Wikipedia:No original research/proposed wp-syn major reversion

Intro to proposed major reversion of WP:SYN
The following text is a proposed major reversion of WP:SYN policy. After recent attempts to rewrite Wikipedia OR editorial policy so that it might start to deal not only with the accuracy and verifiability of 'written statements' but so that it might also attempt to deal with whether or not any 'unwritten implications' of any text might be accurate, serious difficulties in attaining a true consensus on whether or not this recent policy change is truly enforceable, or even rational have arisen. This proposed major reversion is based on the last version of WP:SYN that did not have the word imply incorporated into it. This last version is dated June 21st, 2009 01:56, and was written by SlimVirgin. That version is also the first version of this article. Though not explicit, this June 21st version appears to be dealing only with unsupported written conclusions and not with unstated implications. The proposal is that WP:SYN be reverted to this version, but possibly with some minor clarifications added to this version, as to whether or not this policy applies at all to unstated implications.

To take part in the ongoing discussion about this proposed major reversion, please visit WP:NOR-WP:SYN talk. If you might personally feel you might have some revisions you'd like to make to this proposed major reversion, you may make your proposed revisions here. Once some form of consensus is reached regarding this major reversion, it will be copied as the new WP:SYN.

Original definition of 'Original Research' by Jimbo Wales
Here is the original version of WP:NOR policy from December 21st, 2003. It is simply a direct quote by Jimbo Wales:

If your viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts.

If your viewpoint is held by a significant scientific minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents, and the article should certainly address the controversy without taking sides.

If your viewpoint is held by an extremely small minority, then whether it's true or not, whether you can prove it or not, it doesn't belong in Wikipedia, except perhaps in some ancilliary article. Wikipedia is not the place for original research.

Please attempt to assure that any edits to the June 21st version of WP:SYN fall within this guideline.

Synthesis of published material that advances a position
Do not put together information from multiple sources to reach a conclusion that is not stated explicitly by any of the sources.

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 reach conclusion C. This would be a synthesis of published material that advances a new position, and that constitutes original research. "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published the same argument in relation to the topic of the article.

The following example is based on an actual Wikipedia article about a dispute between two authors, here called Smith and Jones.

"Smith claimed that Jones committed plagiarism by copying references from another author's book. Jones responded that it is acceptable scholarly practice to use other people's books to find new references."

Now comes the original synthesis:

"If Jones did not consult the original sources, this would be contrary to the practice recommended in the Harvard Writing with Sources manual, which requires citation of the source actually consulted. The Harvard manual does not call violating this rule 'plagiarism'. Instead, plagiarism is defined as using a source's information, ideas, words, or structure without citing them."

The first paragraph was properly sourced. The second paragraph was original research because it expressed the editor's opinion that, given the Harvard manual's definition of plagiarism, Jones did not commit it. To make the second paragraph consistent with this policy, a reliable source would be needed that specifically comments on the Smith and Jones dispute and makes the same point about the Harvard manual and plagiarism. In other words, that precise analysis must have been published by a reliable source in relation to the topic before it can be published in Wikipedia by a contributor.

Summarizing or rephrasing source material without changing its meaning is not synthesis &mdash; it is good editing. Best practice is to write Wikipedia articles by taking material from different reliable sources on the topic and putting those claims on the page in your own words, with each claim attributable to a source that explicitly makes that claim.