historical accuracy/ethics question regarding writing books

[Annie]

My comment about your facts have nothing whats-so-ever to do with AA, Kurth, King and Wilson,  it is about what you, Annie, have written.

Oh yes it does. That's exactly what I'm saying to you, bear, you cannot pick and choose who you decide to nag and who you choose to let off the hook because you like them better. IF you really want the 'truth' you would hold everyone to the same standard. If you do not do this, then it's clear you only pick on people you don't like the messages of. On your site, you are very adamant about sources being true and verified. In posts here, you have complained people don't back up their sources. Yet when it's been proven that some published authors who charged money for their book weren't so careful with their sources, you dismiss it and pick on my website instead. If the only thing you are picking on me for is saying the bodies were found when you don't believe that's been proven, I really don't see how you can make such a big deal out of this while blatantly ignoring all the misinformation written by your friends. No double standards, bear, I want to know, would you consider the incorrect things found in FOTR to be accurate by the standards of your forum?

For those who think my comments are not part of this thread,  let me explain:  Annie's site has been published on the internet.  She is the author.  Therefore,  she is obliged to be accurate just like any author.


Am I wrong or am I right?

AGRBear

If I'm an 'author' for making a website, then is everyone else who's made a website, and so are you for the stuff you post on your site, and technically your posts here. No I don't think someone who makes or posts on a website, any website, is an 'author.'

[Robert_Hall]

Can we please confine the AA and FOTR topics to their appropriate threads?
 I am currently reading 2 books. One, an engagingly  funny tail about a bike messenger [fiction] the other, non-fiction, a collection of essays on Gay Travels in the Muslim World.  That is fascinating recounts of individual experiences.
 In both cases, the authors  [and editors] are doing what I would consider their true obligations. That is, telling their stories, true or otherwise in an understandable,  enjoyable read. In the latter  tome, I might  have different experiences but it does not invalidate those of the authors. In the  novel, well, I have known a few bike messengers and they do not quite make the image portrayed in the book, but, it is  the author's  creation, not mine.
 Reading a book should not be a chore of challenging the author.  There are many books  with which I have had disagreements , but I do not make it an obsession to  prove them wrong. They have their say, and I move on.
 There is plenty of creative, insightful and otherwise  written on the internet.  Much more than is ever  bound and printed in the written word.

 
 

[AGRBear]

My comment about your facts have nothing whats-so-ever to do with AA, Kurth, King and Wilson,  it is about what you, Annie, have written.

Oh yes it does. That's exactly what I'm saying to you, bear, you cannot pick and choose who you decide to nag and who you choose to let off the hook because you like them better. IF you really want the 'truth' you would hold everyone to the same standard. If you do not do this, then it's clear you only pick on people you don't like the messages of. On your site, you are very adamant about sources being true and verified. In posts here, you have complained people don't back up their sources. Yet when it's been proven that some published authors who charged money for their book weren't so careful with their sources, you dismiss it and pick on my website instead. If the only thing you are picking on me for is saying the bodies were found when you don't believe that's been proven, I really don't see how you can make such a big deal out of this while blatantly ignoring all the misinformation written by your friends. No double standards, bear, I want to know, would you consider the incorrect things found in FOTR to be accurate by the standards of your forum?

For those who think my comments are not part of this thread,  let me explain:  Annie's site has been published on the internet.  She is the author.  Therefore,  she is obliged to be accurate just like any author.


Am I wrong or am I right?

AGRBear

If I'm an 'author' for making a website, then is everyone else who's made a website, and so are you for the stuff you post on your site, and technically your posts here. No I don't think someone who makes or posts on a website, any website, is an 'author.'

So,  what do the rest of you think?  Are Annie's and my words which are  written on our web site fall under the meaning of being an author?
---

Def.:
author |ˈôθər| (abbr.: auth.)
noun
a writer of a book, article, or report : he is the author of several books on the subject.
• someone who writes books as a profession : my favorite authors are Kurt Vonnegut and Aldous Huxley.
• the writings of such a person : I had to read authors I disliked.
• figurative an originator or creator of something, esp. a plan or idea : the authors of the peace plan.
---

Should this include writers of web sites like Annie's and/or my own, who write about a subject, which can be read around the world on a computer screen rather than the printed page, be considered as authors?

Do people who write web sites like Annie or my own  have a obligation, no mater the subject, to tell their readers if something is fictional or non-fictional?

This is becoming a paperless communication and I believe the standards should be even higher than books since blog etc. etc. can be corrected or amended or explained very quickly.  There is no need to wait for an outsider, unless you have a webmaster, to be accurate with your information on any subject.

Since Annie has frequented my forum,  she is well aware that I ask for sources.

It may seem that I'm just picking on Annie,  I am not.   I did use her quote as an example, since this forum is about the Romanovs.  I'm sure I could find other examples on other web sites, and,  I'd say the same thing, because, I think,   all of us have become "authors" and our information can be read around the world in a matter of seconds, therefore,  I think all of us have an obligation to be as truthful as we can, and,  if we make an error, which we all have and will,  then it's our obligation to correct that error as quickly as we can.

AGRBear 

[Annie]

Bear, you are avoiding the question. I want to know, do you hold everyone, regardless of who they are, to your same lofty standards of accuracy in sourcing, or do you only nitpick at those who don't like and let the others slide? Yes or no?

For at least four years now, I have had to hear how you demand sources, and proper sources, verifyable and proven reliable. Is this only true when it's convenient to you?

I am perplexed, since over time you have been very vocal about this, then suddenly silent when the subject falls on something you don't like to criticize. What's the deal, bear, all or nothing?

[Annie]

Here is another example of why accuracy and correcting mistakes is so important!

In Klier and Mingay's book "Quest for Anastasia",  they incorrectly quoted that FS and her brother Felix were 'children of the second marriage'. This led many people to assume that she and Gertrude had different mothers, so therefore their mtDNA should not have been the same. However, this turned out to be wrong, they were indeed whole sisters. Unfortunately, when Frances Welch wrote her "Romanov Fantasy", she quoted the line from "Quest" and sourced it in her footnotes. This appears to be a fact but it was wrong. She didn't know it was wrong, but because it was in another book, and because it was never corrected, others take it as real and continue to quote it. This is how misinformation and inaccuracies can be spread, and why finding and correcting mistakes is so important.

[AGRBear]

Bear, you are avoiding the question. I want to know, do you hold everyone, regardless of who they are, to your same lofty standards of accuracy in sourcing, or do you only nitpick at those who don't like and let the others slide? Yes or no?

For at least four years now, I have had to hear how you demand sources, and proper sources, verifyable and proven reliable. Is this only true when it's convenient to you?

I am perplexed, since over time you have been very vocal about this, then suddenly silent when the subject falls on something you don't like to criticize. What's the deal, bear, all or nothing?

I believe I've answered your questions. But,  evidently, I need to rephrase:   I'd like all authors  to be as honest and as truthful as they can about their subject/ subjects.

AGRBear





 

[LisaDavidson]

Annie, since you asked for opinions, I will offer mine. First, it is easier for website content to be edited for errors than it is for the content books - which may or may not be republished - to be corrected.

I remember I got the death date wrong in my short biography of Grand Duke Michael on the APA site - because the wrong date had been used by Mirenenko and Maylunas (who might have known better, but who could not issue a correction on a book). I wrote to ask for it to be changed, and I'm sorry to say, I don't remember if it was.

My second point is that while the author may be able to write her publisher, it is the publisher who must do the correcting. And, yes, I do think that if someone writes original content - regardless of how published - is an author.

And third, online discussions often involve nitpicking and can lack a sense of proportion, including our discussions here. The thing is, if one is not interested in participating (and as of late, I am not), one can just walk away.

Just my two kopeks.

[Robert_Hall]

I give up.  This topic has  been hijacked into another thread about the AA,etc controversy.
 Go for it.  All yours.
  Like Lisa, I am more than dis-interested.

[Mari]

Are Annie's and my words which are  written on our web site fall under the meaning of being an author?

Yes and under the same obligation as those Authors you read!  ...... Websites are used by Students as factual information and so you have self-published your information particularly if its your website. The exception being if your Website consisted of quotes and sources only.

[Annie]

Are Annie's and my words which are  written on our web site fall under the meaning of being an author?

Yes and under the same obligation as those Authors you read!  ...... Websites are used by Students as factual information and so you have self-published your information particularly if its your website. The exception being if your Website consisted of quotes and sources only.

Gee I never considered myself an 'author', at least not for that site. Maybe for the loads of unsubmitted half written novel manuscripts in my closet, but not a website. Anyway I DO stand behind my website as a source for students, and a couple people have told me they used it for a report. I have listed my resources and can give you the source for all direct quotes and information included, some is noted. Even my speculations on what might have happened are drawing conclusions based on real evidence put together. There are loads of homemade pro AA sites with some very inaccurate information on them, so I feel that my site is a balance to that if anyone sees them all. I bet everyone who rattled off those odd versions of AA's stories never considered themselves an 'author' with an obligation to students, and I sure hope no one uses them for a report! Some of them are just horrendous. The only issue, as far as I know, about the accuracy of my site here is that bear questioned me saying the bodies had been found when she believes this hasn't been proven. Though the DNA tests aren't done yet, when major news services carry the story that the mystery is solved and the bones are found, that's strong backup (along with the press conferences of the experts). Of course, even if the DNA tests do prove this is the last two missing kids, it will still never be enough to convince those who question the other DNA tests so does that really even matter? There will never be proof for those who choose to believe that the Russians rigged the find, the Queen paid everyone to discredit AA, etc., ad nauseum...

[Puppylove]

Well, the term author is being thrown around rather loosely here. If I write to my friend or in my journal, yes, I'm the author, and in an ideal world I should be truthful, but my writings should never be held to the same standards as those of the historian.

Online forums and websites come and go like rabbits now, and most should be taken with a gargantuan grain of salt. Annie's website is cool and serves the mission it intended, but should a student cite it as authority? I wouldn't, not because it's Annie's work (she's my good friend here, by the way), but because it doesn't meet rigorous academic standards. Unless she's writing as Annie so and so, representing Harvard or the Smithsonian for example, it doesn't have to.

Hopefully schools are giving students the proper tools and critical thinking skills necessary for online research; without those things the internet can cause more harm than good.

If I were in Annie's shoes, I'd be more comfortable stating the bones of the missing Romanov children most likely have been found. Then she would avoid the similar mistake FOTR made, stating Marie's death and Anastasia's unknown status as absolutes.

[Annie]

Online forums and websites come and go like rabbits now, and most should be taken with a gargantuan grain of salt.

Yes, they do, anyone with an email and a keyboard can make themselves a forum or a geocities, freewebs, tripod, etc. Some are great, some are not.

Annie's website is cool and serves the mission it intended, but should a student cite it as authority?

In my daughter's high school English class, they'd let you quote ANY website as a source, as long as you had three different sources. That means people can use a blatantly false one like the one I saw that completely changes AA's story so badly even Kurth wouldn't agree with it. Other teachers won't let you use websites, or won't let you use wikipedia. If anyone uses my website, rather than quoting my website, if I have given the source of the info, use that. If not, they could ask me and I could tell them where it came from. The good thing about my website is that a lot of the 'other side' of the AA story, some of it very obscure, that AA supporters aren't going to put in their books or articles is concentrated in one place so you don't have to go digging for it (like I did when I wrote it)

So again- if anyone has any questions about where I got any of the info on my site, I will tell you. I did list all my sources and references, and it all goes back to one or more of them.

because it doesn't meet rigorous academic standards.

I know a doctoral student who was told that FOTR was not an accepted reference source because the authors were not scholars of history. Massie, on the other hand, is very accepted and respected among those writing and grading high level academic papers.

If I were in Annie's shoes, I'd be more comfortable stating the bones of the missing Romanov children most likely have been found.

If I said 'likely' there really wouldn't be an issue here. I said (only on the intro) that they had been found, though like I said before, that quote is bolded and is a clickable link taking you directly to the 'missing remains found??!!' section for the whole story. So no I don't feel like I did anything wrong or misled anyone and I stand behind it.

Then she would avoid the similar mistake FOTR made, stating Marie's death and Anastasia's unknown status as absolutes.

The problem I have about that those things are mentioned in ways that are vague enough to be misleading in a way that people could take them for fact, whether or not it was intended that way. I don't think anyone should present a scenario that way unless it's clear it's only speculation. Though Radzinsky gives more value to the AA cart story than I'd like to see in a professional book at the end of his "The Last Tsar", at least he leaves it all as a question and never claims or even insinuates, or leaves it vaguely ambiguous, that it's true. He always phrases it as question, 'were those the stars of that impossible night?' and never states it as fact or puts it so that a person could take it that way. It's okay to put in an author's own wonderings and guesses as long as it's very clear that's all they are.

[Janet Ashton]

I know a doctoral student who was told that FOTR was not an accepted reference source because the authors were not scholars of history. Massie, on the other hand, is very accepted and respected among those writing and grading high level academic papers.

Swings and roundabouts, then; because I have cited FOTR in a scholarly article without objections, and I know others whose remit is to select this material for academic study at post-graduate level, serving an international community to boot, and they too consider it within scope.

Massie was a journalist when he wrote Nicholas and Alexandra, certainly not an academic, and I have stumbled across references to his work (in academic level material) as "not the most serious or scholarly," which I personally find a little extreme, but it just goes to show that you can't win all the people all the time.....

Anyway, don't wish to contribute to the very monotony I keep sniping about, so time for another week off.....

[Janet Ashton]

Then she would avoid the similar mistake FOTR made, stating Marie's death and Anastasia's unknown status as absolutes.

The problem I have about that those things are mentioned in ways that are vague enough to be misleading in a way that people could take them for fact, whether or not it was intended that way. I don't think anyone should present a scenario that way unless it's clear it's only speculation. Though Radzinsky gives more value to the AA cart story than I'd like to see in a professional book at the end of his "The Last Tsar", at least he leaves it all as a question and never claims or even insinuates, or leaves it vaguely ambiguous, that it's true. He always phrases it as question, 'were those the stars of that impossible night?' and never states it as fact or puts it so that a person could take it that way. It's okay to put in an author's own wonderings and guesses as long as it's very clear that's all they are.

What you consider wonderings and guessings others may consider a firmly held opinion based on careful examination of multiple strands of evidence. (I have no idea why I can't get this to show up as anything other than a quote, but that's the way it is....J.A.)

[Mari]

What you consider wonderings and guessings others may consider a firmly held opinion based on careful examination of multiple strands of evidence.

Exactly my point...

Well, the term author is being thrown around rather loosely here. If I write to my friend or in my journal, yes, I'm the author, and in an ideal world I should be truthful, but my writings should never be held to the same standards as those of the historian

.

Yes, but I didn't say Historian  I said Author...and any ordained by me Expert now can self-publish History! So, the question becomes Should all Authors be held to a Standard if they offer these three criteria!  And its that (1) they believe they hold some knowledge  in this area (2) they think their School of thought or the way they see the conclusion in a certain way is the correct one (3) they offer their own thoughts on the subject ...should they then be held to the same standard?   

Remember they are presenting themselves in a certain way and High School Students cannot differentiate between levels of Academia?  So, my thoughts are Yes or why Self-Publish?