jayjg wrote:
On 12/17/06, Daniel P. B. Smith wikipedia2006@dpbsmith.com wrote:
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".
It follows from this that this is really a question of proper wording, and not of original research. Two people see the same evidence and draw their conclusions differently. I might still dispute what is meant by a "good" source, but that's a different argument.
It's interesting that this question should arise about law in the light of Brad's comments in the "Office actions" thread. Lawyers' opinions are still just opinions no matter how many of them are given. A single unappealed decision by a low-level judge would be a precedent that could throw all 20 scholarly opinions out the window.
Ec