Wikipedia

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

< User:Phenylalanine

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[1] and it does not imply a substantial new conclusion that is not present in any of the sources.

Provide context for the reader

edit

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

edit

"Editors should not make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article to come to the conclusion C. This would be a synthesis of published material which advances a new position, which constitutes original research. "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published this same argument in relation to the topic of the article." (WP:SYN)

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[2] and reasonable[3] conclusion related to the article topic that is not stated (or deliberately implied[4]) in the sources cited, it constitutes original research.[5] 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.[6] 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.

edit

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

  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]

Implicit conclusion:

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.[3] 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

edit

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.[7][8]

No conclusions

edit

"Primary viewpoint" contrasted with another point of view:[9]

Example: (another example[10])

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

edit

"Underlying, supporting point of view" contrasted with another viewpoint:[11]

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[12])

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.

See also

edit

Notes

edit
  1. ^ For guidelines on how to apply the synthesis rule, see Wikipedia:These are not original research#Obvious deductions and Wikipedia:Attribution#What is not original research?
  2. ^ Examples of significant conclusions include conclusions which pertain to the outcome or success of actions, and conclusions which logically extend the scope of a relevant point of view.
  3. ^ a b A "reasonable" conclusion is one that either:
    • is logically valid, if it follows from the premises in all possible worlds (e.g. "Smith & Jones" example), or
    • can be reasonably inferred based on what is known about the situation at hand (e.g. "A. N. Other" example).
  4. ^ Information that is intended to suggest a conclusion in the literature may be presented as suggesting a conclusion within a Wikipedia article. In practice, this means that the information must be provided in the same source, and must be presented by the source author(s) in a way that clearly indicates a deliberate conclusion. Otherwise, an editor is engaging in original research by attempting to present information in an article in a way that serves to suggest a conclusion that was not deliberately suggested within the literature.
  5. ^ Novel implicit conclusions may follow from statements that are based on off-topic sources (i.e. sources which do not refer to the topic of the article) as well as on-topic sources (i.e. sources which do refer to the article topic).
  6. ^ For example:
    1. "A" says that "X" is true because "Y" is true. [properly sourced]
    2. "B" states that "Z" (implies non-"Y") is true. [source ignores "A"’s belief]
    The second statement implies that conclusion "X" may not be sound. However, unless we are referring to plain facts, any theory may turn out to be wrong, so that is an irrelevant conclusion. If "Z" is a mainstream view and "Y" is a minority view, one might conclude that "Y" is more likely to be false than "Z", but whether this is clearly and reasonably implied is debatable.
  7. ^ I suspect many would argue that in order to uphold the neutral point of view, an article about a fringe theory needs to contrast it with the mainstream theory, even if the sources for the mainstream theory ignore the fringe theory and, thus, do not refer to the article topic. If we follow this logic, WP:NPOV would also require that we contrast majority views with minority perspectives (with due weight, within the proper articles), whether or not the sources refer to the article topic. However, in practice, based on my experience, this principle is usually applied in very specific cases, and avoided in other cases, for example:
    • If belief "A" (a primary point of view presented within a Wikipedia article) is based on a number of arguments, including belief "B" (an underlying, supporting point of view outlined in the article), a point of view which provides context for "B" is relevant to "A". It seems that it is generally considered inappropriate to compare/contrast a point of view with "B" in an article on "A" if the source cited does not directly relate that viewpoint (compared/contrasted with "B") to belief "A" (especially if a mainstream view is contrasted against a minority view). This practice is perfectly in line with the general principle and guidelines described in this section.
  8. ^ See User:Blueboar's insightful comments on this matter
  9. ^ Logical form:
    1. "A" says that "X is true". (All As are Cs)
    2. "B" states that "Z is true". (All Bs are Ds)
    3. "Z is true" and "X is true" is a contradiction. (No Cs are Ds; No Ds are Cs)
    4. No conclusion
  10. ^ Example 2:
    Article on theorist X
    1. Theorist X states that the LHC will create dangerous black holes because... [properly referenced]
    2. The majority of scientists do not believe that the LHC will create dangerous black holes. [source does not comment on theorist X or on his/her theory]
    No conclusion
  11. ^ Logical form:
    1. "A" states that "X is true because Y is true".
    2. "B" states that "Z is true".
    3. If "Z is true", "X is true because Y is true" is false.
    4. Therefore, "B" would not agree that "X is true because Y is true".
  12. ^ Example 3:
    Article on micro black holes (Contrasting fringe theory with a mainstream theory)
    1. Theorist X states that the LHC will create dangerous black holes because black holes possess property Y. [properly sourced]
    2. The majority of scientists believe that black holes possess property Z (not Y). [source does not comment on theorist X or the LHC]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Phenylalanine/How_to_apply_WP:NOR%27s_%22Directly_related%22_principle&oldid=271000131"