1,792
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 11:
Line 11: + +
→Plagiarism Goofiness: The incident is minor
The DI blogger in question ''suggested'' Jones may have committed plagiarism, inviting the reader to "decide for yourself." He didn't make an accusation, and we should not characterize his statements as such. If you find another source where a DI blogger accuses Jones of plagiarism, by all means change the wording again, but also change the note to a source that actually supports such a claim. The whole thing is kind of goofy, and I don't want to make DI's writing staff look worse than they already do.--[[User:All Fish Welcome|All Fish Welcome]] 18:56, 21 April 2007 (EDT)
The DI blogger in question ''suggested'' Jones may have committed plagiarism, inviting the reader to "decide for yourself." He didn't make an accusation, and we should not characterize his statements as such. If you find another source where a DI blogger accuses Jones of plagiarism, by all means change the wording again, but also change the note to a source that actually supports such a claim. The whole thing is kind of goofy, and I don't want to make DI's writing staff look worse than they already do.--[[User:All Fish Welcome|All Fish Welcome]] 18:56, 21 April 2007 (EDT)
:Furthermore, one of my sentences was modified to read, "The source was later acknowledged in the published text of the speech," but the original note was left intact. The original note does ''not'' support the proposition that the source was ''later'' acknowledged in the published text. It only supports the proposition that the source is acknowledged in the published text as of xx April, 2007. If you can find another source that supports the idea that the Lambert citation was not present in the originally published text, by all means, put it in. But do not make footnoted statements in which the note does not support your text.--[[User:All Fish Welcome|All Fish Welcome]] 19:00, 21 April 2007 (EDT)
:Furthermore, one of my sentences was modified to read, "The source was later acknowledged in the published text of the speech," but the original note was left intact. The original note does ''not'' support the proposition that the source was ''later'' acknowledged in the published text. It only supports the proposition that the source is acknowledged in the published text as of xx April, 2007. If you can find another source that supports the idea that the Lambert citation was not present in the originally published text, by all means, put it in. But do not make footnoted statements in which the note does not support your text.--[[User:All Fish Welcome|All Fish Welcome]] 19:00, 21 April 2007 (EDT)
:: The incident is minor, and barely worth mentioning. It seems clear that Jones gave the speech without explaining that he was using some literal quotes, and without citing his source. The DI blogger pointed it out, and Jones added some quote marks and a footnote to acknowledge the source. Not a big deal, really, but I am trying to be accurate. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 19:19, 21 April 2007 (EDT)