User:Vincentvikram/Always keep context in mind when arguing claims

Contextualisation is a complex skill requiring a synthesis of foreground and background concepts.^[1] The UMBC rubric defines an ideal contextualisation as, Applies prior and new knowledge to determine the historical setting of sources. Uses that setting to interpret the sources within the historical context, as opposed to a present-day mindset.^[1] In the context of Wikipedia, this is not an argument in favour of original research but rather to explicitly state the contexts that are already mentioned in the reliable sources.

WP:SYNTH says that if you have source S1 making claim C1 and S2 saying C2, just state C1 and C2 instead of synthesising C1 and C2 to give C3 which is not explicitly stated in either S1 or S2. This essay fine tunes WP:SYNTH by dealing with an issue of faulty generalization of claims. Specifically, if a series of claims {C₁,C₂,C₃,..} are made based on WP:RS, we would have to carefully observe the specific contexts {c₁,c₂,c₃,..} of those claims and explicitly state those contexts. It is possible that though there might be overlapping of claims and contexts there should be no generalisation of C_N, as an extension of non-statistical samples.

The examples mentioned herein are only cases and not necessarily extendable to all contexts. Feel free to add more appropriate examples.

Who is an activist? What is activism? There are a variety of definitions for activism, including from Merriam-Webster: "a doctrine or practice that emphasizes direct vigorous action especially in support of or opposition to one side of a controversial issue"^[2] and Wiktionary: "The practice of using action to achieve a result, such as political demonstration or a strike in support of or in opposition to an issue."^[3] For activist, the Wiktionary definition includes "One who is politically active in the role of a citizen; especially, one who campaigns for change,"^[4] while Merriam-Webster states, "one who advocates or practices activism : a person who uses or supports strong actions (such as public protests) in support of or opposition to one side of a controversial issue."^[5] Contextualization with the assistance of reliable sources may be necessary to determine whether and how to apply the term 'activist' or 'activism.'

In the article Freedom, the concept is presented as a very western notion. If we were to superimpose that western notion onto other countries it would appear that the other countries were not free by some "gold standard". We would have to ask several questions in order to contextualise. How did the specific notions of freedom develop in each place? Were the countries having large slave populations? Were they totalitarian regimes? Were they under the rule of a foreign nation? When did the women of that place get voting rights? Is the freedom available to all sections of the population irrespective of class, caste, gender, economic conditions? Can the concept have varying and yet valid definitions? Thus, the notion of freedom would have to be contextualised.

Concepts, processes, events...

In the Indian legal system, a set of abstract laws are drafted and promulgated into Acts. Due to conflicts, cases are filed which may eventually reach constitutional courts such as the High Court or Supreme Court for adjudication. Based on the arguments made by opposing parties and based upon a specific context, these courts carve out a niche in the case law. However, disputes around the same law may arise in other contexts and parties may argue why they fit or do not fit into a previous ruling and thus the Courts may further carve out newer interpretations. Thus, reporting of the context of the case while citing the relief is important.

There is a tendency to equate Marxism-Leninism to implementations by the erstwhile Soviet Union or other failed States while arguing against Marxism-Leninism. This is a logical fallacy attributable to biased generalisation.

Marxism-Leninism is the term used by those who adhere to Marxism and Leninism, with different applications and interpretations being developed over time and place. An illustration to show that Marxism-Leninism is not a single solid block of theory might be the political disputes during the Cultural Revolution (1966-1976) that would eventually lead to an outcome, i.e., the reform and opening up (1978-today). What was described by Alessandro Russo as "the 'final battle' between great adversaries" was a dispute between "Deng Xiaoping and his allies" and the Maoists, that occurred during the "decisive biennium" of 1975-1976.^[6] Those who were allied with Mao as well as those who supported Deng Xiaoping were both Marxist-Leninists,^[6] although one interpretation of Marxism and Leninism was labeled Maoism, and the other Deng Xiaoping Theory, both Chinese varities of Marxism-Leninism.

Different eponymous interpretations of Marxism and Leninism include, for example Xi Jinping Thought (China), Fidelism (Cuba), Guevarism (Cuba), Ho Chi Minh Thought (Vietnam), Stalinism (USSR), Khrushchevism (USSR), Brezhnevism (USSR), Hoxhaism (Albania), Titoism (Yugoslavia). There are several other interpretations of Marxism-Leninism that don't have a specific eponymous name. Another example to illustrate how political parties professing Marxism-Leninism widely interpret a context and identify solutions to the problems they collectively perceive may be observed from India. Parties such as the Communist Party of India (Maoist) are banned in India as they call for the overthrow of the Indian state by violent means while others such as the Communist Party of India (Marxist) have formed successive coalition governments in states of Kerala, West Bengal and Tripura under the very same Constitution.

These examples, while having certain overlapping ideas, developed in very specific conditions and hence are context critical.

Holy battles!

The following discussion is taken from here. The explanations by Aquillion are illuminating:

• Problem: As an example, I've found several reliable sources which claim that Japan's birth rate in 2019 was its lowest in history.^[7][8][9] However, this claim is completely false, Japan's birth rate has actually increased since 2005.^[10][11]
• Question: Should there be any dicussion as to whether this source is still as reliable, given that it has promoted false claims? Prins van Oranje 18:36, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

• Solutions/Explanations:

You would state that there are contrary claims and cite both of them. Vikram Vincent 18:44, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

This is sometimes the right answer, but I would be cautious about doing so with statistics unless there's a source specifically stating they contradict or the contradiction is extremely, extremely obvious. Statistics are complex and it's entirely possible for sources to differ due to eg. methodology or other details; outright framing a source as contradicted by another has to be done carefully. --Aquillion (talk) 21:46, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

The provided World Bank website shows that the "Birth rate, crude (per 1,000 people)" in Japan has been steadily declining: between 1960 and 2018, the birth rate was at its lowest in 2018. How exactly does this show that the sources are making false claims? — Newslinger talk 07:45, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

There are several options. First, check to see if the source has issued a retraction or correction. Second, weigh the reputations of competing sources, as well as the date of publication and whether there are sources directly stating that another source is mistaken (I would be far more cautious about playing up a contradiction merely spotted by an editor; sometimes, especially with statistics, there are valid reasons why two sources could legitimately reach results that seem to differ.) Regardless, try to assemble the most recent highest-quality sources, and based around what the bulk of them says, decide if you're going to cover both, how you'll do so if you do, or if eg. there's just a single source out of line that can be dismissed as a simple error. In any case, generally speaking one error isn't enough to throw a source as a whole into doubt, especially if it's relatively minor and not part of a pattern. --Aquillion (talk) 21:46, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

(Follow up from here) ideally it's best to cite secondary sources covering statistical studies (ones that can provide interpretation and analysis to say what the numbers mean, taking methodology, context, any limitations of the study, etc. into account) rather than citing primary sources of statistical data directly, for much the same reasons. --Aquillion (talk) 04:13, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Ask yourself the following questions:

• Parameters to accord WP:DUE
  • Author bias and background
    • Parameters to identify bias of author of secondary sources: Who wrote the text? Why? When? Where?^[12]
    • Funding
    • Affiliation
    • Their publicly stated position on a topic
    • Assumptions - explicit vs implicit
    • Data

• The Decline of Historical Thinking
• Historical Thinking Standards
• Virginia Tech | Historical Inquiry | SCIM-C
• Historical Research Capabilities

• Historical thinking