I well remember the sudden epidemic of plagiarism and scandals amongst respected historians in late 2001 and early 2002. Giants seemed to fall, some of my favorites. Stephen Ambrose, for example. Joseph Ellis was caught up in a scandal as well. What was up? Lengthy articles were written about the tendency of these big-wig historians to use a team of research assistants to do the grunt work … Hence, a lot of the times the writer will incorporate someone else’s words into his book, without even knowing it. Since he did not do the grunt work himself. This was a revelation to the public, as I recall: that these favorite books, these best-sellers, were basically written by a team, with one author’s name affixed. Etc.<\/p>\n
I find this all very interesting. My teachers in high school put the fear of GOD into me, in terms of plagiarizing, and proper credit being given to every single quote<\/i>. Plagiarism was seen as a big BIG deal. I wonder now if this is not so much the case? It must be way harder to even monitor plagiarism in the classroom, because of all the Internet research that goes on, etc. I remember huddling over little dog-eared card catalogs in the university library, painstakingly writing down author, publishing house, date, yadda yadda.<\/p>\n
And so suddenly – all of these GIANTS of thet field were busted.<\/p>\n
Anyway, a book has been written about all of this by Peter Hoffer, who is an adviser to the American Historical Association. His specialty is the plagiarism of historians. The book is called Past Imperfect: Facts, Fictions, Frauds – American History From Bancroft And Parkman To Ambrose, Bellisles, Ellis, And Goodwin<\/a><\/i>. It sounds terrific<\/i> and I have to read it.<\/p>\n Hoffer goes into in-depth the entire Michael Bellesiles debacle – anyone remember THAT one? Bellesiles wrote a book called Arming America<\/i> – which was hailed by his fellow historians<\/i> as ground-breaking, blah blah blah, it won prestigious prizes, etc. And then it was revealed that it was all a fiction. Completely <\/i>made up. His conclusions were based on fantasy research, and madeup numbers. The buzz on that one has not died down yet.<\/p>\n If this topic interests you at all (historical accuracy, research techniques, and also the understandingly difficult task of separating YOUR work from another’s) … the Wilson Quarterly has an extensive article up right now, about this new book, and about plagiarism<\/a>. Well worth reading.<\/p>\n I’m gonna have to pick up Past Imperfect<\/i>. A fascinating topic.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" I well remember the sudden epidemic of plagiarism and scandals amongst respected historians in late 2001 and early 2002. Giants seemed to fall, some of my favorites. Stephen Ambrose, for example. Joseph Ellis was caught up in a scandal as … Continue reading