zero 0000 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?
That sort of conclusion about the consensus is sensible, and I don't see how it could possibly be contrary to original research guidelines. How you handle opinion B is more tricky. You began by saying it was "popular"; there must have been some basis for saying that so the popularity needs to be dealt with.
Ec