On 12/17/06, Daniel P. B. Smith <wikipedia2006(a)dpbsmith.com> wrote:
From: zero
0000 <nought_0000(a)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.