Wikipedia:No original research/sandbox

Synthesis of published material

Do not combine material from multiple sources (or different parts of one source) to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. This would be improper editorial synthesis of published material to imply a new conclusion, which is original research performed by an editor here.

For example, if one reliable source says A, and another says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources.

Example:

The United Nations' stated objective is to maintain international peace and security, but since its creation there have been 160 wars throughout the world.

Although no conclusion is explicitly drawn and both parts of the sentence may be reliably sourced, they have been combined to imply that the UN has failed to maintain world peace. If no reliable source has combined the material in this way, it is original research. It would be easy to imply the opposite using the same material, illustrating how material can easily be manipulated when the sources are not adhered to:

The United Nations' stated objective is to maintain international peace and security, and since its creation there have been only 160 wars throughout the world.

Similarly, "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.

Example:

The following is a more complex example of original synthesis, based on an actual Wikipedia article about a dispute between two authors, here called Smith and Jones. The first paragraph is fine and properly sourced:

Smith stated 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 second paragraph is original research because it expresses a Wikipedia 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 on Wikipedia.