[WikiEN-l] The boundaries of OR

Sun Dec 17 20:34:24 UTC 2006

On 12/17/06, Daniel P. B. Smith <wikipedia2006 at dpbsmith.com> wrote:
> > From: zero 0000 <nought_0000 at yahoo.com>
>
> > Now I log into a well-known depository of legal
> > journals and search for this issue.  I get about 20 hits.
> > Then I look at each of these hits (articles published
> > in peer-reviewed law journals) and in all cases the
> > writer gives opinion A.
> >
> > Ok, so now I am itching to write in Wikipedia
> > something like: "The consensus amongst legal
> > scholars is that opinion A is correct"  (or similar),
> > with a footnote stating the evidence.
> >
> > Can I do that?
>
> The point is, _you probably don't need to_. If your opinion is firmly
> founded on facts, there's no need to state it at all. You don't need
> to spell it out for the reader. You can just say "All men are mortal.
> Socrates is a man," and leave it at that.
>
> Sidestep the issue by stating the facts _without_ explicitly stating
> my interpretation. Pick a couple of the best or most-respected
> journals, or the articles that state opinion A in the flattest and
> most succinct way. In the article, put "According to [bigshot author]
> in [leading journal] says 'A is absolutely correct because blah
> blah,' while [distinguished writer] in [respected journal] says
> 'Because of compelling reasons yada yada, A is correct.'"
>
> In the footnote, after citing the sources actually quoted, if you
> think it is important you could add "other sources with similar
> opinions are" and cite and quote a couple more of the best.

Yes, this is a better approach. If one has 20 good sources backing a
view, and in particular if one has no good sources opposing the view,
then it is actually *better* to state these things as simple fact,
with the sources in the footnote, avoiding the original research of
claiming there is a "legal consensus".

Jay.