[WikiEN-l] The boundaries of OR

[Daniel P. B. Smith]

> From: zero 0000 <nought_0000 at 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.