Stephen Ambrose caught plagiarizing (1 Viewer)

[Everlasting Gobstopper]

Maybe I got this wrong, but I think the main difference between Ambrose plagiarizing and a student plagiarizing, is that the student actually violates rules as set by the educational instituion, while Ambrose was doing this on his own, thus didn't break any rules. It was still wrong, but the only person he is accountable to is himself.

Not quite. Plagiarism is considered intellectual theft, and is certainly actionable in a civil court. In terms of criminal charges, they can be levied if the work in question is copyrighted (which these were). Basically, he was passing off someone else's work as his own. The rules he broke are international law, according to lawyer friends of mine. Not to mention the rules of academic research.

 

[Carlo_M]

As a writer (amateur), I can definitely agree that sometimes one borrows key phrases or styles of speaking from a favorite author or reference. But that passage up there looked like a direct rip-off, and I don't think he should get away with it.

It's one thing to write like someone, it's another thing to copy entire paragraphs and just change a few words around.

 

[Darren H]

The problem with finger pointing--like the aforementioned posts--is that while everybody wants to point, nobody has a follow-up of any merit. It's all about blame, isn't it?

The easiest thing in the world is to stand at the front of a mob and shout "plagerizer!", but who among you can say with 100% certainty that nothing you've ever written was lifted in part or in whole from the work of another?

Is that silence I hear?

Good.

Wow, Bill, I'm not quite sure how to respond to your post, as it's one of the strangest pieces of misdirection I've ever seen. The subject of this thread is a professional historian who has quite literally banked on the public trust, turning his academic work into a multi-million dollar a year cottage industry. What he has done is, at the least, sloppy and lazy research and editing, and, at the worst, deliberate plagiarism, both of which are simply unacceptable by the rigorous standards of academic research, not to mention illegal.

 

[Peter Kim]

You know, the thing that bothers me most about the example I quoted above (and the many others that have been cited by the press) is that it is not quite a "direct" rip-off. Instead, a few words have been carefully and deliberately changed, which, to me, signals that Ambrose (or his research assistants) were aware that they were treading dangerous waters.

My analysis, exactly. The passage that was used as the example looked manufactured to throw off, when you consider the alterations.

Bill, I can sympathize when a hero has fallen. Stephen Ambrose had the mantle of being one of America's leading historian. But when you consider the alterations made to the lifted passages, it does not appear that he simply forgot to footnote the author. Coupled with this, it sounds like this is not an isolated incident. Pretty damning evidence, indeed.

 

[Darren H]

If any of you are curious, here are links to more examples, culled from three of Ambrose's books:
http://www.forbes.com/2002/01/09/0109ambrose_2.html
http://www.forbes.com/2002/01/07/0107ambrose_2.html
There is also an accompanying article that is, I think, well-balanced, allowing Ambrose to defend his practices. It's worth reading.
http://www.forbes.com/2002/01/11/0111ambrose.html

 

[Jack Briggs]

Given how popular this author of light history volumes is, his audience will forgive him soon. But his peers among the historians will be less charitable.

 

[MickeS]

He does acknowledge in the books that the passages have been taken from other sources, he just doesn't point out that they are exact quotes.

I don't think it's a big deal myself, but then again I'm not a fan of Mr Ambroses writings anyway (I haven't read any of it).

/Mike