AVOIDING PLAGIARISM

THXXXX · Dec 1, 2014

Am writing a non-fiction book, but having difficulty finding the PRECISE rule regarding mentioning or not mentioning the author or publication in the sentence that will require a citing of the source, but the sentence is NOT a quote requiring " ..." marks.

There must be a page somewhere on this website that addresses the issue. I have already read 25-35 websites — including Purdue OWL — dealing with the issue. The best I can find, is that mentioning the author or publication is recommended, but does not state whether it is required. I have also looked at least a half a dozen recently published books, and still can not determine what the precise rule is.

Thanks.

cornflake · Dec 1, 2014

THXXXX said:
Am writing a non-fiction book, but having difficulty finding the PRECISE rule regarding mentioning or not mentioning the author or publication in the sentence that will require a citing of the source, but the sentence is NOT a quote requiring " ..." marks.

There must be a page somewhere on this website that addresses the issue. I have already read 25-35 websites — including Purdue OWL — dealing with the issue. The best I can find, is that mentioning the author or publication is recommended, but does not state whether it is required. I have also looked at least a half a dozen recently published books, and still can not determine what the precise rule is.

Thanks.

I don't understand your question.

If you cite a source, you have to CITE the source...

Unimportant · Dec 1, 2014

THXXXX said:
Am writing a non-fiction book, but having difficulty finding the PRECISE rule regarding mentioning or not mentioning the author or publication in the sentence that will require a citing of the source, but the sentence is NOT a quote requiring " ..." marks.

There must be a page somewhere on this website that addresses the issue. I have already read 25-35 websites — including Purdue OWL — dealing with the issue. The best I can find, is that mentioning the author or publication is recommended, but does not state whether it is required. I have also looked at least a half a dozen recently published books, and still can not determine what the precise rule is.

Thanks.

The precise rule is: You may not plagiarise, and you may not infringe copyright.

How you reference other works depends on the format/style/genre of work you are creating, and what the publisher's expectations/house rules are.

LittlePinto · Dec 1, 2014

THXXXX said:
Am writing a non-fiction book, but having difficulty finding the PRECISE rule regarding mentioning or not mentioning the author or publication in the sentence that will require a citing of the source, but the sentence is NOT a quote requiring " ..." marks.

There must be a page somewhere on this website that addresses the issue. I have already read 25-35 websites — including Purdue OWL — dealing with the issue. The best I can find, is that mentioning the author or publication is recommended, but does not state whether it is required. I have also looked at least a half a dozen recently published books, and still can not determine what the precise rule is.

Thanks.

The precise rule is that if the information comes from another source, regardless of whether it is a direct quote or paraphrase, then you must cite that source.

In the nonfiction categories I read (history and sciences) this is generally done with footnotes or endnotes.

THXXXX · Dec 1, 2014

cornflake said:
I don't understand your question.

If you cite a source, you have to CITE the source...

DATA: George Patton led the Third Army through France and his leadership was instrumental with the Allies victory in the Battle of the Bulge, when his Third Army rescued the beleaguered soldiers that were surrounded by the Germans at Bastogne.

AUTHOR'S PARAPHRASE: Patton's "instrumental leadership" aided the rescue of soldiers that were surrounded by the Germans at Bastogne. (Footnote or end-note added to cite the source.)

The question is whether the paraphrase should contain either the author's name or the publication where the data was found. I am fully aware of the information that is required in the footnote or end-note, and in the bibliography.

Thanks.

cornflake · Dec 1, 2014

THXXXX said:
DATA: George Patton led the Third Army through France and his leadership was instrumental with the Allies victory in the Battle of the Bulge, when his Third Army rescued the beleaguered soldiers that were surrounded by the Germans at Bastogne.

AUTHOR'S PARAPHRASE: Patton's "instrumental leadership" aided the rescue of soldiers that were surrounded by the Germans at Bastogne. (Footnote or end-note added to cite the source.)

The question is whether the paraphrase should contain either the author's name or the publication where the data was found. I am fully aware of the information that is required in the footnote or end-note, and in the bibliography.

Thanks.

Oh. That's strictly a style question. As long as you're citing the source, whether you say something like, 'Bob noted, in his influential work, 'Bob's Stuff,' that Patton...' or just start with 'Patton...' and tag it, is dependent on the style of the work. It should generally be to one style throughout, though some people will do more prominent or whatever things noted in the text directly and others just cited as notes. Up to you; there's not a requirement, no. As long as you properly cite it via a foot- or end-note, you don't have to also spell out the cite within the text.

THXXXX · Dec 1, 2014

cornflake said:
Oh. That's strictly a style question. As long as you're citing the source, whether you say something like, 'Bob noted, in his influential work, 'Bob's Stuff,' that Patton...' or just start with 'Patton...' and tag it, is dependent on the style of the work. It should generally be to one style throughout, though some people will do more prominent or whatever things noted in the text directly and others just cited as notes. Up to you; there's not a requirement, no. As long as you properly cite it via a foot- or end-note, you don't have to also spell out the cite within the text.

I am not asking whether the FULL cite is required within the text, just whether mentioning the author's name or the name of the publication is required within the text.

Thanks.

LittlePinto · Dec 1, 2014

THXXXX said:
I am not asking whether the FULL cite is required within the text, just whether mentioning the author's name or the name of the publication is required within the text.

Thanks.

Yes, that's a question of style. If you want to say "As Author noted..." and leave out the name of the text then it's up to you. All you absolutely have to have is the correct end/footnote citation.

Unimportant · Dec 1, 2014

THXXXX said:
I am not asking whether the FULL cite is required within the text, just whether mentioning the author's name or the name of the publication is required within the text.

Thanks.

It is not required as a blanket rule. But house styles vary, and your publisher's house style may require it.

WeaselFire · Dec 2, 2014

THXXXX said:
I have already read 25-35 websites — including Purdue OWL...

Follow the guidelines listed for citations. If you want the absolute rule, you'll need to study copyright law and all the court decisions handed down over the years. Generally six months of course work for someone who is already a law student. Once you know all those laws and rulings, and have passed the bar, you can adequately decide on what the absolute rule you're willing to defend as your position.

Jeff

THXXXX · Dec 2, 2014

Thanks everybody for your help. Nice to have good sources available.

kdaniel171 · Dec 3, 2014

Avoiding Plagiarism

Sorry I didn't understand the whole question, but I would recommend you to use the author's name as, "According to Mr. A, ". Or you can write that part in your own words to avoid plagiarism.

LittlePinto · Dec 4, 2014

kdaniel171 said:
Sorry I didn't understand the whole question, but I would recommend you to use the author's name as, "According to Mr. A, ". Or you can write that part in your own words to avoid plagiarism.

Paraphrasing, writing something in your own words, can be a form of plagiarism if not correctly cited.

boblamoreaux · Jan 8, 2015

Without getting into the issue of plagiarism or "style", I try to cite to reference (full citation) out of personal preference. Nothing irks me more than the current "style" of dealing with "citations" -- usually at the end of the book and instead of the traditional end note with a superscript number, they only give the page where the info was found in the book you are reading! Sometimes I like to check the original source for context, if nothing else. The other irksome thing is the sometimes lack of an index in a non-fiction book. I guess publishers are charging for this against royalties. But not having an index used to be fatal for publishers attempting library sales. Don't know if that is true anymore. Why do we need libraries anyway? EVERYTHING is online! (So say the politicians who cut library budgets!) Yeah. GIGO.

Jamesaritchie · Jan 16, 2015

LittlePinto said:
The precise rule is that if the information comes from another source, regardless of whether it is a direct quote or paraphrase, then you must cite that source.

In the nonfiction categories I read (history and sciences) this is generally done with footnotes or endnotes.

Well, no, Information is free and never covered by copyright. If it were covered, few of us could ever write about anything.

Just because I read a book by an expert that spends two thousand words talking about the details of George Washington's false teeth does not mean I can't use that information to write about George Washington's false teeth without ever citing a source.

It's the way something is written that's covered by copyright, not the information contain in the writing.

The only reason I would cite a source when writing my own article is to show that an expert agreed with what I'm saying.

Information really is free for all of us to use.

Jamesaritchie · Jan 16, 2015

LittlePinto said:
Paraphrasing, writing something in your own words, can be a form of plagiarism if not correctly cited.

Not if it really is in your own words. All information is free. None of it is covered in any way by copyright. If we really do write something in our own words, rather than just changing a word or two here and there, we're writing an original article.

Pup · Jan 16, 2015

Rewriting something in your own words isn't a copyright violation, but I could see where it could be, well, not exactly plagiarism, but discourteously taking advantage of another's research.

There's no point in citing "George Washington had wooden teeth" because it's common knowledge. But let's say Big Name Researcher just discovered a fact no one else knows by finding an old letter behind a framed portrait--that his teeth were virtually destroyed by termites. Big Name Researcher writes an article announcing this.

If Unknown Researcher writes an article taking all the information from Big Name Researcher's article--the knowledge of which hasn't had time to spread thoroughly through academic circles let alone out to the general public--I'd say that Unknown Researcher should cite Big Name Researcher for the discovery, even if there's no copyright violation or direct plagiarism. Otherwise, it may seem as if Unknown Researcher is taking credit for the discovery herself.

I've seen that kind of credit gradually fade, as a new discovery gets more and more widely known. In the beginning, in older articles, it's almost always credited back to the discoverer, but as time passes, it's just one more historic fact, and credit for the original discoverer shows up less and less. Not that that's a bad thing, but it shows the difference in how authors usually cite new discoveries compared to well-known stuff.

LittlePinto · Jan 17, 2015

Pup said:
Rewriting something in your own words isn't a copyright violation, but I could see where it could be, well, not exactly plagiarism, but discourteously taking advantage of another's research.

There's no point in citing "George Washington had wooden teeth" because it's common knowledge. But let's say Big Name Researcher just discovered a fact no one else knows by finding an old letter behind a framed portrait--that his teeth were virtually destroyed by termites. Big Name Researcher writes an article announcing this.

If Unknown Researcher writes an article taking all the information from Big Name Researcher's article--the knowledge of which hasn't had time to spread thoroughly through academic circles let alone out to the general public--I'd say that Unknown Researcher should cite Big Name Researcher for the discovery, even if there's no copyright violation or direct plagiarism. Otherwise, it may seem as if Unknown Researcher is taking credit for the discovery herself.

I've seen that kind of credit gradually fade, as a new discovery gets more and more widely known. In the beginning, in older articles, it's almost always credited back to the discoverer, but as time passes, it's just one more historic fact, and credit for the original discoverer shows up less and less. Not that that's a bad thing, but it shows the difference in how authors usually cite new discoveries compared to well-known stuff.

Yes. I suspect that there are two different conversations going on here. I was trained as an academic and it was drilled into me from Day One that information that is unique to a source must be cited whether or not you are paraphrasing or directly quoting.

For non-acdemic nonfiction writing, I suggest everyone look up what happened to Stephen Ambrose. It's a good illustration of how standards in citations change. What he did in The Wild Blue was no different from what Robert Leckie did in Delivered From Evil (and, in fact, Ambrose's work had better citations) but Leckie's career wasn't destroyed by plagiarism charges.

Finally, as a reader of nonfiction, I don't buy books that don't heavily cite sources and I don't want an author to assume "common knowledge" on a more specialized subject. I want to be able to check the original sources myself. The reason is because "common knowledge" frequently tends to be wrong.

ETA: For anyone who doesn't want to click that link, George Washington did not have wooden teeth.

AVOIDING PLAGIARISM

THXXXX

cornflake

practical experience, FTW

Unimportant

No COVID yet. Still masking.

LittlePinto

Perpetually confused

THXXXX

cornflake

practical experience, FTW

THXXXX

LittlePinto

Perpetually confused

Unimportant

No COVID yet. Still masking.

WeaselFire

Benefactor Member

THXXXX

kdaniel171

LittlePinto

Perpetually confused

boblamoreaux

Jamesaritchie

Jamesaritchie

Pup

.

LittlePinto

Perpetually confused