In a message dated 4/23/2009 7:14:17 PM Pacific Daylight Time, oldakquill(a)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. 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=htt… eclick.net%2Fclk%3B214133440%3B36002254%3Bj)