Plagiarism?

In my sermon prep I came across these two resources that have strikingly similar definitions.

Wanted to see what you guys think. I'll post the older one first, then the newer one (by the date on the resource info page). I'm pretty sure it wouldn't fly if it were submitted without citation in a seminary paper.

[quote]The creation of a kinship relationship between two individuals that is recognized as essentially equivalent to one stemming from natural descent. In the ancient Near East, such ties were typically between adoptive parent(s) and a son or daughter, but individuals were adopted into other roles as well.

[quote]Adoption is the legal establishment of a kinship relationship between two people that is recognized as being equivalent to one based on physical descent. There are few references to the practice of adoption in the Scriptures, but the concept was employed to explain the nature of God’s relationship to his people and to their king.

I didn't look more deeply into the articles than the brief definition. I did look this up in other bible dictionaries and didn't see any of them nearly this close to each other.

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Everett Headley

I'd say that's close enough for the red flag to go up.

JT (alabama24)

Which two resources?

Ronald Quick

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/954020#Comment_954020

The one resource does list the other in its bibliography at the end of the article.

Todd Phillips

The newer one (NDBT) lists the older one (AYDB) in the bibliography section at the end of the article.

Both are dictionaries/encyclopedias. I don't know if encyclopedia articles (especially general audience works) always use in-line citations so I'm not sure of convention. Perhaps the bibliography reference is sufficient.

Doug Mangum (Lexham)

I didn't look more deeply into the articles than the brief definition. I did look this up in other bible dictionaries and didn't see any of them nearly this close to each other.

I found the two articles and didn't notice any other content overlap apart from this similarity in their opening definitions of the concept. The AYBD article covers mostly ANE background and includes very little on the concept in the Bible. The NDBT article is almost entirely on the theological use of the concept in the Bible and Second Temple literature.

Ronald Quick

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/954030#Comment_954030

Anchor Yale Bible Dictionary and New Dictionary of Biblical Theology, pp. 76 and 378.

JT (alabama24)

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/954030#Comment_954030

The one resource does list the other in its bibliography at the end of the article.

which means... it’s still plagiarism.

abondservant

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/954041#Comment_954041

The one resource does list the other in its bibliography at the end of the article.

which means... it’s still plagiarism.

That was my thinking too. Its unfortunate. Its probably some silly oversight. But, i feel like they need to release an updated version that adds "according to aybd", or else re-word the definition section.

Its not going to keep me from using it. I'm just disappointed... you know?

I didn't look more deeply into the articles than the brief definition. I did look this up in other bible dictionaries and didn't see any of them nearly this close to each other.

I found the two articles and didn't notice any other content overlap apart from this similarity in their opening definitions of the concept. The AYBD article covers mostly ANE background and includes very little on the concept in the Bible. The NDBT article is almost entirely on the theological use of the concept in the Bible and Second Temple literature.

Thanks Doug, thats good to hear! I sort of feel like going forward authors should have to submit their books to plagiarism detectors.

DMB

Hmmm. I hope I don’t offend, but the example, I haven’t seen that unusual. I’ve seen pretty decent chunks of word-for-word, almost always between a commentary and monograph (different authors). I guess I’m a little comfortable with a little copying (not me of course)?

Dan Francis

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/954041#Comment_954041

The one resource does list the other in its bibliography at the end of the article.

which means... it’s still plagiarism.

One sentence reworked ever so slightly does not constitute in my mind plagiarism, Indeed thankfully I am not in academic circles but to footnote source there seems virtually nitpicking. Now if he had utilized large swaths of text (even half a paragraph) or even just the ideas, that seems most certainly something one could call plagiarism. I just hate to impugn one persons work over what seems at worst the enjoying of the flow of a sentence and reworking it to his liking.

-Dan

Everett Headley

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/954050#Comment_954050

The one resource does list the other in its bibliography at the end of the article.

which means... it’s still plagiarism.

One sentence reworked ever so slightly does not constitute in my mind plagiarism, Indeed thankfully I am not in academic circles but to footnote source there seems virtually nitpicking. Now if he had utilized large swaths of text (even half a paragraph) or even just the ideas, that seems most certainly something one could call plagiarism. I just hate to impugn one persons work over what seems at worst the enjoying of the flow of a sentence and reworking it to his liking.

-Dan

Having been in the academic world for years, I would say a footnote is the minimum here. I would be satisfied with that. It is clear that there is enough there that it is not an original idea.

abondservant

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/954049#Comment_954049

Hmmm. I hope I don’t offend, but the example, I haven’t seen that unusual. I’ve seen pretty decent chunks of word-for-word, almost always between a commentary and monograph (different authors). I guess I’m a little comfortable with a little copying (not me of course)?

No offense taken.

It just surprised me. If I did that in a seminary paper I could be expelled at the discretion of the Dean. Post-graduation should plagiarism be discovered a students degree(s) can be revoked (for something turned into the school, not for something submitted for publication) pending re-attempting the class.

Here is my schools statement on Plagiarism (I left off the punishment though as it is already a lengthy quote).
[quote]

Policy on Plagiarism
Students in attendance at (school name) are expected to maintain high standards of academic integrity appropriate to a Christian lifestyle. Plagiarism and cheating in any form will not be tolerated.

Integrity requires that the Christian student conduct him or herself according to the highest academic standards. Plagiarism is a very serious offense because it is stealing. Not only does plagiarism steal from the original author, it also takes away from the student the opportunity to learn and grow in the way the assignment was intended to provide.

What is plagiarism?
Joseph Ribald defines plagiarism in this way: “Derived from the Latin word plagiaries (‘kidnapper’), plagiarism refers to a form of cheating that has been defined as ‘the false assumption of authorship: the wrongful act of taking the product of another person’s mind, and presenting it as one’s own’ ” (MLA Handbook, 6th ed. [New York: Modern Language Association, 2003], 66, quoting Alexander Lindey, Plagiarism and Originality [New York: Harper, 1952], 2). Plagiarism can be committed in a number of ways, four of which are highlighted here:

Quoting one or more sentences verbatim without proper citation. This is the most obvious form of plagiarism. In addition, using unattributed direct quotations is a violation of US copyright law. Electronically cutting and pasting is easy to do, so it presents a definite temptation-especially if a deadline for an assignment is looming.
Presenting the thoughts or ideas of another without proper attribution. Many students fail to realize that this practice is also plagiarism even if a student writes the summary himself. If one paraphrases the work of another, then he must give a proper citation.
Borrowing without proper citation such things as an outline, an idea, or an approach to dealing with a problem that is unique to an author. This type of plagiarism often results from poor note taking on the part of the student.
Using improper methods of citation. The student is responsible for learning the appropriate rules for citing sources and for following those rules throughout the paper. Ignorance of the rules of citation is not an excuse.

For other definitions of plagiarism and ways to avoid it see Robert A. Harris, The Plagiarism Handbook: Strategies for Preventing, Detecting, and Dealing with Plagiarism (Los Angeles, CA: Pyrczak Publishing, 2001.) If there is a question as to whether a citation is necessary at a particular point, it is a good rule of thumb to include it. Very few papers are penalized for over-citing! In addition, help is available from professors, the Writing Center, and the Library regarding how to work with sources.

Keith Pang

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/954050#Comment_954050

At this rate every single resource we have will be pulled for plagarism...

abondservant

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/954050#Comment_954050

This all brings up an idea. It might be nice to have some sort of tool somewhere (but probably not in LOGOS itself) to report plagiarism. Faithlife could then forward the examples to the proper publishing editors. Doing so would allow editors to do updates to articles like these or even commentaries without us posting examples here on the forums. This, I feel, would have helped a couple commentaries not being ousted over the past year or so when minor footnoting revisions would have done the trick.

I was thinking about those commentaries when I left the names out. A search would easily lead to discovering who penned both articles... But it still seemed more discrete.

I guess I should email IVP and let them know what I found. they need to update the title.

DMB

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/954064#Comment_954064

It just surprised me.

I’m sure you’re right. These days, ‘taking’ is ok, and if caught, always unintensional.

I guess I see so much in my library, I view it as where religion has moved to.

Maybe it’s like illegal highway passing. Their future is in their behavior.

Dan Francis

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/954061#Comment_954061

I would say a footnote is the minimum here.

While now I know... I do not intentionally use others words but I think of poor Dorthy Parker 'You can lead a horticulture but you can't make her think'?

She didn't credit Old English Homilies for 'You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink'.

-dan

abondservant

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/954080#Comment_954080

I would say a footnote is the minimum here.

While now I know... I do not intentionally use others words but I think of poor Dorthy Parker 'You can lead a horticulture but you can't make her think'?

She didn't credit Old English Homilies for 'You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink'.

-dan

apples and oranges though, one was a reference book, the other was a flip answer given on a game show.

When game shows can be taken seriously, when cited in scholarly works then we can compare them directly. till then its just false equivalency.

Bobby Terhune

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/954099#Comment_954099

abondservant,

i don’t think Douglas agreed with you on the plagiarism issue. I would consider it at least a stretch in this particular case.

Dan Francis

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/954099#Comment_954099

apples and oranges though, one was a reference book, the other was a flip answer given on a game show.

Yes but the resource loosly quoted in the opening sentence and ABD was one of the acknowledged resources sourced in the article‘s Bibliography.

-Dan

abondservant

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/954104#Comment_954104

abondservant,

i don’t think Douglas agreed with you on the plagiarism issue. I would consider it at least a stretch in this particular case.

Suspect it matters more what Knobloch thinks than whomever you mean by Douglas.

In any event of the four types it arguably meets the criteria for two, and definitely meets the criteria of one.

apples and oranges though, one was a reference book, the other was a flip answer given on a game show.

Yes but the resource loosly quoted in the opening sentence and ABD was one of the acknowledged resources sourced in the article‘s Bibliography.

-Dan

As you admit, loose or otherwise it DOES quote it. Which DEFINITELY meets the second of four of the criteria. The first third and fourth can be argued. One needs only violate one to be guilty of plagiarism.

Bibliography is "for further reading" and not a list of works consulted or cited. Certainly not according to the standard to which I am held - which presumably is fairly consistent across academia.

The more you argue with me, the more convinced I become Dan.

Dan Francis

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/954109#Comment_954109

The more you argue with me, the more convinced I become Dan.

Glad I could be of some use. I realize that this is a serious problem but the small amount in my non-academic mind seems forgivable. I like Denise have come across far worse cases.

-Dan

abondservant

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/954110#Comment_954110

I suppose its up to IVP now. I messaged them earlier. The auto-reply says it could take 2-3 days to get back to me.

Roger Duke

A bit problematic, but too picky to call it plagiarism. It's not even the majority of a sentence which is taken verbatim. Also, since this is a definition there are necessarily going to be similarities as there are only so many ways to accurately describe the exact same thing.

Tom Reynolds

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/954120#Comment_954120

A bit problematic, but too picky to call it plagiarism. It's not even the majority of a sentence which is taken verbatim. Also, since this is a definition there are necessarily going to be similarities as there are only so many ways to accurately describe the exact same thing.

If this is the totality of the similarities in the whole article then I would agree. It sounds from what was written above that the rest of this article doesn't have any other such similarities and thus I doubt IVP will be concerned.

Dan Francis

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/954120#Comment_954120

It has close enough phrasing and ordering to have been inspired by the originaL It seems unlikely but after hours of research the author may have formulated the sentence believing it was roughly his own creation. I would more likely believe that he liked the phrasing and like myself believed it was not worth footnoting. Since it’s far from a direct quote I am not sure exactly how to best create the note, and I do know from the past cases where books had to be pulled in at least one case the publisher had demanded fewer footnotes.

-Dan

Dan Francis

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/954109#Comment_954109

Bibliography is "for further reading" and not a list of works consulted or cited.

This quote from Wikipedia is how I have always understood Bibliographies, indeed many less academic works contain both Bibliography and for further reading sections:

Enumerative bibliography

An enumerative bibliography is a systematic list of books and other works such as journal articles. Bibliographies range from "works cited" lists at the end of books and articles, to complete and independent publications.

-Dan

David Ames

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/954064#Comment_954064

It is NOT plagiarism by this definition as it does not quote one full sentence.

[quote]The creation of a kinship relationship between two individuals that is recognized as essentially equivalent to one stemming from natural descent. In the ancient Near East, such ties were typically between adoptive parent(s) and a son or daughter, but individuals were adopted into other roles as well.

[quote]Adoption is the legal establishment of a kinship relationship between two people that is recognized as being equivalent to one based on physical descent. There are few references to the practice of adoption in the Scriptures, but the concept was employed to explain the nature of God’s relationship to his people and to their king.

Here is my schools statement on Plagiarism (I left off the punishment though as it is already a lengthy quote).
[quote]
What is plagiarism?
Quoting one or more sentences verbatim without proper citation. This is the most obvious form of plagiarism. In addition, using unattributed direct quotations is a violation of US copyright law. Electronically cutting and pasting is easy to do, so it presents a definite temptation-especially if a deadline for an assignment is looming.

I have told my grandsons to footnote where is uses ideas even if they do not use the words.

Also does changing some of the words count or protect?

individuals / people

essentially / being

stemming from natural / based on physical

JT (alabama24)

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/954143#Comment_954143

Also does changing some of the words count or protect?

Changing SOME of the words makes the plagiarism WORSE! It is a deliberate misappropriation.

There are different levels of plagiarism, but it is still the theft of someone's work. I can understand how someone who is working on a writing project could be careless, copy a quote sloppily and end up with something "original." It is still theft.

When I was a paperboy in my younger days, I delivered the paper to a lady who was running for county commissioner. She went to the grocery store and bought groceries, but somehow she ended up being caught leaving the store with unpaid for frozen fish sticks in her purse. No joke. Her defense was that she was distracted while talking on her cell phone. That may have been true, but she still got into trouble and lost the election.

To say that the resource where the partial quote came from was listed on the bibliography is to say, "BUT I PAID FOR THE OTHER GROCERIES!!!"

Ronald Quick

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/954146#Comment_954146

I know that after reading a number of resources on a particular topic, I have to double check to make sure that what I write is not something that I have read elsewhere. It's so easy to think that I have come up with a good way of saying something, only to learn that it I read it 4 resources earlier.

DMB

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/954146#Comment_954146

When I was a paperboy in my younger days, I delivered the paper to a lady who was running for county commissioner. She went to the grocery store and bought groceries, but somehow she ended up being caught leaving the store with unpaid for frozen fish sticks in her purse. No joke. Her defense was that she was distracted while talking on her cell phone. That may have been true, but she still got into trouble and lost the election.

I bet the guys voted her out, for chatting on a cellphone in the grocery. Any self-respecting lady knows that frozen items condensate, and would destroy everything in your purse (unless prime rib, of course, not fish sticks).

DMB

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/954152#Comment_954152

I know that after reading a number of resources on a particular topic, I have to double check to make sure that what I write is not something that I have read elsewhere. It's so easy to think that I have come up with a good way of saying something, only to learn that it I read it 4 resources earlier.

That's my theory (completely unsupported) on how the NT came to be .... so many verbal sermons, they lost track of exactly who they were copying ... it just sounded great.

Rick Ausdahl

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/954125#Comment_954125

A bit problematic, but too picky to call it plagiarism. It's not even the majority of a sentence which is taken verbatim. Also, since this is a definition there are necessarily going to be similarities as there are only so many ways to accurately describe the exact same thing.

If this is the totality of the similarities in the whole article then I would agree. It sounds from what was written above that the rest of this article doesn't have any other such similarities and thus I doubt IVP will be concerned.

Just a lay-person here... not an academic, an author, or in ministry, and certainly not an expert on plagiarism. So my thoughts are just personal thoughts. But when consulting various secular dictionaries for definitions of non religious terms, I have often found the definitions to be nearly so identical as to feel they were all just parroting a common source. There was a time when it bothered me a little, but then as noted by a few others in this thread, we're talking about definitions, which by their very nature are often presented in very concise ways. I would really dread being assigned the task of contributing to resources of this nature knowing that in my definition, every little idea, sentence, and even phrase, had to be original, or at the very least, had to somehow be couched in such a new and original word flow that it stood no chance of being successfully charged with plagiarism.

Based on what I see from the example in question, and even much, much more from what I've seen in secular dictionaries, in order to avoid the charge of plagiarism, the vast majority of entries in any newer dictionary resource could do little more than list each term to be defined, followed by a phrase something like "see such-and-such a resource for the definition".

In short, it seems to me it would be much easier to avoid plagiarism if writing a commentary or monograph and therefore such resources deserve greater scrutiny for plagiarism. But definitions in dictionaries? That's got to be a tough assignment! Glad I don't have to worry about anyone approaching me for the job. [;)]

abondservant

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/954146#Comment_954146

Also does changing some of the words count or protect?

Changing SOME of the words makes the plagiarism WORSE! It is a deliberate misappropriation.

There are different levels of plagiarism, but it is still the theft of someone's work. I can understand how someone who is working on a writing project could be careless, copy a quote sloppily and end up with something "original." It is still theft.

When I was a paperboy in my younger days, I delivered the paper to a lady who was running for county commissioner. She went to the grocery store and bought groceries, but somehow she ended up being caught leaving the store with unpaid for frozen fish sticks in her purse. No joke. Her defense was that she was distracted while talking on her cell phone. That may have been true, but she still got into trouble and lost the election.

To say that the resource where the partial quote came from was listed on the bibliography is to say, "BUT I PAID FOR THE OTHER GROCERIES!!!"

Agreed. Theft is theft. Accidental or otherwise.

It struck me too that he had changed just enough to make it seem grey....

Rick - I too am glad I'm not writing a dictionary. But those that enter into such tasks ought to make SURE they don't copy someone elses definition. I looked at about 20 different dictionaries, and the other 19 authors managed to write significantly different sentences to define the same thing. It is at best laziness, and at worst theft. Either can be considered a form of plagiarism.

Denise - I suppose the argument could be made that the disciples all plagiarized Christ/God. But they weren't writing in the USA in the year 2000+. They didn't have to worry about copyright law being broken, or lawsuits, and they certainly didnt care if their writings made them money. Here again we are talking about two different categories of writing with different purposes. One is a faithful accounting of God's word. The other is a defining of the words man uses to talk about God's word. I'm not sure the two are fully equivalent.

To those who say its just a little theft... I'm reminded of when I was a kid, maybe 4 or 5. My grandmother told me those bulk candy dispensors (the big clear plastic containers that you poured loose candy from into plastic bags) were free samples. They were of course not. But I didn't know that. The next time I was at that grocery store with my mother. I grabbed 4 pieces of candy. Two I ate in the store, and two I put in my pocket. In the car I offered one to my sister. My mom heard me, and when she found out I had taken them without paying for them, she made me march back inside and explain to the store manager what I'd done.

The store manager didn't care. But my mom made me take my next months allowance (almost 2$) in their one week at a time to repay - with interest - the 25cents worth of stolen candy. To this day I don't eat butterscotch. lol

Store manager really didn't care, and seemed annoyed by the whole thing. But the point is even a little adultery is wrong. So is a little porn. So is a little murder (not sure how that would work), so is a little stolen knowledge. Even if you don't realize its stolen in the moment.

Any way. This is probably going to be my last post on the subject till I hear back from IVP. If you guys are interested I'll post their response. Best case scenario they run this guys writing through plagiarism software and/or edit the article with a footnote. Or perhaps have the guy re-write the 10-15 copied words.

I have had HUNDREDS of papers submitted through plagiarism software. It sounds scarier than it is.

Dan Francis

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/954146#Comment_954146

Also does changing some of the words count or protect?

Changing SOME of the words makes the plagiarism WORSE! It is a deliberate misappropriation.

There are different levels of plagiarism, but it is still the theft of someone's work. I can understand how someone who is working on a writing project could be careless, copy a quote sloppily and end up with something "original." It is still theft.

........

To say that the resource where the partial quote came from was listed on the bibliography is to say, "BUT I PAID FOR THE OTHER GROCERIES!!!"

I see what you and abond are saying, I just perhaps am too jaded having read many times entire paragraphs lifted without attribution in books seeing 2/3 a sentence feels no big deal. I will say if it was intentional it is quite a brazen thing to start your article with another’s words. Fishsticks don’t end up in a purse accidentally. Bottom corner of the cart missed as you unload maybe. Although I know accidents happen one time my husband got home to discovered a bag of bolts from Home Depot in his pocket next week he went back and paid as was right to do but he did steal them however unintentionally it happened.

-Dan

Rick Ausdahl

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/954164#Comment_954164

Also does changing some of the words count or protect?

Changing SOME of the words makes the plagiarism WORSE! It is a deliberate misappropriation.

There are different levels of plagiarism, but it is still the theft of someone's work. I can understand how someone who is working on a writing project could be careless, copy a quote sloppily and end up with something "original." It is still theft.

When I was a paperboy in my younger days, I delivered the paper to a lady who was running for county commissioner. She went to the grocery store and bought groceries, but somehow she ended up being caught leaving the store with unpaid for frozen fish sticks in her purse. No joke. Her defense was that she was distracted while talking on her cell phone. That may have been true, but she still got into trouble and lost the election.

To say that the resource where the partial quote came from was listed on the bibliography is to say, "BUT I PAID FOR THE OTHER GROCERIES!!!"

Agreed. Theft is theft. Accidental or otherwise.

It struck me too that he had changed just enough to make it seem grey....

Rick - I too am glad I'm not writing a dictionary. But those that enter into such tasks ought to make SURE they don't copy someone elses definition. I looked at about 20 different dictionaries, and the other 19 authors managed to write significantly different sentences to define the same thing. It is at best laziness, and at worst theft. Either can be considered a form of plagiarism.

Denise - I suppose the argument could be made that the disciples all plagiarized Christ/God. But they weren't writing in the USA in the year 2000+. They didn't have to worry about copyright law being broken, or lawsuits, and they certainly didnt care if their writings made them money. Here again we are talking about two different categories of writing with different purposes. One is a faithful accounting of God's word. The other is a defining of the words man uses to talk about God's word. I'm not sure the two are fully equivalent.

To those who say its just a little theft... I'm reminded of when I was a kid, maybe 4 or 5. My grandmother told me those bulk candy dispensors (the big clear plastic containers that you poured loose candy from into plastic bags) were free samples. They were of course not. But I didn't know that. The next time I was at that grocery store with my mother. I grabbed 4 pieces of candy. Two I ate in the store, and two I put in my pocket. In the car I offered one to my sister. My mom heard me, and when she found out I had taken them without paying for them, she made me march back inside and explain to the store manager what I'd done.

The store manager didn't care. But my mom made me take my next months allowance (almost 2$) in their one week at a time to repay - with interest - the 25cents worth of stolen candy. To this day I don't eat butterscotch. lol

Store manager really didn't care, and seemed annoyed by the whole thing. But the point is even a little adultery is wrong. So is a little porn. So is a little murder (not sure how that would work), so is a little stolen knowledge. Even if you don't realize its stolen in the moment.

Any way. This is probably going to be my last post on the subject till I hear back from IVP. If you guys are interested I'll post their response. Best case scenario they run this guys writing through plagiarism software and/or edit the article with a footnote. Or perhaps have the guy re-write the 10-15 copied words.

I have had HUNDREDS of papers submitted through plagiarism software. It sounds scarier than it is.

abondservant, I would be interested in knowing IVP's response so please do let us know. I do understand and appreciate the importance of crediting others for the work they have done. But definitions? What a difficult business it must be to judge what does and doesn't constitute plagiarism in such resources.

I don't agree however that there is such a thing as "accidental" theft. All the definitions ([;)]) I find regarding stealing/theft, make it clear the taking was done knowingly and with clear purpose, was done with the intention of not returning the item, and may involve the use of force or violence. The person who accidentally walks out with some bolts in his pocket, did not steal them UNLESS he discovers his mistake and chooses not to correct it.

In the same way, I wouldn't agree that a person is lying if they say something they believe to be true but they are mistaken. On the other hand, if they learn they were mistaken but continue to say it, then they are lying.

DMB

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/954164#Comment_954164

Denise - I suppose the argument could be made that the disciples all plagiarized Christ/God. But they weren't writing in the USA in the year 2000+. They didn't have to worry about copyright law being broken, or lawsuits, and they certainly didnt care if their writings made them money. Here again we are talking about two different categories of writing with different purposes. One is a faithful accounting of God's word. The other is a defining of the words man uses to talk about God's word. I'm not sure the two are fully equivalent.

Actually, abondservant, I wasn't paralleling .... only ironically imaging the scholars' hope at trying to find a theological canon trail. 'This is clearly reminiscent of Matthew' (whoever 'Matthew' was).

Actually, I'm over-the-top compared to you. If a writer is having trouble with originality (or crediting), maybe you're in the wrong career-cone. It's just not that hard. And if you have to copy dictionary entries (we've all seen them), maybe the dictionary editors need a new team.

I'm the nasty lady that accused the respected head of Logos, of 'taking' without permission (and a lack of honesty in the process). One big reason why I remain a loyal supporter of his big competitor, Libronix Inc.

Gary Osborne

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/954069#Comment_954069

At this rate every single resource we have will be pulled for plagarism...

Couldn't agree more. If I cited all the times I've seen virtually the exact same sentence here or there in two (or more) commentaries... Let's just say I've seen it plenty of times. I mean come on, how many ways can you say the same thing?

Look, if we are talking multiple sentences in the same article that's one thing. Much less lifting multiple sentences in the same paragraph. But the example that was given just seems like nitpicking to me. It's like giving someone a speeding ticket for going 1 mile over the limit. Is it a violation of the letter of the law? Sure. But is it really prudent? I can't see how it would be.

JT (alabama24)

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/954181#Comment_954181

Is it a violation of the letter of the law? Sure. But is it really prudent? I can't see how it would be.

That's because it wasn't YOUR work which was stolen!

JT (alabama24)

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/954168#Comment_954168

I don't agree however that there is such a thing as "accidental" theft. All the definitions () I find regarding stealing/theft, make it clear the taking was done knowingly and with clear purpose

First, language isn't always precise. We talk about plagiarism as theft, but how can you STEAL someone's words? Stealing someone's idea is a little bit clearer, especially if you think in terms of someone's invention. Although the words "steal" and "theft" aren't always a 100% fit, they are often the closest words we have to describe what happens when someone plagiarizes another's work. And it is WORK. Someone labors to craft their ideas into words which convey a specific meaning. When someone else comes along and lazily changes a few words, they have leveraged the other's work for their benefit. If I were to walk by someone's house and see two pies in the window and help myself to some, I have leveraged their work to my benefit. In both cases the best word to describe it may be theft.

Is plagiarism always theft? Some could argue so. Is theft always intentional? What if the lady I described was being truthful... she didn't mean to "steal" the fish sticks, she just absentmindedly put them in her bag and forgot to pay? The situation was always a hard one for me. I always thought highly of her and would never have thought her to be someone who would be inclined to steal.... but putting the fish sticks in your purse is pretty hard to explain away.

The most challenging cases are when someone accidentally recalls something and writes it down thinking it is their own. I ran sound for a women's conference once and to be honest I can't remember who the speaker was. I do remember something she said (paraphrased):

"When I hear a saying I like and decide I want to use it, the first time I retell it I say: 'Well you know, as so and so always says.' The second time I use the story I say, 'Well, as someone once said.' Whenever I use the story again I tell 'em, "Well you know, as I always say..."

That form of plagiarism, however, is rarely "word for word."

I guess I have gone off track, but my last point is that it isn't necessarily a contradiction to say that there has been "unintentional plagiarism." The writer may have remembered something which popped into his head while writing OR he may have been lazy and mixed personal notes with direct quotes. In either case the fish sticks are in the purse.

Gary Osborne

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/954191#Comment_954191

Is it a violation of the letter of the law? Sure. But is it really prudent? I can't see how it would be.
That's because it wasn't YOUR work which was stolen!

How do you know it hasn't happened to me?

I'll just say this and let it go: If it were my work in question, and one sentence was lifted like the origina one cited by the thread creator, I would NOT be screaming, "Plagarism!" and looking to sue, get a book taken out of circulatio, or even get a footnote added in future printings. That much I can assure you. But to each his own.

JT (alabama24)

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/954204#Comment_954204

I didn’t say I would be screaming “plagiarism” or threatening to sue... I would not. Nevertheless we should be called to a higher standard in our ethics.

abondservant

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/954204#Comment_954204

Is it a violation of the letter of the law? Sure. But is it really prudent? I can't see how it would be.
That's because it wasn't YOUR work which was stolen!

How do you know it hasn't happened to me?

I'll just say this and let it go: If it were my work in question, and one sentence was lifted like the origina one cited by the thread creator, I would NOT be screaming, "Plagarism!" and looking to sue, get a book taken out of circulatio, or even get a footnote added in future printings. That much I can assure you. But to each his own.

No screaming, or threatening to sue, or anything else. I alerted the publisher - because were I the publisher I would want to know.

I am held to a higher standard than that, and I assume a great place like IVP wants to hold themselves to the same higher standard.

I was curious at first if it were plagiarism. That question has been settled - it is by my understanding and in accordance with the standard my seminary holds its academics to, definitely plagiarism.

Which left me disappointed. Not screaming. Not trying to get a book pulled. Calmly alerting a publisher I value and trust to a situation they should be aware of. Whatever they do from there my obligation is satisfied. The ball is in their court.

Gary Osborne

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/954219#Comment_954219

As I said, to each his own. I'm simply offering my own opinion, which is that in the case you cited it's overkill to call out plagiarism. Again, just my opinion. But darned if I don't see similar type examples all the time in resources.

DAL

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/954221#Comment_954221

Like R.T. Kendall’s Understanding Theology Vol. 3 — To mention something specific, his article on marriage. He quotes extensively and verbatim parts of the New Bible Dictionary by J.D. Douglas and he doesn’t give credit. Not a single footnote! Yet he presents it as if it were his own. He probably does that in all his 3 volumes of Understanding Theology. Sad, indeed!

I found out about it because I did a paper on marriage and quoted and credited the dictionary and then saw what Kendall had to say and it was exactly the same, but he didn’t credit the dictionary. Sad and dishonest but oh well!

DAL

Mike Childs

I do not think it that amazing that two scholars independently defining a term such as “adoption” should both have one sentence that similar. Take a group of 10 scholars and ask them to define a common term, and you could probably accuse at least five of them of plagiarism on one sentence or the other. I think it is a bit of a stretch here.

abondservant

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/954307#Comment_954307

Heard back from them today.

In my initial email I asked to be put in contact with the apropriate person that would determine whether or not a thing is plagiarism.

God a reply from the editorial director. She said she would be the one to look into such things, and she'd be happy to evaluate it.

So I sent the quotes, book titles, and page numbers to her.

abondservant

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/954307#Comment_954307

I do not think it that amazing that two scholars independently defining a term such as “adoption” should both have one sentence that similar. Take a group of 10 scholars and ask them to define a common term, and you could probably accuse at least five of them of plagiarism on one sentence or the other. I think it is a bit of a stretch here.

I mentioned this earlier in the thread - perhaps you missed it. I thought the same thing at first and looked it up in 20 resources that define adoption. Every single one of them was significantly different in word use. Except this one.

Cynthia in Florida

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/954064#Comment_954064

Hmmm. I hope I don’t offend, but the example, I haven’t seen that unusual. I’ve seen pretty decent chunks of word-for-word, almost always between a commentary and monograph (different authors). I guess I’m a little comfortable with a little copying (not me of course)?

No offense taken.

It just surprised me. If I did that in a seminary paper I could be expelled at the discretion of the Dean. Post-graduation should plagiarism be discovered a students degree(s) can be revoked (for something turned into the school, not for something submitted for publication) pending re-attempting the class.

Here is my schools statement on Plagiarism (I left off the punishment though as it is already a lengthy quote).
[quote]
Policy on Plagiarism
Students in attendance at (school name) are expected to maintain high standards of academic integrity appropriate to a Christian lifestyle. Plagiarism and cheating in any form will not be tolerated.

Integrity requires that the Christian student conduct him or herself according to the highest academic standards. Plagiarism is a very serious offense because it is stealing. Not only does plagiarism steal from the original author, it also takes away from the student the opportunity to learn and grow in the way the assignment was intended to provide.

What is plagiarism?
Joseph Ribald defines plagiarism in this way: “Derived from the Latin word plagiaries (‘kidnapper’), plagiarism refers to a form of cheating that has been defined as ‘the false assumption of authorship: the wrongful act of taking the product of another person’s mind, and presenting it as one’s own’ ” (MLA Handbook, 6th ed. [New York: Modern Language Association, 2003], 66, quoting Alexander Lindey, Plagiarism and Originality [New York: Harper, 1952], 2). Plagiarism can be committed in a number of ways, four of which are highlighted here:

Quoting one or more sentences verbatim without proper citation. This is the most obvious form of plagiarism. In addition, using unattributed direct quotations is a violation of US copyright law. Electronically cutting and pasting is easy to do, so it presents a definite temptation-especially if a deadline for an assignment is looming.

Presenting the thoughts or ideas of another without proper attribution. Many students fail to realize that this practice is also plagiarism even if a student writes the summary himself. If one paraphrases the work of another, then he must give a proper citation.

Borrowing without proper citation such things as an outline, an idea, or an approach to dealing with a problem that is unique to an author. This type of plagiarism often results from poor note taking on the part of the student.

Using improper methods of citation. The student is responsible for learning the appropriate rules for citing sources and for following those rules throughout the paper. Ignorance of the rules of citation is not an excuse.

For other definitions of plagiarism and ways to avoid it see Robert A. Harris, The Plagiarism Handbook: Strategies for Preventing, Detecting, and Dealing with Plagiarism (Los Angeles, CA: Pyrczak Publishing, 2001.) If there is a question as to whether a citation is necessary at a particular point, it is a good rule of thumb to include it. Very few papers are penalized for over-citing! In addition, help is available from professors, the Writing Center, and the Library regarding how to work with sources.

I have to agree. If I am writing a paper for one of my college classes and I am even closely taking words, or for that matter, ideas FROM the words, of another, even if I do "scramble them up" a bit, I still put my source. I'd rather OVER source credit than under source credit any day of the week. It's always a better idea to be safe than sorry. I've yet to have a professor complain that I over-cite!

Ted Weis

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/954233#Comment_954233

Like R.T. Kendall’s Understanding Theology Vol. 3 — To mention something specific, his article on marriage. He quotes extensively and verbatim parts of the New Bible Dictionary by J.D. Douglas and he doesn’t give credit. Not a single footnote! Yet he presents it as if it were his own. He probably does that in all his 3 volumes of Understanding Theology. Sad, indeed!

I found out about it because I did a paper on marriage and quoted and credited the dictionary and then saw what Kendall had to say and it was exactly the same, but he didn’t credit the dictionary. Sad and dishonest but oh well!

DAL

If I remember correctly, Kendall's work was presented first as a sermon-lecture to his church, which then became the book. In a church setting, not citing a source might be OK, but when you then monetize it into a book in the public domain, it becomes plagiarism.

DAL

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/954431#Comment_954431

Like R.T. Kendall’s Understanding Theology Vol. 3 — To mention something specific, his article on marriage. He quotes extensively and verbatim parts of the New Bible Dictionary by J.D. Douglas and he doesn’t give credit. Not a single footnote! Yet he presents it as if it were his own. He probably does that in all his 3 volumes of Understanding Theology. Sad, indeed!

I found out about it because I did a paper on marriage and quoted and credited the dictionary and then saw what Kendall had to say and it was exactly the same, but he didn’t credit the dictionary. Sad and dishonest but oh well!

DAL

If I remember correctly, Kendall's work was presented first as a sermon-lecture to his church, which then became the book. In a church setting, not citing a source might be OK, but when you then monetize it into a book in the public domain, it becomes plagiarism.

I think that’s what happened because they sure read like sermons! Nice work and very practical, but he could’ve given credit; especially, like you said, he’s making money off of the information.

DAL