historical accuracy/ethics question regarding writing books

[Annie]

I do not remember...too long ago already and frankly not something that I am interested in pursuing any further. I've shared with you all that needs to be said.

regards,

Arturo Beéche

I feel it is important, because some of us had been asking if Penny had changed her views on the validity of the bones and the DNA as bear and Simon claim. IMO, if she was still touting them as possibly corrupt or invalid as recently as October, even after the Ekaterinburg discoveries  of the summer, that would make a great deal of difference.

One more thing, and I'll shut up. I feel horribly cheated by how this thread, and the 'bumped' one have turned out. When the original author's obligation thread was deleted, we were told we would be able to reproduce it if we could with all the same info. Since then, many have jumped in to do their best to stop this from happening and seem to have succeeded.

[Louis_Charles]

Excuse me. I did not say that Penny Wilson had changed her opinion as to the validity of the bones OR the DNA. I said that she was aware that there may have been problems with their explanations of the science involved, something which I dimly recall seeing on this very board, so even that isn't news.

If by "bones" you are referring to those in the 1991 grave, King and Wilson accepted those as the Imperial Family and servants in FOTR. If you mean the bones recently discovered nearby, my impression is that she regards them as likely belonging to Alexei and the missing daughter. It is my impression, as we did not have the conversation notarized.

It is worth pointing out that readers have an obligation to authors, i.e. to read their words attentively.

[Annie]

Excuse me. I did not say that Penny Wilson had changed her opinion as to the validity of the bones OR the DNA. I said that she was aware that there may have been problems with their explanations of the science involved, something which I dimly recall seeing on this very board, so even that isn't news.

If by "bones" you are referring to those in the 1991 grave, King and Wilson accepted those as the Imperial Family and servants in FOTR. If you mean the bones recently discovered nearby, my impression is that she regards them as likely belonging to Alexei and the missing daughter. It is my impression, as we did not have the conversation notarized.

It is worth pointing out that readers have an obligation to authors, i.e. to read their words attentively.

Penny has not posted on this board in quite awhile. Penny gave her speech entitled "The Romanov Bones: Who Was AA" last October. So if she has changed her views, it would have to have been since then. As far as I have seen, she and Greg share Kurth's views on the questioning of the 1991 bones, and the 1994 AA DNA tests. I did see on the KW forum (when it was visible to lurkers) that she had a wait-and-see attitude on the newfound Ekaterinburg remains. This is why I was interested in the content of the Oct. '07 speech.

The old thread is gone, so I can't read it, attentively or otherwise.

[Forum Admin]

I do not remember...too long ago already and frankly not something that I am interested in pursuing any further. I've shared with you all that needs to be said.

regards,

Arturo Beéche

I feel it is important, because some of us had been asking if Penny had changed her views on the validity of the bones and the DNA as bear and Simon claim. IMO, if she was still touting them as possibly corrupt or invalid as recently as October, even after the Ekaterinburg discoveries  of the summer, that would make a great deal of difference.

One more thing, and I'll shut up. I feel horribly cheated by how this thread, and the 'bumped' one have turned out. When the original author's obligation thread was deleted, we were told we would be able to reproduce it if we could with all the same info. Since then, many have jumped in to do their best to stop this from happening and seem to have succeeded.

I have really HAD IT with the allegations that we are somehow in league with Penny and Greg and suppressing discussion etc etc etc. LOOK, Penny/Greg and Bob/I have long ago put aside our differences, and while we may have disagreements on the historical side of things, we consider ourselves friends and colleagues. I certainly don't believe after many telephone conversations with Penny that there was any "agenda" or deliberate attempt to deceive.  They simply wrote what they thought from reading the evidence. I don't agree with it all, and some of it was in error after publication. Well, ok.  As for FOTR, to be blunt, aside from Annie, Helen A. and maybe one or two other people, nobody CARES anymore. I'm sick and tired, personally, of the continued rehashing ad nauseum of the same things over and over.  I see no reason for any personal witch hunt against Penny and Greg or speculation as to motives.  There is frankly no point nor reason to do so.

NOW, they have indeed acknowledged errors made it into print, SO, there is indeed reason to discuss the content, to set any questions straight
 about what they wrote.   I'm sorry that you feel "cheated" Annie, but then again, you have your OWN website and Forum, so by all means take any discussion you want to over there in your own place.

[Annie]

Rob, I didn't mean you or Bob! I know better than that! I meant several other posters who jumped in to try to prevent the discussion from reforming before it ever even got started (and of course the one mod who got rid of it in the first place) I realize the pressure from all of these may have made you change your mind. But believe me I do NOT think you or Bob are in league with Penny.

[Annie]

I'm sorry that you feel "cheated" Annie, but then again, you have your OWN website and Forum, so by all means take any discussion you want to over there in your own place.

I'm not going to get too far with "ChatNoir", am I?

[Belochka]

[

I do not consider that sacrificing the presentation of specific strands of argument to space constraints is in any way the same thing as sacrificing integrity or responsibility, so long as the author remains true to their OWN conclusions (regardless of how fully presented the arguments leading to theose conclusions may be) and is prepared to answer questions relating to gaps or additional information for interested colleagues or readers.

What about the real life scenario, as evidenced by FOTR as we know know, where, by your own admission Janet, the PUBLISHER was responsible for resulting errors and in fact presenting material contrary to the author's conclusions? Who then should bear the responsiblilty?

I did not say that the publisher presented evidence contrary to their conclusions. The publisher asked for stylistic changes and cuts; it was the argument that was sacrificed rather than the conclusions.

Indeed the term "stylistic changes and cuts" are rather concerning. The chain of reasoning is sacrificed. One therefore cannot provide noteworthy conclusions or advance an idea and hope for the best.

[Sarushka]

Belochka --

I wonder if you'd be willing/able to recreate the list of authors' obligations you posted near the beginning of the original thread on this topic? As I recall, it contained a number of good points for discussion.

[Annie]

Wow, Belochka, who are we playing, the New England Patriots? There's some real cheating going on here. Every time the discussion gets informative and we're really making progress, poof all the posts disappear! I'd like to ask the person who keeps deleting, WHAT ARE YOU AFRAID OF?? The TRUTH has been revealed, right here on this forum, and somebody whacks away at all our progress like chopping up a flowering tree. This thread has been pruned so severely our great discovery and all its references were hidden like a skeleton in the closet. Before anyone deletes this- WHY the coverup?

I was smart, this time, and saved the evidence in print screen;)

[Forum Admin]

Annie,

I have no idea what you are talking about. I took the dogs for a walk and was in the front garden for a while.  So I was away from here before Belochka posted. WHAT posts were removed? It was not by me. Please email or PM me if you saved posts that were deleted, am just curious.

Thanks.

[Belochka]

Belochka --

I wonder if you'd be willing/able to recreate the list of authors' obligations you posted near the beginning of the original thread on this topic? As I recall, it contained a number of good points for discussion.

It would have been better that the original thread was not deleted in its entirety. Regretably many outstanding posting by others have been lost and cannot be replicated to reflect spontaneous  thoughts.

[Forum Admin]

I'm sorry that you feel "cheated" Annie, but then again, you have your OWN website and Forum, so by all means take any discussion you want to over there in your own place.

I'm not going to get too far with "ChatNoir", am I?

Better YOU than me. 

[Annie]

I'm sorry that you feel "cheated" Annie, but then again, you have your OWN website and Forum, so by all means take any discussion you want to over there in your own place.

I'm not going to get too far with "ChatNoir", am I?

Better YOU than me. 

NOOOO! 

[Puppylove]

Back to general discussion. For me it all comes down to this re errors: the author has an obligation at a minimum, to address the errors, somehow, someway, and state for the record whether the errors resulted from poor editing or from misinterpretation of the facts. Then they should be obliged to fix those errors or acknowledge why they can't be fixed. Readers will either be satisfied with the author's response or they won't. If they're satisfied and like the book enough perhaps they'll move on to more of the writer's works. If those readers remain unsatisfied they can write their own rebuttals and look for avenues (letters to the editor, reviews at Amazon, postings on a message board or a willing publisher) to get their rebuttals out there. Or simply hold on to their dollars to ensure the author doesn't receive one more thin dime from them. Or shut up and move on because to a great extent any publicity is good publicity.

Jenn

[Sarushka]

There's been a lot of talk about "agendas" around here lately, so why don't we kick it around a little bit?

Open questions:
What's the difference between an agenda and an opinion?

Is it ever appropriate for an author to display an agenda or opinion?

Does it make a difference if the work is fiction or non-fiction?

If you think there are appropriate instances, how do you think a authors should ethically and responsibly write about their views?