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.