[WikiEN-l] The boundaries of OR

[charles.r.matthews at ntlworld.com]

"Stephen Bain" wrote

> On 12/17/06, zero 0000 <nought_0000 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > 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.
> 
> Of course that's ok. 

I think it's OK, too. We are suppoed to summarise existing knowledge: so NOR shouldn't take away the tool of giving an accurate precis. One can tweak the wording, so that 'most opinions follow that of X in [cite]' is perhaps better than 'consensus'. But I think many practical cases are like this, with a slight change of words helping out the look.

Charles

-----------------------------------------
Email sent from www.ntlworld.com
Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software 
Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information