Historical Methodology

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Don, I don't see how quoting from Wikipedia is 'plagiarism', since they tout themselves as a public encyclopedia, and writers have always quoted from encyclopedias without asking permission.

Getting back to the topic of historical methodology, I didn't know the first thing about this when I first got into the Ripper. To my mind, Paul Begg or Stewart Evans were as much historians as the guy who wrote my text books in high school. In fact, I don't think I REALLY 'got it' until I read the book Shadows Past, where the author (an academic) explains it in awesome laymans terms. If anyone else is interested, I could grab my copy and 'plagiarize' that part for you.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Supe]

Tom,

I don't see how quoting from Wikipedia is 'plagiarism',

Quote from Wikipedia all you want (though at your peril) so long as you attribute your sentences to that source. That is perfectly fine. But Phil did not attribute, cite or even put his "borrowings" in quotation marks -- and he iused large gobs of text.

Don.

[Tom_Wescott]

I guess I can see what you mean, and I'm all for sourcing, I just thought 'plagiarism' was a bit strong of a word.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[mariab]

when Abba came out, it was almost check mate... according to the Swedes.

Yet Annifrid Lyngstad is a Norwegian, or half Norwegian, I thought.

Quote from Wikipedia all you want (though at your peril) so long as you attribute your sentences to that source.

If I may “plagiarize“ Don, quote from Wikipedia or elsewhere all you want, as long as you paraphrase. Just kidding. Although I'm gonna use some stuff of my American boss' in the current conference paper I'm writing, but he used something of mine in his own paper, so it's due retribution. :-) And it's sometimes hard to tell, between us, who produced what.

I agree about Don's “at your peril“ for consulting Wikipedia, though I have to admit I'm using it a lot, even for my own field sometimes, when away from the proper reference volumes. Which by the by frequently contain almost as many mistakes and not updated or biased stuff as Wikipedia.

[mariab]

with apologies for the double posts

but he is Norwegian. {...}I said that he changed the way historians thought.. not that EVERYONE accepted it as proof. Some did.

There was a Swede along 5 Norwegians on Con Tiki, sociologist Bengt Danielsson. I agree with Don that Thor Heyerdahl didn't prove his theory in a conventional fashion, but I kinda love his book. When I was a kid, I used to dream of reenacting the Con Tiki expedition with my friends.:-)
Heyerdahl has also been criticized for having associated with the Nazi regime in his ethnological studies in 1939, but 2 of the Norwegians on Con Tiki fought the Nazis in WWII – so this maybe kinda balances it.

[Phil Carter]

That's the last time I make any effort to offer something of interest. Good grief.

Maria. Lyngstad is Swedish. She was just born in Norway. Father German, mother Norwegian.* I could even talk more of the Scandinavian Royal family and what happened pre 1905 and 1814.. but it has nothing to do with the topic of the thread.

Thanks Tom.



Phil

* Source: General knowledge.

[mariab]

historical methodology

Thanks Phil, and we dutifully appreciate that you took the time to cite your sources (general knowledge) on Lyngstad's family tree. :-)
Pertaining to historical methodology, I've just finished my second paper on severe deadline for a conference, after an all nighter. Yesss!
Now I just hope that someone might like to continue the discussion initiated by Phil Carter in this thread.
(With profound apologies for the silly joke.)