Talk:The Man of the Crowd

message: Hello all, and particularly Midnightdreary, I'm still very new to this, so I'm not sure if this is the appropriate place to discuss the article, and if I've made a mistake I'd be happy to debate through the proper channels.  
So,
I understand completely when you warn me against writing original research into a wikipedia article, Midnightdreary, and I was fully aware of the danger of essentially speculating as to the meaning of a literary work of fiction when I wrote my analysis, which is why I made sure to back up my assertions with appropriate quotations, a practice which was not observed by the previous author of the analysis.  I don't remember exactly what it said--something about there being no reason for the narrator following around the man of the crowd--and it's probably in the history somewhere, but I was honestly so disappointed with its blatant wrongness and superficiality that I registered as a wikipedian and corrected it myself.  I love wikipedia, but the analysis for this story was essentially the kind of evidence people use to claim that wikipedia is a bad source for research, and I knew that this website could do better.  
You're right that my analysis could use backing by published academics, and while I'm not completely sure just yet that such backing even exists, I am willing to bet that there is no published research that contradicts my statements on this subject.  The moment you or anyone else finds any, please let me know, because I would be very interested to read it, as I think my conclusions were rather obvious ones.  In general I am eager to debate my analysis with you, with academics, with anyone at all, and I am not the kind of obstinate personality who will persist in being wrong when it is obvious that such is the case.  So please, if you disagree, disagree, and we'll talk.
Thanks,
Sublunari 14:12, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Debate is not necessary. Essentially, your analytical reading of the story isn't really Wikipedia-worthy. I recommend you look into the policy on original research. It's not about proving with quotes from the source text, nor is it about not being able to find scholars who disagree. ALL analysis should originate from previously published scholarly work. And be careful about slamming my previous (place-holding) mini-analysis. =) The reason I hadn't added more, and pardon my superficiality, was because I had not yet found significant sources. Frankly, I don't believe your analysis anyway; I still assert that there is no true reason for the monomaniacal obsession the narrator has with the man of the crowd. Sure, he looked funny and stood out, but why is he so devoted to him? Anyway, your analysis may get tagged or even deleted; that's just how it works around here. I do hope you stick around, though, as a lot of the Poe articles can really be expanded. By the way, I maintain the Portal:Edgar Allan Poe if you're looking for something to check out. --Midnightdreary 14:21, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

text: It seems you are misunderstanding the policy on original research. It has nothing to do with the quality of your analysis, its authenticity compared to any published analysis, or whether I agree/disagree with it. Simply put, you can NOT have your own commentary in here. What more can I say? If you have academic sources that have an analysis you'd like to input here (I didn't check the sources you show above), then add it in. I have nothing against you or your aspirations to analyze the story, it just doesn't get added to Wikipedia. I'm not trying to debate your analysis, so I apologize for questioning it earlier (I was mostly just making a quick personal opinion comment that has nothing to do with the improvement of this article; ignore it). Consider the analysis section of "The Masque of the Red Death," which I have been working on recently; every assertion is backed by a previously published reliable source. We have to do the same here, not based on personal opinion but based on Wikipedia policy. --Midnightdreary 23:49, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Original Research