Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohio
I don't see this as an "offense" matter, if I am hearing you correctly.
This article on "Plagiarism" strikes at the root of LSM pride, elitism, exclusivism, judgmentalism, arrogance, hypocrisy, etc. Early on ... yes ... there were many references to Vincent, Alford, Pember, Panton, Govett, etc., but that tapered off over time as "the ministry" made outrageous claims to "subsume" all others, while boasting in its own accomplishments.
Either way, any Christian publisher which sets itself up as an authority on "all things Christian" (think A&C) must be above reproach in all its works. Whether or not WL gives credit where credit is due in every spoken message is one thing, but the author and his editorial staff must give credit in each and every written message before publishing.
Am I missing something here?
|
I'd rather pick it up here, Ohio, but since someone posted a link over there and then everyone jumped on the "Dear Brother Nigel" bandwagon immediately, I felt I had to make a comment both places.
The thing is, Tomes is just as likely to be mistaken as Lee and this article unfortunately really goes a long way to substantiation of the claims the LSM-proponents make against him. It's simply not justified to hold Lee or even LSM as a publisher to the standards of an academic press just because they tried to pawn off A&C as a scholarly journal. Religious presses are known for this sort of thing and it drives academics crazy. This common practice is not really "plagiarism" in any traditional sense of the word.
Moreover, in that at least many of the footnotes do in fact attribute numerous things to Vincent and Alford, Tomes' argument is much weakend that there is something fundamentally wrong with the moral fiber of the "LSM-faithful." (See his footnote 45.) The argument here that citation "tapered off" is counter balanced by the reality that those attributions are still in the currently published edition of the Recovery Version. They erased John Ingall's name and his translation work but Alford and Vincent's attributions, such as they are, remain to this day.
The thing is, this is looking at it backwards. A&C isn't a reason to try to impose citatation standards on all of the publications of LSM. Instead, all that material from the LSM presses reveals why it is unlikely that A&C will ever be taken seriously as a scholarly journal regardless of how thoroughly it is footnoted.