Plagiarism Study (intro)

I'm working on getting my study on EGW's alleged plagiarism ready to publish. I could use some feedback on what I post.

"This study will present several case studies of the type Dr. Veltman recommended back in 1988. To the best of our knowledge these are the first and only studies of this type.

The first study is an expanded and edited version of what was sent to Plagiary for publication in 2009. Due to space limitations that study was unable to present all of the available evidence. So, this study will present the rest of the evidence; while I’m at it I have expanded on the number of sources analyzed and fixed a few bugs here and there (endnotes converted to footnotes, etc.). Then we will present other like studies on other chapters in Desire of Ages. Another study of the same type that was done on Ellen G. White’s Sketches from the Life of Paul will be presented in a future book.

PAP -- inappropriate contentography, Art, and Plagiarism

inappropriate contentography, art, and plagiarism are not objective concepts. Even experts in their respective fields acknowledge that they cannot adequately define them. In the field of plagiarism, one student (Judy Anderson, 1) noted that “defining plagiarism becomes murky and foggy if one tries to put exact boundaries on it.” And yet this is where it gets most interesting! To the layman it amounts to "I don't know what it is, but I'll know it when I see it." St. Onge disagrees as he noted in the title of his article: “Plagiarism: You Know it When You See it (Really?)”.

One of the hallmarks of science is that they have experiments which can be used to get repeatable results. But, with PAP there is no formula or equation that can be applied by everyone and anyone at anytime and come up with the same results as those before. On plagiarism, we can say, till now. With the tool and method which will demonstrated to you in this case study anyone, anywhere at anytime can apply them and arrive at the same results (or very nearly the same)."

>In the field of plagiarism, one student (Judy Anderson, 1) noted that “defining plagiarism becomes murky and foggy if one tries to put exact boundaries on it.”

Edited to:

One student in the field of plagiarism, Judy Anderson, noted that “defining plagiarism becomes murky and foggy if one tries to put exact boundaries on it.”
===
The footnotes were:

1) Flanagan, Anna. "Experts Agree Plagiarism Hard to Define, Hard to Stop." The Council Chronicle (February 1994): 6 –“many believe that plagiarism is an ill-defined concept”.

2) Ibid.

3) "Plagiarism: You Know it When You See it (Really?)," found {I can't post the link}

>Since you're not posting links to the other side of the story, you seem to be making yourself the defending attorney and the judge.

I'm not ALLOWED to post links; that's why I said "I can't post the link."

If you scroll over "Plagiarism: You Know it When You See it (Really?)," and put into a search engine you can find it really, really easy.

>I've seen the alledged "plagarized artwork" in which the signature is the only difference. How do you refute that evidence?

I have no idea what you are even talking about. What "plagiarized artwork"? I didn't say anything about art being plagiarized.

Do you have anything constructive to say about the intro as it is so far?

Latest find:

E. W. Hooker (1871, pp. 549-550)
. . . A distinguished archaeologist has stated that among the Jews "the witnesses were sworn, and in capital cases the parties concerned. Two witnesses were required, beside the accuser; the witnesses were examined separately, in the presence of the accused."

This shows what was considered adequate sourcing for a quote at that time.

I just found some neat examples today. Riddle borrowed some material from Lange's (Lange, who, right?) commentary on Matthew and has it in single quotes. But, he also borrowed material from his commentary on Mark with no quote marks.

And then Maas borrowed material from Riddle!

It looks like AU press is interested in publishing my study. Combined with the bibliography it would be 450 pages, with each being 8.5 by 11 inch.

In my plagiarism study I found that on page 86 of my copy of Conybeare and Howson they have a quote:

"The earth in its length and its breadth, and all the deep universe of sky, is steeped in light and heat."

But, they have no note as to where it came from (while they do for Bible texts). I found that it came from A. W. Kinglake, Eothen: Traces of Travel in the East (1848): 285.

Conybeare and Howson's work originally came out in 1852.

Byfaithalone1 said:

David . . . I think you may be the only person who posts in this forum who is passionate about this subject.

BFA

Click to expand...

I'm passionate about knowing the truth on whatever subject I decide to study.

>Since you're not posting links to the other side of the story, you seem to be making yourself the defending attorney and the judge.

I post the evidence in my work. The "other side" is exposed by the truth of the matter.

>I've seen the alledged "plagarized artwork" in which the signature is the only difference. How do you refute that evidence?

I'm only dealing with literature, specifically one chapter in Desire of Ages (chapter 77). This study shows how EGW's literary practices related to the "standards" (short version: they didn't have any) of the day.