Cripes. Colour me confused. That books forum does include coverage of the Charles Fuoco controversy through a thread with that title pinned at the top of the Charles Pellegrino section, including a post by Charles Pellegrino - and would seem to predate Paul's post. I'm obviously missing something here, so please be gentle.
Reading the blog and news coverage, I still believe there's a significant difference between an author being mislead by a subject and wilful misrepresentation and deliberate fraud on the author's part.
In this, I'm also thinking of some of the books lauded in Titanic circles that could've done with more fact checking and/or include source material from 'survivors' who weren't on board at all. This includes much loved and popular works by Don Lynch (the incorrect identification of nursemaid Alice Cleaver as a child murderer) and Walter Lord (Walter Belford's account) that are generally regarded as musts for any Titanic library. Both of these examples are drawn from books that I wouldn't do without.
Theres a reproduction of "Her Name, Titanic" on the Cameron blogpage.
Regarding Don Lynch's "Titanic - An Illustrated History" there are at least three errors in it, two of which should have been picked up on at the time. The first is about the so-called 'destruction' of the crows nest which is just plain anti-salvage propaganda, the other is that distress rockets were supposed to have been red (in fact the whole section on "The Third Ship" is nonsense). The third, which Don couldn't have known about until I found out about it last year, was that the Bank of England records do not show a cargo of riches on board the Titanic. Lets hope these errors are corrected in future editions.
Charlie will perhaps be comforted by the words (allegedly) spoken with spot-on period authenticity by teenaged colleen Kathy Gilnagh as she watched the Titanic departing beneath the waves almost as fast as a researcher's credibility: "Don't you just hate when that happens?"
It looks like Charlie P. is getting his recompense. The New York Times is against him too and now "The publisher 'will issue full credit to wholesalers and retailers who wish to return the book. Consumers who seek a refund should return to the retailer from whom they purchased the book.'"
He doesn't seem to think too well of this site. He doesn't take criticism well. But his acolytes on his site defend him without question.
Re: Encyclopedia Titanica: *ALERT*
by Charlie P. Â» Thu Jan 14, 2010 2:26 am
Recent re-examination shows that nothing much has changed over there, and I will not be restoring Encyclopedia Titanica as a link from my website. It is my no stretch of the imagination a discussion group or a research group. When one of their bloggers, while accusing me now of falsifying passenger diaries for Walter Lord (while of course promoting his own book about the Titanic), any evidence backed response from me was blocked from publication. Mr. Titanic and others who came to my defense were also censored. A pity, that what was once a valuable archive has descended to depths lower than rusticlized slime beds.
I have nothing against Mr. Pellegrino, other than having the misfortune of having read his fiction that masquerades as fact.
To me that paragraph reads as though it's about things other than ET, or a conflation of things other and ET. I had no idea ET had bloggers. That he's claiming to have been 'blocked from publication' is of concern as a number of posts and even articles here contain much that is contested and still open to interpretation depending on your point of view.
And, at the risk of being excommunicated, I have enjoyed reading some of his books.
>>...any evidence backed response from me was blocked from publication.<<
The problem with that statement is that I've seen no evidence that Dr. Pellegrino was ever a member of ET and if he ever was...(I might have missed it)...I've not seen even so much as a single post from the man.
The other problem with that is that posts made by members appear instantly, and without any vetting or review from the moderators or the Site Admin. Posts in any event are not deleted or barred from publication merely because they are controversial. If they were, the Californian threads as well as the threads which discuss the notorious "Ship Switch" theory simply wouldn't exist.
If Dr. Pellegrino were to subscribe to the forum, I can't think of any reason why he wouldn't be welcome so long as he abides by the rules of the forum. He would have to fight his own battles in any of the debates and deal with both agreements and disagreements, but the same applies to the rest of us.
During my period as a moderator, I was unaware of any attempt by Pellegrino to join or post any material to this site. Personally, I would have welcomed the opportunity to engage in a discussion with him, as there are many questions I would have liked to have asked him (starting with his source for Lightoller's alleged thoughts as the ship went down, which have their origins neither in Lightoller's memoirs nor in any interview or newspaper article with the 2nd officer that I've ever seen).
I have a feeling I know to whom he refers in statement, but if correct, that ET member isn't a blogger and was never in a position to "block" anything Pelligrino wished to post here.
Given that Phil has posted two sides of a contentious issue before in the research section - even an ongoing debate - I am very skeptical indeed of claims that any attempt was made to censor a response here.
And what of claims that others were "censored"? The only reason for removing posts are if they are abusive or libellous. There are plenty of contentious discussions here, with people taking different positions. If you've got the facts to back it up, bring them to the table. But don't expect an opinion to go unchallenged - it happens to all of us.
>>But don't expect an opinion to go unchallenged - it happens to all of us.<<
Unfortunately, it appears that some individuals conflate and confuse being challanged with being censored, when in fact all that happens is that they've been rebutted by an opposing view. This happens even when the post they claim is being censored is sitting there...untouched...right above the reply which presents the opposing view.
Personally, I've been extremely reluctant to edit or remove posts to the point where I've actually found myself in some hot water for not doing so. I'm not the only moderator past or present who has preferred restraint either. When I do give something the axe, it's never done lightly, and never because I simply disagreed with somebody, but always for a really grotesque forum rules infraction.