c) media that reflect established scholarship rather than momentary or idiosyncratic ideas. PST gets in the way of that as much as it helps. --Ludwigs2 17:37, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I would start over... perhaps a good working name would be WP:Using primary sources. (?) Blueboar (talk) 20:37, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I must admit I'm not happy with the primary/secondary/tertiary business as it currently appears. What calling a source a secondary source is needed for is to show something is worthy of inclusion. Calling something a primary source means we shouldn't include anything from it unless a secondary source shows it is relevant, we shouldn't be mining governments statistics and databases for instance. Calling something a tertiary source is simply saying it is too far away from the subject and we should do better. Things like that secondary sources discuss the information without being too involved are qualifications we put in as common attributes of sources that fulfil our purposes but don't actually describe even halfway accurately what happens in practice. What's there at the moment are guidelines to set us on the commonly accepted path but they don't really describe reality very well. As WhatamIdoing says there's a lot more to it than counting the indirections, I'd like to concentrate mainly on the purpose in the policy and leave the usual attributes to a guideline. Dmcq (talk) 20:42, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Maybe just wp:Proper use of sources?

I think if we break down the PST thing, the concepts we're after are as follows:

• We don't like primary sources because the authors (while usually knowledgable) are often trying to argue for new ideas which have not yet gained acceptance. that can be useful for talking about the new idea itself, but can give an unfortunate appearance that the new idea is more accepted than it actually is, which should be avoided.
• We don't like tertiary sources because the people who write them are not usually experts and often just copy off of others, which they may do badly.
• We do like secondary sources because we assume that secondary sources are (a) reasonably knowledgeable on the topic, (b) not trying to advocate a particular position, but rather (c) presenting a more-or-less pre-digested overview of the topic.

That implies to me that we can get rid of the PST language and talk directly about carefully considering what sources are trying to do, as we consider using them. --Ludwigs2 21:09, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I think the other significant reason that we're down on primary sources is that they're very frequently non-independent. Folks say "primary" when they reject a corporate website (as, say, proof of the company's notability), but the real problem is "written and published by the marketing department". WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:01, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I favor getting rid of "the PSTS thing" but I find it disturbing to read that there may be an attitude that secondary sources are somehow noble and free from agendas. It must surely be true that the better secondary sources are not trying to advocate a particular position but to extend that blessing to all secondary sources seems to be incorrect. I don't doubt that there can be many examples given of secondary sources whose authors were careful, prudent, diligent - but the virtue is tied to their being careful, prudent, and diligent, not to their being secondary sources.

The goal surely is to use reliable sources, where "reliable" surely needs to be well-characterized and well-defined. To denigrate primary sources automatically and to elevate secondary sources automatically does not contribute to good characterization nor to good definition. Of course all the PSTS rules acknowledge that sometimes exceptions are possible - but doesn't the fact that there are exceptions reveal that the entire PSTS notion is misguided for Wikipedia? If there are exceptions when primary sources are fully appropriate, for example, what really matters is whatever it is that makes the primary source usable.

Shouldn't the policy discuss that aspect of the suitability of sources and not instead get hopelessly entangled with primary/secondary/tertiary discussions? If an article is discussing, for example, the Periodic Table of the Elements isn't it close to mandatory to refer back to Mendeleev and his first publication, wherein he very much was pushing a new idea which (because it was new) couldn't possibly have "gained acceptance"? Obviously later primary and secondary sources may provide additional useful and informative material. How utterly strange it would be to discuss the Periodic Table and to refer, somewhat obliquely, to "some Russian guy" who first formulated the idea: you have to identify the original proponent and that can easily and properly involve inclusion of material from that primary source. Similarly for Darwin and evolution. Maybe for some aspects of writing about historic topics some editors like the PSTS categorization but Wikipedia policy is for all articles. If a policy fails (in part or entirely) to make sense for some class of article it should not be policy. (A policy statement on policies is clearly needed.) Minasbeede (talk) 04:48, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I think there in particular three things that might need to be covered explicitly (here or in an essay):

• The differences between the WP usage of primary/secondary/tertiary and the usage in the real world. This important because the first association (new) editors have when reading those terms relates to the external use they are familiar with. This can be a constant source for misunderstanding & disagreements (including the formulation of this policy).
• Distinguish between sourcing content and sourcing notability (secondary,tertiary sources are often better to indicate notability).
• As far as the sourcing of content is concerned the quality, accuracy and reputability of a source are almost always more important than its primary/secondary/tertiary nature. If those 3 characteristics are clearly higher for a particular primary or tertiary source than for a competing secondary source, the primary or tertiary one is to be preferred. To give a "typical" example, some (new) scientific resputable is published in some reputable academic journal and later there is an article about that result in some newspaper or general interest journal. Now in this scenario the second article is a secondary source and indeed might (more) be useful for indicating an increased notability (for general oir largers audiences), but the first article despite being the primary source is usually much better suited for sourcing the content of the WP article. Another way to kook at this might be, don't copy typos, clear mistakes or inaccuracies from secondary sources just because they are secondary, but in doubt use primary or teriary sources to correct them.

--Kmhkmh (talk) 09:15, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Your first point (on which I fully agree) makes me think we should name it WP:Wikiprimary and wikisecondary sources, to distinguish it from real-world primary and secondary sources. ;-)

A cute name is likely to undercut the utility, however.

Would you all help out with this? We can start in a sandbox in someone's userspace while try to find the perfect name. I don't mind editors working in my userspace; User:WhatamIdoing/Sandbox 4 is at the disposal of anyone who wants to start it. We can move the page wholesale when we've got a working title for it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:16, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

I think Ludwigs2 got it just about right above. I also think that the PST thing contributes more confusion than it ameliorates. If a rewrite is drafted, one important point currently made re primary sources should probably be extended to all sources -- the project page says, "Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation." Surely that does not mean to imply that interpretation by Wikipedia editors of secondary source material does not require a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. I would restate that as something like, "Interpretation of source supported material requires a reliable source supporting that interpretation." (I would want to footnote that to clarify that WP:V requires that such a source exist, but does not require the citation of the specific source relied upon unless the interpretation is challenged or is presented in the form of a direct quote -- but I do tend to be overly wordy) Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 20:33, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Wp:ver/wp:nor puts too much weight on the primary/secondary/tertiary metric, and is missing two other metrics which relate to ACTUAL reliability on the item that cited them. These would be objectivity and expertise with respect to the item that cited them. The "two birds with one stone" solution would be to add those two metrics to wp:ver/wp:nor, take all 4 (primary/secondary/tertiary, current "RS" criteria, and these two new ones) cumulatively together as the "strength of the cite" and say that the strength of the cite must be commensurate with the nature of the situation (controversial, non-controversial etc.) Sincerely , North8000 (talk) 21:39, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree... Our current WP:PSTS does not address reliability as it relates to P/S/T sources at all, nor does it discuss how P/S/T sources relate to notability (and even Neutrality). Whatever we call some new PST essay/guideline/policy, those should be included.

I would like to make a suggestion: Let's not think of this as a re-write of the current PSTS section... that will raise alarm bells and knee-jerk opposition from those who (mistakenly) think we are in some way out to "weaken the NOR policy"... let's approach it as creating a completely new and separate page to help editors understand all the complexities of using and citing primary, secondary and tertiary sources. Blueboar (talk) 21:57, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Cool. Except wouldn't you say that these other metrics are something in addition to PSTS rather than redefining PSTS? North8000 (talk) 22:18, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Here's some wording which, if added, that would take a baby step in that direction:

Controversial claims require stronger sourcing. Two additional measures of this are the objectivity and expertise of the source with respect to the material which cited it.

Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 22:57, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes—but not here. The need for "heavy" claims to be supported by "strong" sources has basically nothing to do with PSTS issues.

I've been thinking that it would be nice to have an image to illustrate that concept: a tiny 'claim' (a butterfly?) being held up by a weak 'source' (a stick figure person? a fragile-looking architectural column?), next to a huge 'claim' (a globe?) being held up b a strong 'source' (Atlas (mythology)?). WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:29, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes you're right, but since it's not in Wikipedia, it unfortunately isn't "related" to any policy so here's as good of a place as any. And I think that your idea is cool. North8000 (talk) 23:49, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

I've started at User:WhatamIdoing/Sandbox 4. Please feel free to improve it. It's got a long way to go before we sort out a name and move to the Wikipedia space. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:40, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Is this routine calculation per WP:CALC? Second opinion please.

The Sun's winter solstice position first fully crossed into the Milky Way around the year 800 AD.

• I suggest this was not routine WP:CALC and hence required a reference but User:Serendipodous suggests that is was per "You can determine the approximate angular width of the Milky Way. You can determine the speed at which the Sun precesses. You can determine the ecliptic longitude of the Sun at the winter solstice. You know Sun is 0.5° wide. You know the direction the Sun is travelling in. So you can calculate from that when the Sun first entered the Milky Way. Of course, the figure should be rounded, as it can only ever be approximate."
• What do you think? Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 19:38, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

It could be borderline as far as WP:CALC is concerned. I think more importantly it is original research because no secondary source talks about it, it was something they though of and calculated themselves. Dmcq (talk) 21:44, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

• OR as it is making a notability claim. The sun crosses human created lines all the time. Arbitrarily claiming one is significant enough to note is OR. 121.218.43.145 (talk) 21:58, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

It's not only not routine, the specificity of it is a house of cards. By one def, all of the stars that you can see in the sky in the milky way (galaxy) because we are embedded within it. By the other "sky feature" def, it is shaped like a fuzzy, broken up "cloud" that is in lots of places. Suggest requiring a reliable RS cite of it to sort it out. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 00:26, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

• I have to agree with the previous respondents. The first point of my analysis is determining whether it is even true. I looked it up using xephem and 800 seems too early for this cycle (it is not as if it would be the first ever), I get a figure more like 1450 - see [1] - the brown line is xephem's idea of the Milky Way. Of course, that is not rigidly defined, but arguing that those lines are in the wrong place is arguing a matter of interpretation anyway, which is always inherently OR, unless someone (reliable) makes the call. I wouldn't cite xephem as a source either - it has a reputation for very good accuracy and it will base its results on a far more sophisticated model than anything we would call "routine", but I still would not necessarily trust it for events that long ago without an RS to vouch for the integrity of that specific result.
  The basic issue of accuracy is probably irrelevant though - as the others have noted, unless a source can pin down the relevance of this calculation in the first place then any result, correct or not is superfluous since there is no context for its inclusion. If that is forgotten ultimately anything can be used to prove anything else with a simple assertion that it is a relevant factor. Crispmuncher (talk) 00:55, 7 May 2011 (UTC).

The calculation is very relevant to the article it's in, and deals with a very notable concept that's been getting a lot of play. Given that the concept is being bandied about mostly by internet whackos, there won't be an RS on this ever, but it needs to be mentioned. Serendi^podous 04:29, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Re whether internet whackos talking something up indicates that it needs to be mentioned, see WP:DUE. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill)

I suspect the calculation doesn't fall under WP:CALC's "routine" provision. It also, as evidence by Crispmuncher above, apparently fails "provided editors agree that the arithmetic and its application correctly reflect the sources". So I'm 'fraid not. --Icerat (talk) 05:13, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

If your point is that, to a significant degree , people are asserting this, then THAT can become the statement.....more credible and sourcable. Like "These people assert that XYZ is the case" instead of "XYZ is the case" North8000 (talk) 12:29, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the many replies. It seems a consensus was formed of the material being some form of Original Research. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 11:53, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Slightly expand CALC

I can't find it now, but I ran across a talk page discussion yesterday in which an editor actually asserted that our sourcing policies prohibit editors from describing quantitative information, e.g., that if the source says "X is 5 meters high, but Y is only four meters high", then editors were not permitted say "X is taller than Y".

As such a restriction is incredibly silly, could we add a sentence to CALC along the lines of, "Editors may also provide simple descriptions and comparisons of quantitative information, e.g., saying that something is bigger, taller, or heavier."

While we're at it, I wonder if we should also say that editors are permitted to round numbers, e.g., "33%" even if the source actually says 33.124623946%, or even "about one-third" (which is highly desirable when multiple sources provide slightly different numbers: 31.7%, 32.1%, and 34.2% are all "about one-third", and "about one-third" is a more accurate description of the consensus of sources on that point than any single number). WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:31, 12 May 2011 (UTC)