On 12/18/06, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton(a)gmail.com> wrote:
I was speaking
to the particular example given, where there are two
popular positions on the subject held by lay people, while all expert
accounts support only one of those positions. In this context, where
all experts who have written on the subject have agreed with the same
position, surely it is not original research to say so.
It would be easiest in this case just to state it as fact and cite the
sources you've found.
"While some members of the public believe X [cite], legally, Y is
correct [cite][cite][cite]."
You are allowed to assume that your sources are correct, as long as
they appear reliable (something published in a law journal counts as
reliable). That's why we cite sources, so in the event that the source
is wrong it is clear who is at fault, and we can't be charged with
libel, or whatever else the consequences of false information may be.
No, the law is much trickier and more gray than that, and Wikipedia
editors need to get out of the notion that they can use original
research to outline arguments and pontificate about what the "true
facts" are. As well, we really have no idea what people believe, we
only know what they say and do. Thus, you can state,
"A number of authors have stated X[cite][cite], while legal scholars
have stated Y[cite][cite][cite]", but that's as far as we can go, and
indeed, as far as we need to go. It makes the point equally well
without the smell of argumentative POV-pushing.
Jay.