Wikipedia talk:No original research

Implicit synthesis

"Synthesis of published material" says, "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." (My emphasis.) But there is no explanation of what implicit means or any examples given. In many articles, some editors do not think there is synthesis unless an explicit connection is made. They argue that we leaving it to readers to decide for themselves. For example:

"In a January 2014 profile of controversial political scientist Charles Murray, the SPLC labeled Murray a "white nationalist." Following the disruption of a presentation by Murray at Middlebury College in March 2017, some commentators were critical of the SPLC's description of Murray."

The text implies that the disruption resulted from the SPLC description of Murray as a white nationalist made three years earlier.

I think it would be helpful to expand information about implicit synthesis and would welcome any comments.

TFD (talk) 17:35, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

The text implies nothing of the kind. Of course, nobody can forbid readers "to read between the lines" and "connect the dots" between any two random pieces of info. And there is no way you can prevent readers from "deciding for themselves" in the weirdest ways possible. This is how all conspiracy theories are crafted. On the other hand I do smell a piece of OR in the second sentence: I am pretty much sure that "some commentators" were "critical" way before Middlebury, i.e., the second sentence tries to squeeze a correlation between "disruption" and "were critical" by cherry-picking. And mentioning Middlebury may be WP:UNDUE. And "some commentators" is WP:WEASEL.

By this logic one may disrupt any wikipedia article. Eg. "J. Random Boss was named CFO of Zugenta" "Next year he was convicted for embezzlement" Can one imply that becoming CFO makes you prone to becoming a crook? Some people say so. So what?

Concluding: in this particular case there is to way to nail down the OR without looking into full context. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:58, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

The policy uses the word "imply" in its commonplace meaning, and whether or not a sentence implies something or not may well be subject of disagreement, and especially so if there are incentives for competing interpretations. For example, I think there's enough spurious implication happening in your example to merit a rewrite, though not the kind that you mention (I think it implies that the disruption had affected the judgement of commentators, which is just confusing). The policy is clear that unsourced conclusions should not be implied, and implying means making implicit statements -- again by commonplace English usage. Implicit is not explicit. If there's a dispute about the meaning of these words, it can be resolved using a dictionary. I don't think we need an example for that. As for leaving it to readers to decide whether content violates policy, that just seems silly. By the way, we have an explanatory supplement for synthesis, WP:NOTSYNTH, which I find pretty helpful. Eperoton (talk) 20:20, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

How to describe the Emmett Till case in the lead sentence of the Emmett Till article

Opinions are needed on the following matter: Talk:Emmett Till#RfC: Should we include the "accused of showing an interest in a white woman" aspect in the lead or specifically the lead sentence?. A WP:Permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:08, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

No published source?

Excuse me, but has this been brought up before? Could it be "No Published Source" or something similar, rather than "No Original Research"? Would this help stop endlessly recurring edit wars, simply by calling it by what is required, and not what it isn't? Also, look up 'Original Research'; the first thing you'll find, no lie is, "Original research is considered a primary source". It seems the terms been appropriated a long time ago; who would have the power to adjust thought and usage like that, if they can be made to see why such a change is favorable? It's not just that original research has some other obscure, academic meaning; Wouldn't people object less, really, if it were called "No Published Source", rather than be told they're engaging in research? Verifiability is required, and for that we need verifiable sources, why cloud the issue otherwise? Please start with a yes or no, answering my first question, simple enough. End there, too, if you feel compelled to start reciting rules; I'm just asking if it's been discussed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:6000:A340:AE00:59BB:9D07:49AB:3D2D (talk) 14:42, 5 June 2017 (UTC) Please disregard this inquiry; 'OR' seems to be most firmly entrenched, from a quick review of it and it's accompanying articles, no one will be able to remove it, and have 'verifiability' take it's place, in half the space and not offending anyone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:6000:A340:AE00:59BB:9D07:49AB:3D2D (talk) 19:51, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

==  "No Obscure Reference" to replace "No Original Research" ==
How about replacing "No Original Research" with "No Obscure Reference"? Shortcuts remain the same except WP:ORIGINAL would be replaced with  a slightly shorter, and much clearer and correct, WP:OBSCURE.This term more accurately fits in many ways, as does the term 'Reference', both singly and combined. 
What is objectionable is that rarely is an idea 'original', and to call it such implies the idea is somehow that person's baby, produced by that person and that's why their trying to include it! Obscure immediately 'divorces' the statement from the writer and points out the real problem, that it's somewhat obscure or obscured, difficult to find. 

Research implies unpublished original research of some professional level(college), as if someone were to post their preliminary findings on Wikipedia. Rarely is their any 'research'; references, or the lack thereof, is what should be referred to.

I hope I have explained it well, perhaps some proponent could add something?
I'm asking for a 'consensus', which opens this to debate. What do you think?
 --2604:6000:A340:AE00:D4DB:6BCE:5D23:FBA1 (talk) 06:16, 7 June 2017 (UTC)