Historum - History Forums  

Go Back   Historum - History Forums > World History Forum > General History
Register Forums Blogs Social Groups Mark Forums Read

General History General History Forum - General history questions and discussions


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old July 29th, 2012, 07:38 AM   #51

Carl J. Weber's Avatar
Archivist
 
Joined: Jun 2012
From: Chicago
Posts: 136

Quote:
Originally Posted by AlpinLuke View Post
I understand this point and I share your perspective, anyway, as for I can understand, the matter is about the headline:

"The Great Marquette Map Hoax; a hoax unhoaxed"

now the usage of those wards, a sentence, are a matter of trademark, more than of copyrights [a different matter would be if the professors used the exact content of the thesis, but again as for I grasp, he was confuting it, so this would be odd].

Now, a couple of points:

regarding material on the net, I tend to agree that it's a form of publishing, but being a blog a public place with totally free access, it's not that strong [if the author doesn't obtain real copyrights from the authorities]. In a certain sense it's like to ask for copyright for what we tell in a crowded bar. In fact, only in case of commercial use by third subject in Italy it's the case for a trial or a legal action [otherwise it's a waste of time].

About the usage of a single sentence, in this case a title. Eh, here we've got negative precedents.

The Da Vinci Code is a great example of plagiarism active and passive. Dan Brown got ideas and contents from some "alternative historians" [overall, despite what has become more public, from Picknett and Prince], but the sentence "The Da Vinci Code" has been used in the titles of many works about that novel.

I've got a book carrying the title "The Da Vinci Code Uncovered" ... just to mention one, and I have never heard the author had troubles with copyrights.
Thanks for the mental energy. What do you think of this... The "Da Vinci Code" is part of the common cultural parlance. No courtroom judge, IMHO, would claim the words "The Da Vince Code Uncovered" were plagiarized since it'd be doubtful the writer of "The Da Vince Code Uncovered" was using somebody else's words as if they were his own. Trademark? Another story.

In the "The Great Marquette Map Hoax; a hoax unhoaxed", my phrase would be thought of by all readers as the professor's own, not mine, since the phrase is not part of the common cultural parlance.
Carl J. Weber is offline  
Remove Ads
Old July 29th, 2012, 07:41 AM   #52

Carl J. Weber's Avatar
Archivist
 
Joined: Jun 2012
From: Chicago
Posts: 136

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sokar Rostau View Post
The various examples of Da Vinci Code books, some pro- and some con- Dan Brown, are more examples like those I gave earlier. They use a word or phrase that identifies the specific theory that they wish to address. This is not plagiarism. But don't muddy the waters here - the accusations of plagiarism levelled at Brown have absolutely nothing to do with something so mundane as a title and everything to do with him using the works of others in his book without giving due credit. It should be highlighted, however, that Brown won the ensuing lawsuits on the grounds that fiction always draws on non-fiction.

I hate to be the one to say it, but what I am seeing here is someone whose work is being challenged trying to find any grounds, however flimsy, to shut his opponent up. But, sorry, that's how things work in academia (which you should know if you worked in a college). You put forward a theory and it is challenged. If it stands up to scrutiny, then great. If it doesn't survive the challenges of other academics in the field it is either scrapped or re-worked.
You don't understand the issue.
Carl J. Weber is offline  
Old July 29th, 2012, 08:00 AM   #53

Carl J. Weber's Avatar
Archivist
 
Joined: Jun 2012
From: Chicago
Posts: 136

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sokar Rostau View Post
I urge some of you to go back and re-read this thread. Carl was mentioned by name in the lecture. In the context of a lecture on a subject identified with few people generally and one person specifically, this is the equivalent of citing a source.

The more this thread progresses the more I am convinced that this is a "nontroversy" created in Carl's own mind. To make the point yet again, having your work scrutinised by others is how things work. Either your research stands up to that scrutiny or it doesn't. Find a way to make your own research stronger (which may mean taking what he has said on board and adapting your own theory to account for it) and prove him wrong. Or don't. End of story. Like it or not, that is how these things work. No amount of bleating about semantics will change that.

I find the comments about "academic backstabbing" especially interesting since you quite clearly are searching for just the right knife to use on him.
You don't understand the specific issue. It is not about the content of his lecture, it is about the announcement of the lecture.

Content can't yet be the issue because he will not make public his sources.

My research has stood up for seven years. Unchallenged until now. It is so against the mainstream grain that finally the "expert" stepped forward and gave his talk attacking my ideas. But he will not reveal his sources in print -- hard copy or otherwise. How can I take issue with his lecture if he won't give me his words and sources?

What particular "semantics" are you talking about my "bleating"? Be specific.

And, to clarify, I don't attack from the back. The Pulitzer Prize winning writer for the Chicago Tribune said he was backing away from trying to sort it out because of the back stabbers and academic intrigue in my area. Before you speak, wait to see where the blood drips from ... I attack from the front.

Last edited by Carl J. Weber; July 29th, 2012 at 08:16 AM.
Carl J. Weber is offline  
Old July 29th, 2012, 08:18 AM   #54

JoeGlidden's Avatar
Lecturer
 
Joined: Apr 2010
From: New York
Posts: 362

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sokar Rostau View Post
But was it published? That's the difference between who gets credit and who doesn't. You can speak it, promote it, etc...in the end, the academic community want it in hard copy with the appropriate documented evidence.
That's a poor argument. Historically, people who didn't get their works published were swept under the rug. Historians realize now that we must give credit where credit is due. Example; Robert Fulton gets the credit for inventing the steam engine, granted he worked to perfect it, he was far from inventing it. The guy who came up with the idea disappears.

Saying that a work HAS to be published to get credit ruins the motivation of "scholars" to create new works. Why, then, would I bother writing anything if I don't have the means to get it published? My arguments could be just a good, if not stronger than a PhD professor at a major university, but based on your statement, since he could publish and I can't he gets credit and I don't? If I write a paper (place it online) and some Harvard professor lifts my ideas and publishes it, those are still my ideas whether mine are published in a hard copy or not. If society and the courts support only the people who get published, there is a serious issue. I won't dispute that this is often the case, and as I mentioned in a previous post, well known authors have be accused (and those accusations outright proven) of plagiarism and the publishers continue to produce their books.

A discussion of the semantics surrounding plagiarism helps to understand the situation. I don't see any bleating, just a concern about someone's approach towards using phrases in lectures and other works. Stating Carl's name may represent a "citation" of his works during the portion of his lecture which disputes Carl's claims, however what constitutes the verbal citation of sources for evidence supporting his own claims aimed at disproving Carl's theory?
JoeGlidden is offline  
Old July 29th, 2012, 08:35 AM   #55

Carl J. Weber's Avatar
Archivist
 
Joined: Jun 2012
From: Chicago
Posts: 136

The prof wasn't using your work as if it was his own. He was arguing against you're position. The problem is that he didn't mention you by name at all in his lecture [no, he used my words as his own in the announcement for the lecture. In the announcement, titled with use of my words, he said many have said the map was a forgery. In the lecture he only mentioned my name. There are no "many". There was an attempted effort to say he was arguing against many, but in fact the whole show was to argue against my ideas.], which would miff me a great deal if I were you, but he was under no obligation to do so, and anyone interested in the subject will seek out the points he was arguing against, and find your name all over them. [right] It actually sounds like good publicity (although regretably not direct publicity) for your own research.[right] If its sound research, any arguments against it will be no problem for you.[He has not provided any research sources for me to argue against.] Can you give your own lecture - advertised as "An Answer to Prof. X's Lecture On the Great Marquetta Map Hoax" and then source yourself throughout the lecture and make it clear that all the points being argued against by the Prof were yours and yours alone?[again, he has not provided any research sources for me to argue against.]

Using the title of your work as a heading for his own lecture is not plagiarism, especially as he altered the words as well [not so -- altering the words still falls under dictionary definitions of plagiarism -- but not, so I've learned, because of lower standards, academic ones], and the words on their own do not convey anything more than a short hand reference to your theory or research. You say you are the only researcher with this information, so those interested but who know nothing about it will just look it up later and find you [right, but looked it up over the last seven years], and those who do know something must already know who you are [if they've searched -- on key words I come up all over the place].

His lecture is also not published anywhere nor available to the public. It sounds like it was a one off talk he gave, relying on notes in his possession. [It was to the Chicago Map Society at the Newberry Library -- no small potatoes -- I was there, and raised the stink] I don't see it will damage your own research, but getting het-up about this minor detail will damage your reputation as a level headed thinker. Keep it in perspective - one prof on one (or have I got that wrong?) occasion failed to attribute you in an unpublished work - and it looks worse for him for having failed to quote his sources. [It wasn't exactly an unpublished work, it was an announcement published on a Cambridge University web page.]
I appreciate and value your comments more than most.

Last edited by Carl J. Weber; July 29th, 2012 at 09:18 AM.
Carl J. Weber is offline  
Old July 29th, 2012, 08:36 AM   #56

Comet's Avatar
Jedi Master
 
Joined: Aug 2006
From: IA
Posts: 8,672
Blog Entries: 1

Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeGlidden View Post
That's a poor argument. Historically, people who didn't get their works published were swept under the rug. Historians realize now that we must give credit where credit is due. Example; Robert Fulton gets the credit for inventing the steam engine, granted he worked to perfect it, he was far from inventing it. The guy who came up with the idea disappears.

Saying that a work HAS to be published to get credit ruins the motivation of "scholars" to create new works. Why, then, would I bother writing anything if I don't have the means to get it published? My arguments could be just a good, if not stronger than a PhD professor at a major university, but based on your statement, since he could publish and I can't he gets credit and I don't? If I write a paper (place it online) and some Harvard professor lifts my ideas and publishes it, those are still my ideas whether mine are published in a hard copy or not. If society and the courts support only the people who get published, there is a serious issue. I won't dispute that this is often the case, and as I mentioned in a previous post, well known authors have be accused (and those accusations outright proven) of plagiarism and the publishers continue to produce their books.

A discussion of the semantics surrounding plagiarism helps to understand the situation. I don't see any bleating, just a concern about someone's approach towards using phrases in lectures and other works. Stating Carl's name may represent a "citation" of his works during the portion of his lecture which disputes Carl's claims, however what constitutes the verbal citation of sources for evidence supporting his own claims aimed at disproving Carl's theory?
It may be a poor argument but unfortunately its how it works. I certainly don't agree with it, but know that's the way of things until. I don't know if it will ever change.
Comet is offline  
Old July 29th, 2012, 08:37 AM   #57

Davidius's Avatar
Varlet
 
Joined: Dec 2010
From: Pillium
Posts: 4,819

Quote:
Originally Posted by Carl J. Weber View Post
In the "The Great Marquette Map Hoax; a hoax unhoaxed", my phrase would be thought of by all readers as the professor's own, not mine, since the phrase is not part of the common cultural parlance.
And if you can definitively prove that the phrase is yours and yours alone, then you will have a point.

But you can't.

So you don't.

It looks like the plagiarism label won't stick so perhaps you would be better served by finding another avenue to stake your claim to this idea.
Davidius is offline  
Old July 29th, 2012, 08:43 AM   #58

Comet's Avatar
Jedi Master
 
Joined: Aug 2006
From: IA
Posts: 8,672
Blog Entries: 1

Quote:
Originally Posted by Carl J. Weber View Post
The prof wasn't using your work as if it was his own. He was arguing against you're position. The problem is that he didn't mention you by name at all in his lecture[no, in my words used as his own in the announcement for the lecture], which would miff me a great deal if I were you, but he was under no obligation to do so, and anyone interested in the subject will seek out the points he was arguing against, and find your name all over them. [right] It actually sounds like good publicity (although regretably not direct publicity) for your own research.[right] If its sound research, any arguments against it will be no problem for you.[He has not provided any research sources for me to argue against.] Can you give your own lecture - advertised as "An Answer to Prof. X's Lecture On the Great Marquetta Map Hoax" and then source yourself throughout the lecture and make it clear that all the points being argued against by the Prof were yours and yours alone?[COLOR=DarkOrange][again, he has not provided any research sources for me to argue against.][/COLOR

Using the title of your work as a heading for his own lecture is not plagiarism, especially as he altered the words as well [not so -- altering the words still falls under dictionary definitions of plagiarism -- but not, so I've learned, because of lower standards, academic ones], and the words on their own do not convey anything more than a short hand reference to your theory or research. You say you are the only researcher with this information, so those interested but who know nothing about it will just look it up later and find you [right, but looked it up over the last seven years], and those who do know something must already know who you are [if they've searched -- on key words I come up all over the place].

His lecture is also not published anywhere nor available to the public. It sounds like it was a one off talk he gave, relying on notes in his possession. [It was to the Chicago Map Society at the Newberry Library -- no small potatoes -- I was there, and raised the stink] I don't see it will damage your own research, but getting het-up about this minor detail will damage your reputation as a level headed thinker. Keep it in perspective - one prof on one (or have I got that wrong?) occasion failed to attribute you in an unpublished work - and it looks worse for him for having failed to quote his sources.
My advice to you my friend is to drop the plagiarism angle and continue your research. You are now in rebuttal mode so your focus should be on countering the opposition's argument.
Comet is offline  
Old July 29th, 2012, 08:45 AM   #59

AlpinLuke's Avatar
Knight-errant
 
Joined: Oct 2011
From: Lago Maggiore, Italy
Posts: 19,468
Blog Entries: 19

Quote:
Originally Posted by Carl J. Weber View Post
Thanks for the mental energy. What do you think of this... The "Da Vinci Code" is part of the common cultural parlance. No courtroom judge, IMHO, would claim the words "The Da Vince Code Uncovered" were plagiarized since it'd be doubtful the writer of "The Da Vince Code Uncovered" was using somebody else's words as if they were his own. Trademark? Another story.

In the "The Great Marquette Map Hoax; a hoax unhoaxed", my phrase would be thought of by all readers as the professor's own, not mine, since the phrase is not part of the common cultural parlance.
This is an interesting point.

For accuracy the groups of papers traditionally called "Da Vinci Code" now is in the hands of Bill Gates who bought it [other name "Hammer Code"; former "Leicester Code"]. But it was A Da Vinci Code [there were several ones].

Back to our discussion.

You said he didn't deny to be using your words, but did he say this in public, during the presentation of his own arguments, or in private?
[again about the example of "The Da Vinci Code", to mention Mr Brown was absolutely useless, but of course in the book Brown was well mentioned: everybody in the world link that author to that title].

Furthermore, the usage of the word "hoax" next to the traditional definition of a map, or a map in general is not that rare [I can think to Piri Reis map, or to the Japanese radioactive map hoax, in case of the incident to the Japanese nuclear plant].

Personally I would have used a headline like

Confutation of the thesis about the "Marquette Map Hoax" by Carl J. Weber

But I'm not that sure that he had such a legal limitation in using that phrase in that context.
AlpinLuke is online now  
Old July 29th, 2012, 08:48 AM   #60

Comet's Avatar
Jedi Master
 
Joined: Aug 2006
From: IA
Posts: 8,672
Blog Entries: 1

Quote:
Originally Posted by Comet View Post
My advice to you my friend is to drop the plagiarism angle and continue your research. You are now in rebuttal mode so your focus should be on countering the opposition's argument.
Its also a good idea to get your things published when you can.
Comet is offline  
Reply

  Historum > World History Forum > General History

Tags
carl j. weber, chicago map society, forgery, marquette map hoax, plagiarism



Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Plagiarism in the Field of History JoeGlidden General History 8 July 29th, 2012 04:54 PM
Plagiarism Ranke General History 10 April 20th, 2008 04:53 AM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.