https://www.reddit.com/r/exmormon/comme ... ame=iossmf
Have to say, the degree of unattributed reuse appears out of bounds.Red highlight shows overlap. Green shows cited section.
Have to say, the degree of unattributed reuse appears out of bounds.Red highlight shows overlap. Green shows cited section.
The custom in those days was for the host of a wedding feast—in this parable, the king—to provide garments for the wedding guests. Such wedding garments were simple, nondescript robes that all attendees wore. In this way, rank and station were eliminated, and everyone at the feast could mingle as equals.
It's largely verbatim. Was Bednar in a rush to prepare something, anything, for Conference and simply presented John O. Reid's labours as his own?As the king entered the wedding hall, he surveyed the audience and immediately noticed that one conspicuous guest was not wearing a wedding garment. The man was brought forward, and the king asked, “Friend, how camest thou in hither not having a wedding garment? And he was speechless.”13 In essence, the king asked, “Why are you not wearing a wedding garment, even though one was provided for you?”
The man obviously was not dressed properly for this special occasion, and the phrase “And he was speechless” indicates that the man was without excuse.
But that isn’t proper attribution for the large swathes of Reid’s work that Bednar copy and pasted into his Conference address.A Christian author, John O. Reid, noted that the man’s refusal to wear the wedding garment exemplified blatant disrespect for both the king and his son.
grahamPsmith wrote:I think that the evidence is that Bednar knew he was plagiarizing. He changes some of the sentences to read a little more polished than the original. Also, note that while the Church's printed version now uses quotation marks, those marks were not there yesterday, when I took screen shots of the published version and the footnotes. In addition, there was only one footnote to the original author yesterday. Today there are multiple. These facts give the lie to Church spokesperson, Doug Anderson's, spin that the original author was quoted and referenced on multiple occasions in footnotes. The changes also show that the Church has recognized that the original presentation was not appropriate.
Note that after-the-fact quotations and citations do not change plagiarism into non-plagiarism.
Any plagiarized use of material can be dressed up later with quotation marks and citations. Missing portions can always be handled later by ellipses and additions by square brackets.
https://old.reddit.com/r/Mormon/comment ... m/ird7pn0/
cinepro wrote: "when I took screen shots of the published version and the footnotes."
Do you have the screenshots?
Of course, this raises the question about what the point is. If everyone is worried that Reid wasn't being properly attributed, then doesn't adding the footnotes solve the problem and make everyone happy (if they were originally missing in the printed version)? He's properly attributed now, and will be for years to come as the online version of the talk remains as the final record of what Bednar said.
GrahamPSmith wrote: Yes, I do have the screenshots. The problem is that the changes weren't made until after Bednar was caught.
And another try:cinepro [score hidden] an hour ago
Cool. Can you share the screen shots? I'd be curious to see them.
[–]GrahamPSmith [score hidden] an hour ago
I just posted them here:
https://www.reddit.com/r/exmormon/comme ... man\_doug/
[–]GrahamPSmith [score hidden] an hour ago
Also, I posted the screenshots yesterday before the changes were made here:
https://www.reddit.com/r/exmormon/comme ... _official/
[permalink]
https://old.reddit.com/r/Mormon/comment ... m/irde6vl/
cinepro wrote: Here's the printed version of the talk. Is there anything that isn't properly footnoted? Footnotes 12, 15, 16, 18 & 19 cite the Reid article. There are also a few other books that are footnoted but not explicitly called out in the talk. He doesn't specifically mention where all the Reid sections are from. Is that the problem?
https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/stu ... r?lang=eng
GrahamPSmith wrote:
The printed version was changed after the plagiarism became known:
https://www.reddit.com/r/exmormon/comme ... man\_doug/
https://old.reddit.com/r/Mormon/comment ... m/irdhvbo/
[permalink]
https://old.reddit.com/r/Mormon/comment ... m/irdhvbo/
Shades of Cinepro's strategy. please start a separate thread for this separate topic.Dwight wrote: ↑Fri Oct 07, 2022 7:54 am...and then how good was the scholarship of John O. Reid. Is his explanation actually legit and/or how much is his own interpretation or assigning meaning that wouldn't have existed before. Perhaps the latter part I am giving too much of an opening for. I also like the defense that this was a religious setting and not an academic from the spokesperson as though that makes it better. The religious setting should in theory be even better than a mere worldly academic setting.
This has flavors of ...
that's what this thread is about.