What is untrue about it?
Back to the quoted phrase:
1st Some secondary works have been drawn on to provide a framework, ...
2nd ...but the emphasis is on the extraction of evidence from
contemporary sources.
1st. Not some secondary works but ONE work: ES (not very reliable for
the earlier time frame)
2nd. That emphasis does not show in 'Medieval Lands'
Antecipating your next question:
Where did I get that idea?
As I told you, from what I read, also written by you:
Quoting:
De: Sutliff
Data: Dom. 4 Jun 2006 19:27
I must admit
I am troubled to see Alison Weir used as a source.
..........................
De: Stewart Baldwin
Data: Seg. 5 Jun 2006 05:36
I also noticed a tendancy to use late sources which make some of the
accounts very unreliable in places. Two clear examples are the
treatment of origin legends for Anjou (Tertulle, etc.) and Flanders
(Lideric, etc.) as if they might be historical, using late sources
which contradict earlier, more reliable sources. Also, there are very
serious problems with the early Scandinavian lines, using sources like
Heimskringla and even Saxo(!) as sources for periods much earlier than
they can be seriously considered as reliable. The account of the
early Danish kings, which has been built using ES's awful "Haithabu"
chart as the framework, is a complete mess.
The plan seems to have been to start with ES (and perhaps some other
secondary sources) as a start, and then to insert various
documentation as it was found (often from other secondary sources).
........................
De: Todd A. Farmerie
Data: Ter. 6 Jun 2006 01:09
I note that with the Iberian material, it is a curious mix of modern
research and discredited material, in some cases showing more caution
than most modern writers, in other cases following 17th century fantasy
(derivation of Guzman) or 20th century excess ingenuity (illegitimacy
of
Vermudo II).
......................
De: Chris Phillips
Data: Ter. 6 Jun 2006 09:57
What he says is that Europaische Stammtafeln has been used to provide a
framework, and that primary sources are being used to verify and
supplement
the material from ES. Clearly some other secondary sources have been
used
too, but the overriding emphasis is on documenting everything from
primary
sources.
[My note]
« Some secondary works have been drawn on to provide a framework, but
the emphasis is on the extraction of evidence from contemporary
sources»
" Some secundary works " is understood by a common reader - myself
- as more than one and with none to be detached (to stand out?). Quite
different from your new version.
.................................................
De: Peter Stewart
Data: Sáb. 10 Jun 2006 04:00
Much of it is unexceptionable, since it is simply a rehash of the
tables in
ES with a few (and in proportion to the details given far too few)
snippets
from sources thrown in
................................................
De:
pierre_aronax@hotmail.comData: Dom. 11 Jun 2006 14:19
Its major problem is the use of a
bibliography which is scarce, dated (Runciman), not absolutely (Nicol)
or even not at all (Sturdza) reliable, and of course almost exclusively
in English. The page shows almost no effort to use primary sources.
..............................................
De:
WJhon...@aol.comData: Sáb. 17 Jun 2006 23:28
Essentially, this entire section, is lifted, intact from secondary and
sometimes conflicting sources, without a single one of those being
cited.
It's really a worse than useless presentation, it's practically, in
fact if
not in intent, plagarism.
................................................
De:
WJhon...@aol.comData: Dom. 18 Jun 2006 00:29
Once you have realised that applies to
a section, then I personally would ignore that section.
The problem is, that *we* know this, but a random person hitting this
page
would not. They, would assume, that the home page is accurate in its
characterization of the work and method used and assume that the
information on the
Earls River was similarly a reconstruction from primary sources. Which
it
isn't.
[my note]
This is true for most people who follow gen-medieval and of course, not
only for the Earls River.
..........................................
Back to basics:
You, and only you, divulged 'Medieval Lands'.
You and only you, created expectancies that were not fullfilled.
I - and others - may have been naïf but that do not excuse you.
Same thing that show hare on the menu and serve cat.
Beeing that more than evident, you could apologise, or just say
something like "I had no intention to mislead" but you prefer to make
questions about a tree, forgetting the whole forest.
Antecipating your next question:
Wich questions?
« Or perhaps you can share with us some of the errors you spotted? »
« Are you now saying that you think the FMG was wrong to provide
hosting for
Charles Cawley's work? »
« Please can you point out where the FMG claims to "co-hold" the
copyright on
Charles Cawley's work? »
« If you don't have the wherwithal to assess Cawley's work properly,
or can't
be bothered doing so, why do you choose to bandy words about it? »
« Your information about the AGM seems to be incorrect. Where did it
come
from? »
« He is referring to the identity of the second wife of King Peter,
isn't he? »
« Do you agree, or not? »
« Would you particularly recommend any of these opinions to the
author? »
« I think you probably did. Where did you get that impression from? »
« Are you really saying you honestly believe that Charles Cawley was
referring
in his Introduction to his noted query about what a "cryptic" footnote
meant, and presenting this as a major new discovery? »
« Don't you remember how many hundred times people on this
newsgroup have claimed new discoveries on the basis of published
primary
sources? »
« What sense does it make for you to keep saying "your opinion" is
otherwise? »
« As a matter of interest, which family is covered by the ES table,
"ES I/1
table 88", in which the marriage is shown? »
« Do you not see how inconsistent your argument is? »
« Perhaps he had forgotten that Judith's marriage to Peter was in a
different
table in ES? »
« What makes you think it is a lie - and why do you think I would tell
a lie
about it anyway? »
« What is untrue about it? »
« Leo, whoever said otherwise? »
« Surely you can understand that ES is one of the secondary works I am
referring to? »
« Are you misquoting me deliberately, or can you just not be bothered
to check what I said? »
I had no intention to comment the questions but one only observation is
compulsory.
In the very rare instances that the question has any substance - the
best example being the one about the family covered by the ES table -
once you get the answer you do not get back to the subject nor thanks
the information.
Good night and goodbye.
Francisco
(Portugal)
Chris Phillips escreveu:
Francisco wrote:
After all written - also by you - and ES not beeing a contemporary
source, I can not think otherwise.
I am appreciating a fact. The quoted phrase is misleading and untrue.
What is untrue about it?
Chris Phillips