User:Phenylalanine/How to apply WP:NOR's "Directly related" principle

Editors should build an article by summarizing the sources available on the topic of the article. Any information added should therefore be based on reliable sources that present this information in direct connection with the article subject. In some cases, supplementary information from generic sources that cover a broader subject area than the specific article topic may be deemed to add value to an article, in order to clarify places, people or things mentioned in the article (WP:PCR). For example, an editor might want to add a detail from a reliable source that describes the historical context in which the subject of an article lived, even though the cited source does not mention the article subject. This is fine as long as it is consistent with WP:SYN and it does not imply a substantial new conclusion that is not present in any of the sources.

Provide context for the reader
The goal of the original research policy is to ensure that sources are used properly within articles, and to that end, the policy has established a set of guiding principles. In applying the "directly related" principle, editors should rely on the guidelines "Provide context for the reader" and "Stay on topic". On-topic information must necessarily be based on sources which refer directly to the article topic, because the sources must support the information as it is presented, in accordance with the original research policy. According to WP:PCR, contextual information may be useful for the reader; and this information may cover a broader subject area than the specific article topic (for example, an article about a historic event or scientific discovery may need to provide a brief historical background). To demonstrate that reliable sources consider this information to be relevant to the subject of the article, the editor should cite reliable sources that refer directly to the article subject. But even if no such sources are available, this information should still be provided for the benefit of the reader as long as it is verifiable.

Do not combine published material to advance a novel conclusion
Even an implicit novel conclusion is a novel conclusion, and synthesizing published material to advance novel conclusions is not permitted. Therefore, if a statement, as it is presented within a Wikipedia article, clearly implies a significant and reasonable conclusion related to the article topic that is not stated (or deliberately implied ) in the sources cited, it constitutes original research. Information presented in a Wikipedia article in a way that clearly suggests an unreasonable conclusion (for example, a false implication) is forbidden by WP:NPOV, and does not concern WP:NOR; neither do trivial or unclear implications. Below are several examples of implicit conclusions resulting from synthesis of published material. All of them represent violations of WP:SYN; they should be resourced, or emended.

Combining related facts and information
Here is another example of a implicit conclusion from the biography of A. N. Other, a journalist and campaigner:

Implicit conclusion:
 * 1) Organisation X, with which A. N. Other was associated, called for a pre-Christmas product boycott. They subsequently claimed on their website that it had a dramatic effect. [properly sourced]
 * 2) In the run-up to Christmas that year, Retailer Z suffered disappointing sales, and its share price dropped. [source mentions sales drop for retailer Z, but does not mention Organisation X, nor the boycott; share price source for Retailer Z does not mention Organisation X or the boycott either]
 * Organisation X's boycott may have had something to do with the drop in sales and subsequent drop in share price of retailer Z. [not in any of the sources]

The conclusion reasonably follows from the premises. The second statement is original research because statements 1 & 2 imply the conclusion. An editor should check if there are sources linking the retailer's disappointing sales and share price drop to Organisation X's boycott. If none can be found, the second statement should be removed from the article.

Contrasting facts about points of view
To determine whether a contrasting point of view included in an article is allowed in accordance with WP:NOR, one must consider whether the source refers to the topic of the article, to the topic of a section (sub-topic) within the article, or even to the topic of a potential article section. If it refers to neither, it is original research. If the source refers to the article topic or to a subtopic within the article, then, within that context, are we simply contrasting two opposing points of view about the subject, or are we advancing a conclusion? If a conclusion is implied, the contrasting point of view is original research; this occurs when the the adversative point of view that is stated is tangential to the article or section topic.

No conclusions
"Primary viewpoint" contrasted with another point of view:

Example: (another example )

Article on Space-time


 * 1) Steven Hawking wrote of black holes evaporating, and used math that assumed that space-time was continuous. [properly sourced]
 * 2) Others, however, say space-time is not continuous. [source does not comment on Hawking or black hole evaporation]

Here, one can see that if space-time is not continuous, as others suggest, then Steven Hawking will need to rethink black holes evaporation. Yet, within the context of the "space-time" article, statement 2 does not serve to advance a point of view.

"If the topic is space-time, then we are contrasting two opposing opinions on space-time (Hawking = continuous, others = not continuous). The mention of black holes is essentially irrelevant (it is merely the context in which Hawking assumed continuousness and has no impact on his opinion that space-time is continuous). It is not OR, within the context of the space-time article to contrast these statements." (User:Blueboar, Wikipedia talk:No original research)

Implicit conclusions
"Underlying, supporting point of view" contrasted with another viewpoint:

Example 1:

The article is about "Jones"


 * 1) Smith says that Jones committed plagiarism by copying references from another book. [properly referenced]
 * 2) According to Academic Citation Manual X, copying references from another book is not plagiarism. [source does not comment on dispute]

Implied conclusion:


 * If Jones copied references from another book, this would not be plagiarism according to Academic Citation Manual X. [not in any of the sources]

This is an example of an implicit novel conclusion that logically follows from the premises (1 & 2). Statement 2 is original synthesis because 1 & 2 imply the conclusion. An editor should check if there are sources mentioning the Academic Citation Manual X's view on plagiarism in connection with the Smith/Jones controversy. If none can be found, statement 2 should be removed from the article.

Example 2: (another example )

Ancillary article related to the LHC, for example Safety of the LHC (Contrasting a mainstream theory with a fringe theory)
 * 1) The majority of scientists do not believe that the LHC will create black holes that are dangerous, primarily because of Hawking radiation. [properly sourced]
 * 2) Theorist A states that Hawking radiation rests on dubious assumptions. [source does not comment on the LHC]

Implied conclusion:


 * If theorist A is correct, the primary safety justification is resting on dubious assumptions.

An editor should find a source mentioning theorist A's point of view in connection with the safety of the LHC. If none can be found, the second statement should be removed.