From: zero 0000 nought_0000@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.
I think you can document my borderline-original-research on the Talk page, saying I found these twenty references or whatever, because I believe it's perfectly OK to present original research on Talk pages in hopes of influencing other editors' behavior.
Don't try to keep opinion B out of the article if it's sourced. If the legal community thinks opinion B is bizarre, though, by all means find someone who says so and cite and quote them.
For a recent concrete example... so recent that my success or failure isn't clear yet... although looking at my interactions with another editor I think it's going to stick...
in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Love_bombing I had written "The term was popularized by the controversial psychiatrist Margaret Singer." An editor objected to the word "controversial."
So, I changed the sentence to "The term was popularized by the clinical psychologist Margaret Singer, who has become closely identified with the love-bombing-as-brainwashing point of view."
And I added a source citation, and a quotation, in a footnote, reading, ""One particular California psychologist, Margaret Singer, has been involved in offering testimony supporting cult brainwashing theories in over 40 such cases.... Such testimony, even though apparently effective, has drawn the ire of some scholar studying newer religions. These scholars claimed that such testimony should be disallowed because itdoes not represent a consensus position of scholars in the relevant fields of study, and it disregards considerable evidence that participation is virtually always a volitional act."
You see the point? Is Singer "controversial?" Instead of drawing that conclusion for the reader, I briefly state a fact which explains why she _might_ be controversial, and back it up with a source citation and a quote so that anyone can judge whether my brief statement is a fair statement of the gist of the source.
On 12/17/06, Daniel P. B. Smith wikipedia2006@dpbsmith.com wrote:
From: zero 0000 nought_0000@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.
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
Daniel P. B. Smith wrote:
From: zero 0000 nought_0000@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.
I think you can document my borderline-original-research on the Talk page, saying I found these twenty references or whatever, because I believe it's perfectly OK to present original research on Talk pages in hopes of influencing other editors' behavior.
Don't try to keep opinion B out of the article if it's sourced. If the legal community thinks opinion B is bizarre, though, by all means find someone who says so and cite and quote them.
For a recent concrete example... so recent that my success or failure isn't clear yet... although looking at my interactions with another editor I think it's going to stick...
in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Love_bombing I had written "The term was popularized by the controversial psychiatrist Margaret Singer." An editor objected to the word "controversial."
So, I changed the sentence to "The term was popularized by the clinical psychologist Margaret Singer, who has become closely identified with the love-bombing-as-brainwashing point of view."
And I added a source citation, and a quotation, in a footnote, reading, ""One particular California psychologist, Margaret Singer, has been involved in offering testimony supporting cult brainwashing theories in over 40 such cases.... Such testimony, even though apparently effective, has drawn the ire of some scholar studying newer religions. These scholars claimed that such testimony should be disallowed because itdoes not represent a consensus position of scholars in the relevant fields of study, and it disregards considerable evidence that participation is virtually always a volitional act."
You see the point? Is Singer "controversial?" Instead of drawing that conclusion for the reader, I briefly state a fact which explains why she _might_ be controversial, and back it up with a source citation and a quote so that anyone can judge whether my brief statement is a fair statement of the gist of the source.
My objection to the word "controversial" is that it is gratuitously argumentative. To say that a person is controversial is a characterization. The quotation strongly suggests that the issue, but not necessarily the person, is controversial.
You may also want to check the quote where it says "has drawn the ire of some scholar studying newer religions". The singular "some scholar" carries a tone of disdain that is not there with the plural. If the author really did use the singular then adding "(sic!)" after the word would be appropriate.
Ec