In a message dated 4/23/2009 7:14:17 PM Pacific Daylight Time, oldakquill@gmail.com writes:
At the time, the basis of identifying him was putting known facts about the pseudonymous author (date of imprisonment, French Foreign Legion membership), against an old newspaper article containing similar details about a named man who had committed a crime. Since no independent connection had been made between the pseudonym and his legal name, it did constitute original research. It is only now that Erwin James has identified himself in a national newspaper that it no longer constitutes original research.>>
--------------------------
Using sources to establish things of this sort, is not the creation of a source. Original research involves the creation of a source, not already present.
Connecting the dots, using sources, *can be* but is not necessarily original research.
From the way you described this so far, I do not see how this could be
considered original research. He has already opened the door by establishing facts about himself in a secondary source, and therefore, we can use primary sources to back up or clarify those secondary mentions.
That is the nature of source-based research using primary sources. If we were to establish something like this as original research, that would essentially prevent the use of primary sources entirely. We deliberately crafted the OR policy to allow the use of observation in primary sources.
There is no analysis being done here. Merely placing two known facts side-by-side and stating that they are the same fact. That is not analysis.
We do not need a source to say the Sun is hot. Everybody can observe that for themselves. Just as anyone can read an old newspaper themselves without the need for something to explain the connection to them.
Will
**************Big savings on Dell XPS Laptops and Desktops! (http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1219799634x1201361008/aol?redir=http... eclick.net%2Fclk%3B214133440%3B36002254%3Bj)
2009/4/24 WJhonson@aol.com:
In a message dated 4/23/2009 7:14:17 PM Pacific Daylight Time, oldakquill@gmail.com writes:
At the time, the basis of identifying him was putting known facts about the pseudonymous author (date of imprisonment, French Foreign Legion membership), against an old newspaper article containing similar details about a named man who had committed a crime. Since no independent connection had been made between the pseudonym and his legal name, it did constitute original research. It is only now that Erwin James has identified himself in a national newspaper that it no longer constitutes original research.>>
Using sources to establish things of this sort, is not the creation of a source. Original research involves the creation of a source, not already present.
Connecting the dots, using sources, *can be* but is not necessarily original research. From the way you described this so far, I do not see how this could be considered original research. He has already opened the door by establishing facts about himself in a secondary source, and therefore, we can use primary sources to back up or clarify those secondary mentions.
That is the nature of source-based research using primary sources. If we were to establish something like this as original research, that would essentially prevent the use of primary sources entirely. We deliberately crafted the OR policy to allow the use of observation in primary sources.
There is no analysis being done here. Merely placing two known facts side-by-side and stating that they are the same fact. That is not analysis.
We do not need a source to say the Sun is hot. Everybody can observe that for themselves. Just as anyone can read an old newspaper themselves without the need for something to explain the connection to them.
I generally agree with your point, in this case. In this case, however, two self-identified facts about the pseudonymous author were used to discover his identity: his year of imprisonment and his membership of the French Foreign Legion. Using these two facts, newspaper articles for that year were looked at for someone who had been imprisoned and who was a member of the French Foreign Legion. On the basis of an article which did match these terms, the pseudonymous author was identified as the person detailed in an old newspaper article. What if there had been more than one person imprisoned that year who had been a member of the French Foreign Legion? This is not inconceivable, since many people are imprisoned every year, and it is possible that they may have been members of the Legion. If so, what if the person identified was the wrong person? If the wrong person had been identified, what you claim to be valid research would have produced incorrect claims.
I agree that it is not original research to out someone. It is not prudent, though. My pseudonyms do not ask anybody to believe that I am posting under my given and family names. Someone might ask why, and I will tell them that I do not consider those names to be guarded secrets. Eric Blair actually wanted his friends and family to use his nom de plume. He did not sign his cheques as "George Orwell".
In this case, the reasons that someone chose a pen name are because it was on court documents, so he wants to make a better name for himself before he asserts identicality of two names in an autobiography. Okay, so how many times does the identity need to be repeated. On how many fronts of human knowledge does Erwin James contribute?
So, I think the problem is not that an identity was exposed. It is concentrating on it as though his notability is based upon court records, or as though the crimes committed did not stop after those records were made, or as though those crimes hav some bearing on whether a writer should be trusted. _______ http://ecn.ab.ca/~brewhaha/Sound/wish.mp3 Answering Michael. Recordings are mine. Performance is not. You can make my wish come true.
The OR policy includes reference to "original synthesis" - which is not creating a primary source, but using available sources to draw an original conclusion. In this case, connecting the dots is absolutely original analysis leading to an original conclusion. If a reliable source doesn't say "These two people are the same person" then neither should we.
Nathan
2009/4/24 Nathan nawrich@gmail.com:
The OR policy includes reference to "original synthesis" - which is not creating a primary source, but using available sources to draw an original conclusion. In this case, connecting the dots is absolutely original analysis leading to an original conclusion. If a reliable source doesn't say "These two people are the same person" then neither should we.
I agree - this case sounds like unacceptable synthesis to me.