[WikiEN-l] The boundaries of OR

[jayjg]

On 12/17/06, zero 0000 <nought_0000 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> Here is a scenario that explores the boundaries of
> what counts as Original Reseach.  Suppose there is
> a legal issue about which there are two popular
> opinions, say A and B.
>
> 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?  My sources were the best that exist,
> and everything I did can be verified easily by anyone
> with a good library.  On the other hand, I have drawn
> my own conclusions from these observations so
> maybe I'm afoul of the No Original Research policy.
>
> I tend to think it's ok because the conclusions I drew
> were the same as any reasonable person would draw,
> and these conclusions don't require any private
> information.  I admit it is a boundary case though.
> What do you think?

It's obviously original research. You could certainly state that "A
number of legal scholars have stated that...", with your reference,
but it's not up to you to decide that "legal consensus" is, it's up to
experts in the area.

Jay.