Let’s Talk About Plagiarism

[Monty]

My original decision to put the thread in JTRForums' members only section was my desire not to promote the book.
On second thought, its best that that thread be seen by one and all.
Its back in its original spot....and that's where it will stay.
H.Brown

Valid reasoning in my humble opinion How, appreciate the clarification. One I hadnt considered admittedly.

It would be a shame that other innocent contributors miss out due to the incompetency of two, one of whom may be his own worse enemy but whose actions often impact on those genuine researcher/authors.

Monty

[Howard Brown]

My original decision to put the thread in JTRForums' members only section was my desire to not promote the book.
On second thought, its best that that thread be seen by one and all.
Its back in its original spot....and that's where it will stay.
H.Brown

[Debra A]

... But what I'm trying to say is that 'Ripperology' will always consist of experts right the way down to novices. If you try to hive off the experts from the rest, you get an academic or quasi-academic bubble and before you know it people are being thrown off boards for 'bringing Ripperology into disrepute.' Note I'm only talking about sloppy research or outlandish theories. If people are actually dishonest then by all means throw them off the boards (though that's a matter for the proprietors).

I agree, Robert. Apart from condemning plagiarism and dishonesty when it is brought to our attention, I'm not sure what else can be done. We are all coming to the subject for different reasons and have different interests and goals.

[Monty]

Has it? Which experts are we talking about?

To quote the blurb of the part plagiarised works

”The authors of this book are all members of [now defunct I believe] H Division Crime Club, the world's largest body of experts on the Jack the Ripper murders.”

So Keith Stride for a start.

[MrBarnett]

"If you try to hive off the experts from the rest.."

That has been attempted, has it not?

Has it? Which experts are we talking about?

[Abby Normal]

another two books I wont be getting

[Monty]

"If you try to hive off the experts from the rest.."

That has been attempted, has it not?

[Robert]

Of course standards should be upheld, and that's what you've got with people like Debs and Paul. But what I'm trying to say is that 'Ripperology' will always consist of experts right the way down to novices. If you try to hive off the experts from the rest, you get an academic or quasi-academic bubble and before you know it people are being thrown off boards for 'bringing Ripperology into disrepute.' Note I'm only talking about sloppy research or outlandish theories. If people are actually dishonest then by all means throw them off the boards (though that's a matter for the proprietors).

[Steve S]

I don't think anyone would disagree...That if we want to be 'taken seriously', it's essential to put our own house in order....And I'm not talking poo-pooing theories, but cleansing the downright dishonest when it is proven

[Monty]

I'm all in favour of shenanigans being exposed. But I'm not sure I like the idea of 'legitimacy.' Once you have something akin to a degree in Ripper studies or a Chair of Ripperology, then you've really got a bubble. After all, both the main Ripper sites have a policy of encouraging novices to join and discuss the case with all and sundry, including the experts. I wouldn't want to put them off.

Yet one of the main sites has decided to close its doors on the dirty tricks exposed in recent weeks. Thus taking it from the "all and sundry."

Whereas Grey and Rubenhold have not been given the same treatment.

The elitism coninues....along with the hypocrisy.


Surely standards must be set and adhered to. Now acedemic interest has become more prominant, the importance of those standards has become more paramount.

[MrBarnett]

Jon,

I don’t recognised your comment about the claim that academics inevitably foul things up. Perhaps you can elaborate.

Gary

[Robert]

I'm all in favour of shenanigans being exposed. But I'm not sure I like the idea of 'legitimacy.' Once you have something akin to a degree in Ripper studies or a Chair of Ripperology, then you've really got a bubble. After all, both the main Ripper sites have a policy of encouraging novices to join and discuss the case with all and sundry, including the experts. I wouldn't want to put them off.

[jmenges]

A funny thing happened on our way to legitimacy...

You know I was thinking about Drew Gray’s talk at this months East End Conference (listen to it when you get the chance)

https://www.casebook.org/podcast/listen.html?id=247

and how he was suggesting that Ripperology should be acknowledged and respected as a serious, scholarly field of study, and dropped hints of his plan to host an academic-oriented conference at the University of Northampton, bringing together social scientists, historians, gender studies, criminologist, social workers and Ripperologists to meet and discuss a multitude of Historical and Societal issues that we discover while researching the Whitechapel murders.
Very exciting stuff, right?

But then certain events occurred over the past few weeks concerning the blatant plagiarism of the works of two of our best researchers and writers- John Bennett and Paul Begg. While the reactions of those who commented were for the most part normal i.e shocked and stupefied that such a thing as theft from these two prominent men could be contemplated by an author of a Ripper book-with no apparent thought given to the fact that he would be quickly caught, the reactions of a small handful of others were concerning. A couple of lesser prominent individuals- but still well known- seemed to want to minimize what was done. They said it essentially wasn’t a big deal. That the matter should be handled privately (I assume with an exchange of money) and all can be resolved. That the text that was stolen wasn’t important enough to merit attention. That the person who exposed the plagiarism must have a grudge. That we should question his motives. Look into what he’s up to.

So...back to Drew and the academe.

It’s been said that Ripper Studies doesn’t need the academics or the “historians” because when they do publish on the Ripper case they inevitably foul the whole thing up. There’s an element of truth to this. However it is my belief that it would be a nice turn to take for this field if the works of our best researchers and writers were treated with more respect and admiration in a wider academic and historical field and context rather than just by us inside our bubble and by just one academic-Drew Gray.

However, now I’m beginning to think that it’s not that Ripperology doesn’t need the respect that -unfortunately or not- comes with being legitimately considered a social science...it might be that Ripperology isn’t ready for it. And therefore might not deserve it. Yet.

So carry on, I guess, with those public threads on Drey Gray’s book and Hallie Rubenhold’s book that are there for all to see in bad times and good times, and let’s keep hidden from the public threads and delete all images about Ripper Studies-on-Ripper Studies theft, ripoff and deception. We’d rather keep our ugly family secrets behind closed doors, right? Just take it to PM, eh?

Please.



JM

[jmenges]

Changed the topic of this thread to cite and show specific examples- past, current and going forward- and hopefully encourage discussion about plagiarism having a detrimental effect on Ripper Studies.

JM

[Monty]

I don’t really know anything about him so I don’t know what form he might have? Obviously the dishonesty is the main point though.

You may say that, I couldn’t possibly comment.

Monty