- Options
- Login
- Desktop Style
Options
Forthcoming book and digests on academia.edu
- Forthcoming book and digests on academia.edu
-
RE: Forthcoming book and digests on academia.edu
Diane > 26-04-2016, 11:49 PM
Just a note.
Over the past eight years, I have noticed, and experienced, a curious unwillingness among some Voynicheros to admit the existence of work which presents clear objections to their favoured theory.
This seems to me - again from eight years of battling this peculiar phenomenon which I've only encountered in Voynich studies, though having spent forty years in research in a number of fields related to my specialty.
Refusal to acknowledge prior research - and I mean research - seems to me the single major obstacle to any real progress being made in Voynich studies. It is also - and I can say this from the experience of attempting to get colleagues involved - is the single most important reason why the specialists we need will have nothing to do with the manuscript online. The palaeographers and codicologists, most linguists, and other keepers of manuscripts will not assist. They need only to consider the way in which (pace Zandbergen) my work and character has been denigrated, and positive recommendations made by some theorists to newcomers to 'pay no attention' or ditch my posts unread, for them to decide it is not a worthy field to enter.
What Nick Pelling once memorably described as the "Groundhog day" phenomenon in Voynich studies is largely due to a peculiar idea which floats about in Voynich studies - not that it affects everyone, but it is about - that one need only refer to people whose work accords with a preferred theory.
As example: one person says the archer's bow is German, though no German bows of that type were made of wood, or made in that shape until the sixteenth century. That work is constantly repeated and taken as the correct opinion. Another researcher later produces an artefact which explains all those items which the first could not, including the position of the archer's hand. This other bow is also made of wood - but it is a Spanish and possibly Northern French bow, not attested in Germany. Readers are not directed to both, to allow them to judge the evidence: the second study is assiduously ignored - apparently because it fails to support one preferred theory.
I read everything written about a folio or a topic - if I'm able to do so - but this bizarre bias in Voynich studies means that I am concerned that the 'wall of silence' may put me in a position as embarrassing as the Wastl's ignorance of my work has placed them.
Re-inventing wheels - the "Voynich Groundhog Day phenomenon" as Pelling once called it - leads to so much wasted time that honesty about the range of work done is the only fair way to go. I'll mention the Wastl's work, though it follows mine and I think it entirely mistaken. My readers are entitled to decide that for themselves.
But it's those who went before me, and whose observations I was obliged to re-discover for want of better information, that I am most keen to see acknowledged, whether I used their work or not. Hence my appeal for information to add to the footnotes. -
RE: Forthcoming book and digests on academia.edu
davidjackson > 27-04-2016, 02:24 PM
I'm afraid this conversation has now completely wandered off-topic.
This forum is for the announcement of new work and general "real life" news relating to the Voynich.
It has, however, developed into a philosophical discussion upon referencing the work of others. Personally, I think the world of academia has sufficient rules on how to reference other's works without it being rehashed here, and feel it is outside the scope of this forum.
Diane made it clear in her first post that anyone wishing to comment upon the references she used for her article should contact her off-forum at her email address, and did not invite further discussion here. This post was perfectly correct and suitable for this forum.
The rest of this discussion should be elsewhere - I would suggest a thread in the "Off-Topic" forum if anyone has any general musings on the topic. -
RE: Forthcoming book and digests on academia.edu
juergenw > 28-04-2016, 10:16 AM
Staying on that topic of this thread:
Dear Diane,
May I ask re citing your forthcoming book:
How do you want people to cite your forthcoming book? Is there a working title or equivalent (e.g. Diane O’Donovan (title, forthcoming) or do you prefer/shall one refer to your academia.edu digest?
Citing your blog: Whilst engaging with your identification of Avignon in my geometric analysis of the text spiral in what you define as minimap I used in the bibliography:
15) O’Donovan, D. (2012): ‘fol 86v: the inset ‘minimap’ Pt1: from the Black Sea’ https://
voynichimagery.wordpress.com/2012/08/05/fol-86v-the-inset-minimap/ accessed
04/05/2015
[font=Arial]According to your note above I wonder if you haven't seen this, so I thought I better ask if you agree to that format that I used previously?
Thanks in advance[/font] -
RE: Forthcoming book and digests on academia.edu
Diane > 30-04-2016, 06:57 PM
Juergen,
There's no reason to cite the book in progress since I haven't offered any of the essays online, and no-one in Voynich studies has read them; the peer reviewers are specialists in the relevant areas which I cover.
The style for citing that blog entry seems fine to me. I think we might well discuss some issues about your "final draft" paper, and I have asked you to talk by email about that. I'd prefer sooner rather than later.
FYI - That list of posts which I published, offering the first detailed treatment of folio 86v (Beinecke foliation now 85v and 86r), where I first proved it was a map, explained its range, routes, iconographic style, recognised historical layers in the imagery, identified architectural and geographic details, explained them with some (few) of the comparable matter, and so on and so forth - all for the first time, I understand - is now easily found through a new 'page' which I've added at voynichimagery.wordpress.com
There are a lot of posts, and lots of detail, but there was nothing of the sort before, so no prior work to cite.
To limit the amount which could be snaffled, I didn't publish the detailed analysis of the west roundel l (which I think you call the east) though I did let people know that I posit Ceuta as its subject. I kept back analysis of the central section too - just to limit any effort to 'lift' the whole - though again I did let people know that I identify the central 'lake' as the dam of Marib and the region as Raidan.
As far as I'm aware, the only Voynich writers I need credit are the chap who noticed and correctly assigned the marks for east and west, and indirectly Ellie Velinska who when talking about something else altogether, illustrated it with a detail which suggested the name of one of the four winds which touch the central section.
Otherwise, amow.
D. -
RE: Forthcoming book and digests on academia.edu
Davidsch > 03-05-2016, 12:40 PM
Before this thread will be closed, i would like to add that i recognize the concerns Diane has.
For me it is one of the reasons, not to post "valuable clues or information (in general!)" here or anywhere, because in the digital world it is so easy to just copy and paste the information and make it your own. I think it is wise to collect your information, store it privately, and one day do something useful with it, such as writing and publishing a book.
Just writing something on you blog, or here on the forum, does not provide you with clear rights on your theory or discovery.
Why not? Because anyone can easily change that information, by editing, or even removal of that post.
Citing a blog with a date does not provide accurate info as well, taking a snapshot would. Also the waybackmachine could help, although it is not reliable, because it also is a third party source. -
RE: Forthcoming book and digests on academia.edu
Anton > 03-05-2016, 12:52 PM
Hi Davidsch,
Do you deliberately continue off-topic in this thread with the aim for the thread to be closed?
Well, unfortunately I am in position to close the thread. Next time you'll be warned.