“As I’ve mentioned, by the time of the Reformation the ship of the church was absolutely covered with barnacles — saints days, and whatnot. The Reformers scraped virtually all of them off, keeping only what they called the ‘five evangelical feast days’ — Christmas, Good Friday, Easter, Ascension, and Pentecost. All five are related to things Jesus did, and so we are not distracted by the Feast of St. Bartholomew’s Finger Bone” (God Rest Ye Merry, p. 93).
Have 'Em Delivered
Write to the Editor
But “the Feast of St. Bartholomew’s Finger Bone” was one of my favorites!
It’s worth noting that some of our Reformed forebears in the faith also eliminated the celebration of Christmas for a time due to its Romish tendencies. For example, the Pilgrims and I believe many of the Puritans.
I personally think this went too far–throwing away the baby as well as it were–but it is in our history. Thankfully we have Sola Scriptura to rescue us from our own excesses.
As one of the Puritan greats said in the 1580’s, “That more mischief is that time committed than in all the year besides, what masking and mumming, whereby robbery whoredom, murder and what not is committed? What dicing and carding, what eating and drinking, what banqueting and feasting is then used, more than in all the year besides, to the great dishonour of God and impoverishing of the realm.”
On this, Spurgeon once said: “This is the season of the year when, whether we wish it or not, we are compelled to think of the birth of Christ. I hold it to be one of the greatest absurdities under heaven to think that there is any religion in keeping Christmas-day. There are no probabilities whatever that our Savior Jesus Christ was born on that day and the observance of it is purely of Popish origin; doubtless those who are Catholics have a right to hallow it, but I do not see how consistent Protestants can account it in the… Read more »
“There are no probabilities whatever that our Savior Jesus Christ was born on that day”
But accordong to this
there is a posibility that the magi presented their gifts on that day.
It should also be noted that it was flawed 19th century scholarship that led to people still to this day insisting that Jesus could not have been born on Dec. 25th. The fact is that a mid winter date for Jesus birth (as the vast majority of early Christian tradition assumed) is actually no less likely than any other date. Perhaps slightly more likely if the persistent tradition itself is considered as evidence.
Touchstone argues that there is reason to argue for Dec 25 and pagan challenges postdate Christmas.
Myself, I think possibly Autumn, though a case can be made for June.
Is anyone surprised a guy who had no issue with slavery, supports the predators of sexual abuseis involved once again in stealing other people’s work and calling it his own…but somehow still will shift blame on it all to others…
As Rod Dreher said today, “Credibility? None left. Not a shred of it, if ever there was.” http://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/doug-wilson-serial-plagiarism/
And the Wilson enablers will begin damage control in 3…2…1…
JP’s talking about credibility!
Yep, I use my real name here, as I did with Doug while I used JP yo the public. Doug, want to educate us on ethical communication in writing?
Do you need an education on ethical communication in writing?
Umm, credibility, two books in publication removed for plagiarism…talk to the blogger
I guess the origonal accusations aren’t sticking well enough…
It’s all part of the larger narrative. When you have no problem with men owning slaves (stealing from men who deserve compensation for their work and deserve freedom to build their lives), you take the side of the perpetrator in heinous sex crimes, and you attempt to sully the character of those not involved in the crime to lessen the consequences for the person who committed the crimes, it’s apparent that, unlike Jesus, you care more about power and control and your own image than you do about people. That’s not pastoral and it’s something that someone in authority should… Read more »
“It’s all part of the larger narrative.”
Who constructed this narrative?
“That’s not pastoral and it’s something that someone in authority should deal with Doug on, the only problem is it appears no one around him has that sort of power.”
I’m sure it appears that way from within this narrative you have adopted or constructed, but even if that’s accurate you don’t have the power or authority to hold Doug accountable for anything.
Btw, what’s up butterheart?
I am looking forward to you detailing:
a) how what you are party to is not actually plagiarism.
b) how plagiarism does not actually mean what we think it does.
c) even if it is plagiarism, it’s not your fault.
d) the bible gives you a leeway to steal other people’s work somehow.
Not sure why you think everyone is going to freak out and disagree with you! The book’s been recalled and copies are remaindered. Rachel Miller (who pointed out the problem) has even been thanked…
Rand, what is everybody talking about?
Luke 6:39-41 39 He also told them this parable: “Can the blind lead the blind? Will they not both fall into a pit? 40 The student is not above the teacher, but everyone who is fully trained will be like their teacher. 41 “Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? Wow, a bunch of pastors, theologians and writers told the same stories about the same topics just about the same way. Maybe God did not get enough atribution here! ; – ) Plagiarism… Read more »
Yep. He really gets under your skin.
Merry Christmas Ryan, sorry JP, PJ ?
Oh my Ryan. That you could withstand the microscope that Doug is under…
Microscope? Oh please, what a martyr syndrome, the butterheart asks for it.
Sour Grapes cause you’re on double secret probation?
Is this the same Ryan Sather who, after castigating people for not using their real names when commenting, proceeded to comment under a pseudonym? Then lied about it when called out?
“Credibility? None left. Not a shred of it, if there ever was.”
Nope…the only peddler of bunk…for profit I might add…is the proprietor of this blog.
Doug Wilson’s statement, from the article Ryan Sather linked:
“I was disappointed to find out today that there are serious citation problems in A Justice Primer. In light of this, I am completely supportive of Canon Press withdrawing the book from circulation.”
Yup, still the same lyin’ Ryan. Lying by omission this time. Got any more lies, Ryan?
When you’re caught with your hand in the cookie jar it’s a bit disingenuous to act as if you have integrity to be agreeing that your hand is in the cookie jar.
This coming from the guy who, when caught, denied his hand was ever in the cookie jar.
You’re a punk that needs a good beat-down. It’s coming for sure in a cosmic way that will make an exclamation in your life.
I can’t even recall how I ended up finding out about this whole “controversy,” but I do know I accidentally signed up to receive the comments by email. I have read many of them, and they are astonishing. Many of you need to get off the internet and not return. I am hoping the anonymity turns you into a different person, and that you aren’t actually like this in your real life. Either way, stop! No unbeliever would ever want to be a part of your God. And for the record, I am speaking to both sides here. Just stop.
Mommy, go deal with your duties to your five. This isn’t you. Go away and deal with more pressing matters. This is directed at Ryan S who is most worthy of a Cosmic beat down. So don’t speak about what you know nothing of unless you’re a lying decieving RS. Go and attend to your 5 and unplug yourself if you are so exasperated.
Help me out here, JP. Tell me how a cited comment about the proper approach to the church year ought to bring up everything else someone is, credibly or otherwise, accused of. Really, you’re more or less like the guy at the church Christmas party who insists on bringing the Bilderbergers and the New World Order with black helicopters into everything….just as the children’s story is starting. But if we must bring these things in, it strikes me that with a quick search of this website, I found a statement pointing out what was wrong with slavery, and I have… Read more »
I am getting that same feeling I had as a child sitting in church business meetings with adults bickering, whining, and arguing. My friend and I, as young teens, would comb through our bibles finding scripture about how we should treat one another. I would like to break this down. Plagiarism is wrong, whether or not it was intentional. As an author, you should verify that what you are putting out there is your own work. End of story. Believers arguing about this is ridiculous. Are we aware of what is going on in our world? We have (true) martyrs… Read more »
“…we understand whatsoever men, by Laws, Councils, or Constitutions have imposed upon the consciences of men, without the expressed commandment of God’s word: such as be vows of chastity, foreswearing of marriage, binding of men and women to several and disguised apparels, to the superstitious observation of fasting days, difference of meat for conscience sake, prayer for the dead; and keeping of holy days of certain Saints commanded by men, such as be all those that the Papists have invented, as the Feasts (as they term them) of Apostles, Martyrs, Virgins, of Christmas, Circumcision, Epiphany, Purification, and other fond feasts… Read more »
” Plagiarism, intentional or not, is literary theft, and it should be repented of as such.” Justin Taylor. He is talking about your new book Doug
I posted this above, but: the book’s been recalled, copies have been remaindered, and Rachel Miller has been thanked for drawing our attention to such a serious error.
brian, can you clue those of us who have no idea what’s going on here, what this is about?
Jane, have you figured this out? I have no idea what anybody is talking about.
More gnat straining and camel swallowing Jilly.
Though I would like to hear Jane’s version.
I like how you and she lay things out!
But who is the gnat and what is the camel? I thought we were talking about Christmas celebrations here! That’s what happens when I leave my laptop for an hour to go comb the cats (I could make a joke about cat-a-combs but I won’t).
Jilly, Wilson and Booth recently co-wrote a book called “A Justice Primer”. It covered common Biblical Justice topics. Booth says he pasted in some of his pervious sermon notes into the text. Some sections of the sermons were quotes, loose or direct from other authors, although the statements were common takes on the issues. Since Booth did not put foot notes with some of these quotes, but did foot note others, this “proves” that Wilson and Booth are “hitler” to some folks. These folks want “Attribution retribution”. Just like God huh? He hates it when we repeat what He says!… Read more »
Funny, if no big deal then the publisher sure overreacted by terminating the guy:
“I posted this above, but: the book’s been recalled, copies have been remaindered, and Rachel Miller has been thanked for drawing our attention to such a serious error.” –statement from Brian who says he works for the publisher
Where do you see termination in that? Do you always just jump to invidious conclusions on thin to no evidence, or did you not use a relevant quote for your assertions?
“Canon Press has determined that Randy Booth committed multiple counts of plagiarism and has publicly rebuked him for “negligence,” “editorial incompetence,” and “gross breach of contract.” Further, Canon Press acted on this determination by immediately terminating Randy Booth’s contract and removing A Justice Primer from their inventory. He is no longer in their stable of writers and the book is no longer for sale.”
Thank you for the relevant quote. It’s always good to give accurate cites for your assertions, especially when you’re on a tear lambasting people for bad cites.
Edit: is it really the case that Randy Booth has been “terminated?” I’m about as inclined to believe anything out of Moscow ID that isn’t sourced, as you are to believe anything from Wilson, whether or not it is sourced.
Root source Jane, better than the above.
Thanks, dad. Nothing in there about termination that I can see. Maybe MID has a source they’re not bothering to cite, or maybe they’re making it up. I certainly can’t tell from two time zones away. ;)
MID, from what I can tell, is made up of a bunch of people who act pretty much identically to Ryan Sather – assume Doug and CREC and Christ Church and Canon and anyone related to Doug are guilty until proven even more guilty, and post wildly hyperbolic statements about it all the time.
Yes, that’s my impression too, or I wouldn’t have explicitly stated the possibility that they’re making it up.
I do enjoy how fond Ryan is of an unsourced source, though, given what we’re talking about.
I’m trying to see if I can get Ryan to calm down and actually discuss. I actually think Doug is being quite remiss in staying silent on this issue (other than a too brief comment on Canon’s website), considering his response to the Jezebel article came within hours of its posting. Not that I disbelieve any of his statements, but considering the issue and the way he’s responded to similar issues in the past, silence isn’t helping anything.
It may be that because Booth is so closely involved, and it was mostly his own name that was on the line in the Jezebel situation, that more circumspection is needed.
That’s fair. I still very much hope Doug doesn’t keep silence for too long. As a teacher, I’m fairly concerned about issues of academic integrity, and while, as I said elsewhere, the explanations provided seem plausible, I think they need expansion, and possibly a more thorough statement of culpability.
(Though I think Ryan is helping absolutely no one in the way he’s posting about it. Just to be clear.)
Oh, the other thing is, that Jezebel response post was probably brewing on a back burner for a long time, but he didn’t consider it appropriate to post it until Jezebel put a lot of the stuff out there first.
That’s just my theory, but it’s likely that it was an “instantaneous” response because he was prepared for a long time, to have to make it.
The timeline involved and the length of post does seem to indicate it was prepared in advance.
Which I would say is a point in favor of the “Doug didn’t know until Rachel Miller posted about it” interpretation of events, I would say.
Also, that blog post is one of the most confused things I’ve ever read. How is Canon Press simultaneously a “secular” organization, and an arm of New St. Andrews College (neither of which are, I believe, correct characterizations.)
I’m on a tear? Wilson’s son is the one that just obliterated the book.
re·main·dered, A book that remains with a publisher after sales have fallen off, usually sold at a reduced price.
Slither, remaindered is the correct and accurate term not “obliterated”.
Is your above statement correct or incorrect?
Removing a misattributed book from circulation is the calm, rational, appropriate thing to do. That’s not “being on a tear.”
Flailing around making unsubstantiated accusations about people being “terminated” and acting like taking the appropriate action in a situation is somehow a big deal, is being on a tear.
What does “breach of contract” mean to you?
I’ve yet to see any evidence that Booth was accused of breach of contract. Show me some from a, you know, cited source, and I’ll concede it.
But for the sake of argument, if you do produce that source, saying someone has breached his contract is not “being on a tear.” It’s a statement of fact, if it’s true. Hyperventilating all over blog comments about a situation is being on a tear.
Sorry a “gross breach of contract” according to Canon Press…on a tear I’d say
Statements of fact are being on a tear?
I don’t think those words mean what you think they mean.
The contract is void as the obligation therein were not fulfilled.
Gross breach, means whay to you?
“Being on a tear” does not mean “taking the appropriate action given a circumstance.” I’m pretty sure you’re consciously setting up a damned if they do, damned if they don’t situation here. If they didn’t take the appropriate measures in the situation, you would have been screaming blue murder. Since they did take the appropriate measures in the situation, you’re acting like it’s remarkable and suggesting, without ever saying it, that it’s somehow harsh, that somebody’s (Nate Wilson, I guess) really out of control and throwing a fit….when what you do if a book is found to be seriously faulty… Read more »
Ryan, I know you are very single minded in your quest to post your absolute fury about Doug, but would you mind actually responding to what people say?
If you could comprehend what you read you’d realize that’s what I’m doing…
Okay, where did you respond to Jane’s calling you out on your “going on a tear”? Where did you respond to my point out that you keep changing your accusations against Doug? Where do you respond to my pointing out the betrayal you’ve perpetrated on the posters here (of course, since we’re all mindless Doug supporters who want women to be abused, perhaps we don’t have the right to feel betrayed in your mind)?
I responded to her by saying I wasn’t on the tear it was Dougs own son who obliterated the book in less than 24 hours I have not changed any of my questions or concerns about what doug has done you have attempted to read into statement I made in a way that paints a picture that only you are able to somehow comprehend. What betrayal have I given to readers here? If you want betrayal look no further than the person who has stolen another man’s work and profited upon it without care. And it is obvious there was… Read more »
You said that you “know” that Doug knew there was plagiarism, and when I tried to confirm if that was actually what you were saying, you said that Doug had an obligation to know. These are two very different things, and you did not acknowledge the change. It is a betrayal to say, “I’ve left the comments section on Doug’s blog” and then come back using a name you know everyone except Doug did not know was you. If you cannot see that, I am sorry. If you can, and you simply hold everyone here is so much contempt that… Read more »
So Doug thinks a father is at least partially to blame for his own daughters rape. But somehow a book written by Doug in which massive amounts of the book were stolen, such that the publisher blew it up, and he didn’t know. C’mon man.
Duog knows about crazy online videos of naked guys gyrating all over a vacant room but he doesn’t know that a book he wrote was filled with plagiarism that is laughable.
More “obliterated,” more “blew up.” I had hoped we were discussing rationally, but you refuse to step off of the hyperbolic horse of outrage, and instead reiterate the same points over and over again, again without responding at all to the fact that you changed your accusation. Please, Ryan, for your own sake – be honest. Stop yelling, stop screaming “Doug is a thief” at the top of your lungs. Make your case calmly, carefully, and if no one is willing to engage then, you have done your duty. I’ve made my request to Doug to explain the matter publically,… Read more »
Not a gnat according to the publisher, serious error, book pulled…
Something can be a serious error in the publishing world that is rightly responded to by pulling a book and cancelling the contract, and a gnat in terms of deeper moral importance.
Maybe’s there’s greater moral culpability here AS WELL, but the fact that something breaks the rules of publishing does not NECESSARILY mean that the guy who did it is Hitler.
Are the rumors of comma-splicing and dangling participles I am hearing true?
How can you repent of something you didn’t intend? I understand apologizing and making it right in any way you can, but what’s to repent if it’s unintentional?
Justin Taylor said it best (paraphrase) “off I accidentally walk out of target with a shirt and wear it for next month it’s still theft.”
Of course it’s still theft. But it’s not the sin of theft, because there was no intent to steal or to defraud Target or in fact to do anything sinful. Sin gets repented of, mistakes get made right.
I’m not claiming this situation was unintentional because I don’t know enough about it. I’m just saying you can only repent of things you intend to do.
Doug and Booth cleary plagiarized…his book on Slavery too: http://archive.moscowid.net/1996/06/01/plagiarism-as-it-is/
Gross negligence is intent to not care if you are accurate. If someone could cut and paste the book into Google and figure it out in a few days, as the author you’ve got no excuse.
Then you can repent of negligence. But if you didn’t intend to steal, you can’t repent of stealing.
A few days? How slow is your internet connection?
Intent seems very important to Doug and his people when it’s him who has done something questionable. But doesn’t matter when say Wes does something questionable……
Important Related Note: A Retraction Despite all our differences, truth is far more important than winning or scoring a point. In several places in this controversy, I have said that I learned about the mess when the mother of Jamin’s fiancé called me because Natalie had called Jamin’s fiancé to tell her about it. Natalie claimed I was lying, and that she never made such a call. I spent a few days tracking it down, and I now believe Natalie is correct about that call. The mom called me because Jamin called her from jail. I don’t know how the… Read more »
That’s great! Glad he did that. But I was clearly referring to the infamous videos. And the use of the intent argument.
The intent to those video’s was nothing great, was it?
The intent in mentioning the video’s was an study in high contrasts of behavior.
I think our question is, everyone has guilt, how far does any guilt associate?
That’s because it’s not possible to “accidentally” take your clothes off and demean the image of God on a video, so intent doesn’t matter. I’m not one of “his people.” I’m simply a person who wants to know how someone can accept the concept of “accidental” plagiarism while at the same time saying that you have to repent of an “accident.” I think Justin Taylor’s a good guy, and I take his point that plagiarism is plagiarism whether accidental or not. I don’t even know whether the plagiarism in this case is “accidental” or not. I just think Taylor’s concept… Read more »
Given your lack of citation, should we assume you are guilty of plagiarism? But more to the point, if you walk out of Target with a shirt that someone else said they paid for, it might be theft, but you are not directly guilty of theft since you, in good faith, did what you did. Authors typically give their books to editors who sometimes fail to do things, or change things, or include stuff that wasn’t supposed to be included. It is quite possible that Wilson didn’t know what had happened, that he simply gave permission to use messages that… Read more »
Doug your name is on the book..
You clearly plagiarized…you did the same in your Slavery book too.
It seems to me that if anything Doug should repent of co-authoring books.
Wait! Wait! You have an unattributed type-o there!
Shame on u! ; – )
It may be that he didn’t know or didn’t intend. And actually, it doesn’t really matter that much to me. I think the whole plagiarism thing and meticulously quoting when there is nothing new under the sun is silly. But lifting things word for word — that is a different story. And if this were done at NSA, intentional or unintentional, it would be grounds for dismissal. If it is egregious enough to get you kicked out of New Saint Andrews, then I suspect ya’ll think it is not just a publishing world issue; it’s an integrity issue. If this… Read more »
As you will see if you read farther down, I’m not talking about whether Wilson did or didn’t intend anything, or about what he needs to take responsibility for (moot, since he already has.) I’m talking about the logic of Taylor’s suggestion that you need to repent (of anything) that you didn’t intend to do, with an emphasis on the precise meaning of the word “repent,” which doesn’t mean “acknowledge that you did something wrong” or “make the situation right,” it means confess and turn from sin. Being extremely careless is sinful, and therefore something you can repent of. But… Read more »
Sorry Jane, wasn’t necessarily responding to you in general, but the whole conversation and this is where my comment belonged. My mistake for not being more clear. Sorry about that.
I think you can only repent of underlying causes such as an attitude of carelessness. If I know my cat invariably throws up on the rug (which she does), I don’t bring her along to my neighbor’s immaculate apartment. I imagine that an attitude of entitlement also causes unintentional results.
Yes, that’s my point. But if we’re talking about being careful with your words, then someone as smart as Justin Taylor should also know better than to say that people should “repent” for something for which you have no moral guilt, rather than the thing of which you are guilty.
I agree. And I don’t think we can ever know the authors’ intentions with this book. A person might think, “I am not going to the trouble of sourcing all this material when nobody is going to be checking,” and I think that would be morally culpable. But no one can say for certain that this was anyone’s thinking. The consequences seem to me too dire for anyone to knowingly take that risk. But we’re back to Gaudy Night, aren’t we? There are people who see this as dishonorable and there are those who can’t understand why anyone is making… Read more »
Jilly, making a Gaudy Night reference is probably the surest thing to whang an arrow right through my heart. Well done!
I’m in the midst of rereading it right now. Delicious!
Mmm. Such a rich, fantastic novel, with so many incredible thought provoking ideas banging around – not just the idea of intellectual integrity, but also the backdrop of fascism in Europe, and class, and gender, and romance, and marriage – I really think Gaudy Night deserves more credit as a great novel of the 20th century.
Never heard of it. So does one read the series from the beginning or start with this?
Oh, you have to at the very least read “Strong Poison” first! I’d start at the beginning and work my way all the way through though.
Starting with “Strong Poison” is probably the second-best way to do it, but starting at the beginning with “Whose Body?” is really best. Starting with “Gaudy Night,” though, really does not work at all — there is much too much backstory.
If you want to streamline it, read “Strong Poison,” then “Have His Carcase,” then “Gaudy Night.” But I really recommend reading them all from the beginning.
I second Dunsworth’s recommendations – there are only a very few of the novels I really think aren’t worthwhile (actually, just one – “Five Red Herrings”). I actually read about three of the novels (way out of order – Clouds of Witness, Five Red Herrings, and Murder Must Advertise) before jumping straight to Gaudy Night, and I think it worked reasonably well, since Sayers does a fantastic job of recontextualizing and thus providing the backstory for the hapless reader who did not have a list of the books in order. That list is: Whose Body? Clouds of Witness Unnatural Death… Read more »
I only read “Thrones, Dominations,” and only then because it was based on unfinished Sayers source material that Paton Walsh worked up into a complete novel, and not mere fan fic. But even that was disappointing — while it wasn’t an awful book, Paton Walsh simply didn’t get Sayers as a writer, didn’t get Lord Peter as a man, didn’t get the Wimsey marriage as a relationship. It didn’t entirely ruin it as a decent book, but the constant “clang, clang” of “wrongness” made it not enjoyable for me, sadly. The best remedy for those who need “more Lord Peter”… Read more »
The first half of Thrones is worth reading the whole book for. It’s the part that is pretty much straight Sayers, and has an amazing opening scene describing Peter and Harriet. However, the last half is really, really crummy fan-fic – the maid becomes a copy of Miss Climpson, there are random cameos with none of Sayer’s usual verve, and the conclusion is very cliched. Totally agree that ending with Talboys is a good way to go. Five Red Herrings just has very little of Peter in it. The art world suspects could have been interesting, but it was all… Read more »
I don’t want to commit a spoiler, but in Nine Tailors someone comes to an unfortunate end near the close of the book because it seems to be the only way she could manage to spare those close to him from the consequences of his criminal, albeit well-intended, actions.
Yeah, that’s who I thought you were talking about. But yes, it was very sad. :( But that fits the tone of the book, that you can’t really escape your past, however much you try. It’s a tragic book – as many of the books are, even though Sayers did seem to believe in a certain modicum of order restored and happiness. The ending of Busman’s Honeymoon is a masterpiece (don’t want to spoil anything if you haven’t gotten there yet, but it’s an equisite balance of pain and joy).
I think the clue isn’t completely hidden — when I reread it, I picked up on it (admittedly, knowing it was there, but there was something to notice.)
Well, if you know stuff (which I didn’t), you probably can figure it out, but she actually stops the book and explicitly told the reader that she’s not telling them the full clue. She never does that before or after, so it feels really off.
Well…how do ya like that. I read (as in, listened to) the first two in order completely by accident. Now I just ordered Unnatural Death on purpose.
Yessssss! You have such wonders to look forward to!
Hell hath no fury like a bluestocking scorned! Huh?
Whoops! I didn’t attribute Shakespeare here! Firing squad please!
Anyway, sounds like those of a hyper-critical frame of mind have once again strained out a gnat, swallowed the camel and think they have added some meat to the bone they try to pick with you!
Aparently some are distracted by the Feast of St. Rachael’s Finger Bone. Metaphorically speaking, this may be her way of giving you a finger of sorts.
“Albeit a Very Stately (?) Finger”
Anyway, Merry Christmas! To you, yours and those.
I’ll bring a cigarette
Thanks, no blind fold though, I’ll look ’em in the eye!
Let me fix that for you, “A” dad…
Thanks, no blind fold though, I’ll “look ’em in the eye!” *
* Les Miserables, Act I, Prologue
Hold on, wait! Let me correct myself…
“Let me fix that for you.” *
* Munsey’s Magazine, Volume 72 page 349
Is this meant to imply that I need to executed for “Plagiarism” twice?
Do I need to attribute Bill Clinton every time I say “is”? ; -)
Please do paste in the text where I unknowingly said the same thing as someone else!
Watch out! The phrase “said the same thing” appears in the “Journal of the Straits Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society” form 1907!
I’m just trying to keep everyone accountable here!
Silly Rick, “keep everyone accountable here”? ; – )
The theme for some here is “I desire your resignation and your sacrifice”.
I’m just trying to get everyone to step down here.
When will Doug actually be thought responsible for something and not just a victim of the angry bitter crowd? Plagiarism is a big deal. Doug put his name on the book. He’s written many books, no? Surely he knows the rules and what to do to avoid this type of situation. So why didn’t he?
“Plagiarism is a big deal.” ? Sounds like Booth had sermons with quotes that morphed into sections of the book. Some of the quotes had foot notes (even in Miller’s post), some did not. I am asking the other Christian authors noted, if they are in any way offended that their teaching was quoted or loosely quoted with out attribution. If the authors are not offened, or even happy that views similar to theirs are expressed on Biblical principles, that sounds like Christian unity to me. If the authors are not offended, but Racheal is being offended for them, What… Read more »
Oh now. Rules are rules. The book wasn’t published just for Christian unity. Was money made from these books being sold? If the answe is no then I am more inclined to say ok whatever. But if Doug or booth made a profit from it that goes beyond Christian unity.
Actually ‘C, what are the “rules” on attribution?
How much real invention do any of us do? Most of what I say, I have heard or read before. I doubt that this book had significant sales. It sounds like a book on common Biblical principles.
Even if it was profitable, a book can be true and profitable at the same time.
But again, let’s see what the allegedly un-attributed Christian authors say.
We can go with reality that way, not our own speculation. ; – )
Obviously something deemed wrong was done for there to be such a response from Doug booth and the publisher.
One might murder someone and the dead persons family say it is ok with them. That doesn’t make the murder ok.
I know! I hate it when I murder someone but only meant to Plagiarise them! ; – )
Remember to not attribute undisputed facts. Barack Obama being the the president should not be attributed, whereas someone citing their opinion on the president should.
‘C, many of the unattributed quotes Miller noted were about the undisputed sequence of scriptural events.
What answer to that question would satisfy you? How about, “He was wrong.”
Yes! That does satisfy. Thus my question was not directed at Doug but to A dad.
What errors did Wilson make?
What errors did Booth make?
Here Booth says he, himself made the errors in question:
What do you make of that ‘C?
Doug put his name on it. Therefore claiming the contents and profit however little that might be.
I don’t think Doug ever actually said he wrong, btw. He agreed that Randy was wrong. Wonder if he agreed Randy should also get all credit for the book and profit when they first put both of their names on it?
Put his son’s company as part of the “hyper critical frame of mind” given their reaction to the issue.
Slith’ you and that site are hyper critical, not the publisher.
Hi A Dad, I have to disagree with you about this. I think the plagiarism issue is serious, and I think that Rachel Miller, having previously reviewed the book, was right to announce her findings. Where we can agree is that there is too much unholy glee about what is really a catastrophic humiliation for the book’s authors. I don’t think the problem is merely an occasional failure of attribution; when I compare the versions she posted, I see whole paragraphs that needed to be enclosed in quotation marks and cited, or else completely paraphrased and then cited. But the… Read more »
Jilly , I don’t get the sense that Booth’s actions were “oh, that’s a great line, I’m going to lift it and not attribute it” with regard to the Jonathan Edwards history and Absalom’s coup, no writer can be “original” about common history . I can see that Booth made a technical error in missing some footnotes on common narratives. The critics are trying to make Booths technical error into a Wilson moral failure. Their demonstrated intent is far worse than Booths unintentional technical error. Missing some footnotes is not one of the 7 deadly sins. Glad to hear your… Read more »
As a teacher, I tend to agree with Jilly that even an unintentional technical error is a serious problem, especially when made in the public sphere of publishing. I think the response by Canon has been quite appropriate, and I’m sure they wish they’d caught these errors before publication as a matter of integrity. I hope there will be renewed commitment and policy at Canon to prevent this kind of thing from happening again, and that they will make a statement to that effect. However, I also agree that the comments of Ryan and Rachel Miller and their blog comment… Read more »
If you can’t see how someone who has no real concern for thievery, no issue with owning slaves, and a strong emphasis on protecting male perpetrators of sexual crimes are all related then I can’t help you.
But a guy who can make an inference that my support of a victim of heinous sex crimes means I support some ridiculous film made by her husband years later can’t whine that his role in stealing other people’s work and selling it as his own necessarily calls intro question his trustworthiness.
1) “who has no real concern for thievery” – citation, please. Where has he said this?
2) “no issue with owning slaves” – I’d ask for a citation, but you won’t find one because this is an outright lie and I wonder about how Cru feels about your manner.
3) “and a strong emphasis on protecting male perpetrators of sexual crimes” – citation, please.
Ryan, I hope Cru is unaware of how someone in their ministry carries himself in dealing with pastors and others in online interaction. If they ARE aware, and yet don’t correct you, I question Cru’s credibility.
1) if you publish a book filled with plagiarism/thievery and don’t check to ensure you are not stealing you obviously don’t care much. 2) read his book black and tan and you will find in it many statements about the glories of the past and how good those who are slaves had it from there Christian masters. The gospel coalition highlighted the craziness quite well and he remains unrepentant. 3) when you write to judges asking for leniency for men who rape 14 year old girls I would call that a tendency to care/protect for a perpetrator more than a… Read more »
Btw, don’t read his first book on slavery, that one got yanked because it to was filled with theft….hmm do you see a pattern here.
Did Martin Luther King Jr. have no real concern for thievery? You are aware of his plagiarism on his doctoral dissertation, I assume.
What does another man’s error have to do with this situation?
It would help somewhat to show your good intentions. If plagarism is really so bad as you say, you should have no problem having your denounciations of it applied to someone else – someone whose own college admited he plagarised parts of his dissertation. It’d be pretty simple, you could just say “Yes, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. had no real concern for thievery”, unless of course, you actually don’t care that much about plagarism per se, and you’re really just on a witch hunt against Wilson.
Good one.. witch hunt yeah poor Doug he is just trying to mind his own business and people come looking for him. What a butter heart
So MLK’s plagarism is ok then? Situational morality much?
Ryan, I don’t pay much attention to your comments here, because you really seem like a shoot from the hip sort of guy… but, I am wondering, are you a Christian? Because you sure don’t act like one. And also, what is a butter heart?
This: “2) read his book black and tan and you will find in it many statements about the glories of the past and how good those who are slaves had it from there Christian masters. The gospel coalition highlighted the craziness quite well and he remains unrepentant.” does NOT EQUAL this: “no issue with owning slaves” In fact, on several posts, Doug has made clear that slavery is not the reality of the freedom granted in the Gospel and that by the Gospel we should be moving towards greater and greater freedom, both earthly and spiritually. He’s also stated that… Read more »
If you want Doug held accountable for any of these you should pick one instead of jumping on the newest accusation available.
Follow the narrative, they all link up to show a pattern of disregard for authority and vulnerable people.
“Follow the narrative”
Because the narrative is more important than the facts?
The narrative, meaning follow the truth in all these stories linking to the bigger story…that’s why they are all connected.
Like the truth in the stories that lead to the big story that abortion is ok? or the truth in the stories that lead to the big story that the holocost didn’t happen?
Both of those are examples of ‘following the nartative’
You don’t want to help anyone here. You want people to join you in your mindless mouth-frothery. Otherwise, you would know that: 1) Doug does not think it’s okay to steal, and thus he is happy that Canon has retracted the books which steal other people’s words. Additionally, I don’t understand how you have failed to miss my own request to Doug to provide an accounting for this issue as he’s provided accountings for other accusations. I do think we should wait until we have this accounting to judge Doug guilty, but you are clearly in possession of some superior… Read more »
1) I said he has no concern for it and that is obvious by how incredibly filled w plagiarism the book was that he put his name to it.
2) sorry that’s not true he does or nouns as evil the slave trade but makes a distinction and says Christians could honorably cold slaves in the south and did. that is pure evil and wrong
3) when you write letters to judges asking for leniency of perpetrators of sexual crime as heinous as the ones that have been outlined I call that helping the perpetrator and it is inexcusable
1) So you think Doug’s explanation, that he did not know, and my own additional speculation that because he knew and trusted Booth, he wasn’t expecting a failiure in citation are complete lies? What is obvious to you, who are always on hair trigger to assume guilt in Doug, and what is obvious in others, are not the same things. 2) Doug nouns? Do you mean he denounces? Please, Ryan, calm down, slow down, find a keyboard rather than your phone to type on. Additionally, I believe what Doug says about slavery is that there was an honorable way to… Read more »
1) keep drinking the Kool aid
2) I interpret his words to be his words and yes therefore I disagree with him, so do many including a highly respected scholar Thabiti Anyibwale
3) read the letters he wrote to the judges, he does in fact ask for leniency
Those of us who have read the letters know that it is in fact not the case that he asked for leniency. If asking for “measured and limited penalties” is exactly the same thing as asking for leniency, then why not keep the record clear and keep repeating that Doug asked for measured and limited penalties? Shouldn’t that evoke the kind of horror in us that you want to create with the word “leniency”? I’ll take a wild guess — because the two expressions aren’t the same and you know it. Really, Ryan, you simply can’t misrepresent what was written… Read more »
(Quoting myself) “Even David had Shimei to tag along, cursing, throwing stones and casting dust, and David showed him grace. Shimei lives.”
Ryan, Thabiti Anyibwale (a.k.a. Ron Burns) might be “highly respected” by some, but he is most certainly not a scholar. Do you know what that word means? He does not have an advanced degree in theology, ethics, or church history. His highest earned degree is an M.S. in psychology. That does not make him a scholar.
Was Philemon evil for owing a slave?
He was in sin, yes.
So when God commanded all the laws around holding slaves, were the Jews who held them in sin?
God also commanded infants to be dashed against rocks. That doesn’t mean God condones abortion. There is context to that situation, ere is context to the OT laws with slaves, as there is with the American system of man stealing and race based slavery that makes it impossible to hold to the positions Doug has held to as it relates to slavery in our country. Also, a note, the new covenant demands of loving enemies and emptying ourselves make slave owning from a gospel perspective impossible to align ourselves with if we call ourselves followers of Jesus. That’s why Paul… Read more »
God didn’t command the dashing of children against rocks, this was part of an imprecatory psalm noting the enemy’s grief when they were treated how they have treated others. The commands around slavery are quite detailed and reflect a fallen world. That things are less than they would be in an unfallen world does not mean the everything we do in response to our fallenness is sinful. Scripture clearly differentiates slave owning from slave trading (kidnapping), the latter is always condemned throughout the Bible. But while not owning slaves may (in general) be preferable, this does not imply that holding… Read more »
So was Paul in sin for not commamding Philemon to release his slaves?
“I should pause to note that Southern Slavery As It Was was a heavily plagiarized work. In many places it drew verbatim from the controversial 1974 book Time on the Cross: The Economics of American Negro Slavery, and without attribution.” – See more at: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/lovejoyfeminism/2015/07/doug-wilson-slavery-as-it-was.html#sthash.q4baF79
This is the garbage you support in your post: “Slave life was to them a life of plenty, of simple pleasures, of food, clothes, and good medical care.” “Slavery as it existed in the South was not an adversarial relationship with pervasive racial animosity. Because of its dominantly patriarchal character, it was a relationship based upon mutual affection and confidence. There has never been a multi-racial society which has existed with such mutual intimacy and harmony in the history of the world. The credit for this must go to the predominance of Christianity. The gospel enabled men who were distinct… Read more »
Yeah, but I’m the one taking things out of context. What a joke.
Ian, don’t let the truth get in the way of your craziness.
Yes, exactly, it’s garbage, and no one deals with it around here. It really is awful.
I recomend you never look at the coments on youtube videos.
Adding some additional off-topic stuff: “Saul Bellow has defined a writer as ‘a reader moved to emulation’” (Thomas Mallon, Stolen Words, p. 3). “G.K. Chesterton, in his own warning against plagiarism surveillance, wrote that ‘to see the similarities, without seeing the differences, seems … a dangerous game.’ It leads, he thinks, to mad obsessions with notions like the one that has Bacon writing Shakespeare. All this seems so reasonable that one is likely to forget that plagiarism sometimes does happen and that, in any case, no one has been talking about suspicious similarities; the subject is irrefutable identities” (Thomas Mallon,… Read more »
Based on Doug’s logic when it comes to questioning the credibility of a rape victim due to who she married years later…it would carry through that Doug simply can’t be trusted in anything he says as well given his decision to co-write books filled with plagiarism/theft.
So, just so we are clear, anyone who supports Doug aligns themselves with thievery and dishonest business practice.
Right Doug? Did I get your “logic” right?
An association fallacy is an inductive informal fallacy of the type hasty generalization or red herring which asserts that qualities of one thing are inherently qualities of another, merely by an irrelevant association. The two types are sometimes referred to as guilt by association and honor by association. Association fallacies are a special case of red herring, and can be based on an appeal to emotion.
You got something, slither. ; – )
But since you do, you might re-consider some of the company you yourself keep!
In other words you’re a supporter of thievery
No slither, you are lying again. That’s a wrong thing to do.
It is in your best interest to stop lying.
You support Doug thus you support thievery, at least that was his moronic logic he used on me in his ridiculous blog post, or I guess you agree with me that what he tried to spin WAS nonsense.
‘Jammies, I can tell you are tired and it’s time for you to go to bed. When you get up tomorrow see the “association” fallacy definition above, and try to understand it. ; – )
Yep, that’s what your thief…errr pastor…did to any supporter of the rape victim by saying support of her was support of a film made by her husband.
Brothers and sisters, do not slander one another. Anyone who speaks against a brother or sister or judges them speaks against the law and judges it. When you judge the law, you are not keeping it, but sitting in judgment on it.
Too bad DW doesn’t put that verse into practice. His finger pointing at Natalie’s husband and their lack of credibility has now turned back on his own credibility.
Slith’ you are in no position to have the phrase “finger pointing” in your vocabulary.
‘Jammy time! ; – )
Goodnight butter heart ????
Is the dropping your last name yet another attempt to try to make your real identity fade away from public notice?
You say you weren’t hiding your identity from anyone except everyone here but Doug, which is laughable, and now you drop your last name.
Ummm…nope didn’t attempt to do that…
Let me ask another question: Doug Wilson and John Piper–perhaps “JP” was tipping your hat?–from all outside appearances have a fairly friendly relationship and they each appreciate the other. They may not agree on everything, but that’s not what a friendship is anyhow. Are we to take from John Piper’s public silence, though perhaps he has said something and I missed it, that John Piper tacitly approves of and supports someone who you claim “likes being in bed with” rapists or pedophiles, or whatever it was that you said? Is he, Piper, someone who’s shielding and facilitating someone you say… Read more »
I’m using my name what are you taking about? Keep chasing your tail rather than deal with reality…that’s a great idea.
Ryan, anybody with eyes, unless Disqus is doing some weird Jedi mind trick, that I replied to “Ryan.” If that is you, which I don’t believe you’re denying, then why would you drop your last name? I see that you’ve tacked your last name back on your current comments, but I suspect that’s because you were caught.
But, I ask, perhaps more directly, the basic question I asked you: Do you think that John Piper backs those who back rapists?
I honestly didn’t realize it wasn’t filling in my last name
Okay, then my objection to that is withdrawn and I thank you for the clarification.
But, again, do you hold that John Piper backs those who back rapists?
I haven’t seen Pastor John back him since all this mess had occurred…It’s been very silent
Exactly. John Piper has been silent. John Piper, being a WIDELY respected, public figure in evangelicalism and pastor, and wise (I do admit disagreeing with him on the way he phrased his reasoning for not owning a gun, which is his business altogether, but disagreeing with him on that point isn’t a hatred or disrespect for him in general–I highly regard Piper) he should know that silence in such a case, if it is as you color it to be, is untenable. If the writing on the wall is clear enough for you, declaring that Doug has been weighed on… Read more »
And actually, even as late as October 17, which was pretty well into the imbroglio, Doug wrote for Desiring God. Such places quite the responsibility on Piper to pull out the ashes and sackcloth, and to do so very vocally and publicly, if you are indeed correct regarding your accusations and characterizations of Doug and the relevant situations.
Ryan Sather said:
But you had an OBLIGATION to realize it.
If someone wanted to be a jerk about it, he could assume that you did indeed realize it and that you were being deceptive until you were called out on it. If he were a REAL jerk, he would publically assert that unfounded assumption as the truth.
Yes, anybody SHOULD REALIZE as soon as the name posted the first time, that it wasn’t posting properly. So that would be *exactly equal* to deceptively hiding his name for the most nefarious of purposes.
I don’t hold Ryan to that standard though, because I don’t think any one should be held to it.
I bet…. DUNSWORTH…
I’m onto your schemes.
I pray I will never accidentally make multiple accounts. Keeping track of responses must be a nightmare. :)
Except I never made multiple accounts…I don’t have an account…
I was actually talking about Jane. When I talk about you, Ryan, I will mention you by name.
If I’m not mistaken, “JP” WAS an account.
I just changed the handle…my email and account was all the same and Doug knew it the whole time.
And then you lied about it to Doug. Are you still so sore at being outed as a liar that you just had to go and one-up him by outing yourself as daft?
I’m beginning to think that Doug lets you hang around for the sheer entertainment value.
I never lied to Doug, I have him my email address with my FULL NAME
OF COURSE Doug had your email with your full name, you twit. When you set up an account with Disqus, it asks you for your email and the proprietor of any blog on which you comment can see your email address. You used an email address WITH YOUR FULL NAME on your Disqus account, even when posting under the JP handle. With that in mind, the fact that you would even attempt to lie to Doug about your identity not only speaks volumes about your character, but about your I.Q. as well.
Ummm…why do I have that obligation “jigawatt”…that’s right I don’t…keep enabling it looks good on a guy named jigawatt.
So you can make any comment you want under any name you want and you’re under no obligation whatsoever to make sure you’re not being deceptive. Gotcha. Thanks for letting us know how you feel on the matter.
Btw, what’s your real name?
“Dad” to the most important.
Ah yes, the slander, gossip card. This is always and interesting maneuver from a group of people whose entire ideological reason d’être is judgment. The same groups who have ‘church discipline’ and encourage sect members to keep tabs on one another. Is there not a post where Wilson is in some sly or not so sly way passing judgment? I think not.
Ah Randi, the verse above was more about Slither slandering me, but anyway. Judgement and condemnation are properly to be two separate things, though they are often conflated, as happens around here quite a bit. “Is there not a post where Wilson is in some sly or not so sly way passing judgment? I think not.” Is there not a comment where you and I have to make a judgment in order to speak to an issue? I think not. Condemnation is not my “reason d’être”. I don’t think that missing footnotes is Booth’s “reason d’être” either, but it is… Read more »
If Doug is being illogical trying to get him to be consistant is useless.
Ryan, you can tell the difference between a man who is falsely accused, and a man who is stung by the truth. They react to the circumstance in completely different ways.
“If a wise man contends with a foolish man, Whether the fool rages or laughs, there is no peace.” (Proverbs 29:9, NKJV)
Prov 12:22, “Lying lips (or lying fingers that type dishonestly) are an abomination to the LORD, but those who act faithfully are his delight.”
Can I try one, Ryan?
“Do not answer a troll according to his folly, lest you become just as much of a troll as him.” -paraphrased version of Prov. 26:4
Doug, I believe that the statements made on Canon’s website are probably accurate, but I think this issue is serious enough that it deserves the kind of detailed post of explanation (and possible apology) that responses to other accusations in the past several months have gotten. The response to the (admittedly incredibly lazy and wicked) Jezebel article was posted the same day. I’m disappointed that no response (other than a very brief statement on Canon’s product page) has been made to Rachel Miller from this blog.
“I’m disappointed that no response (other than a very brief statement on Canon’s product page) has been made to Rachel Miller from this blog.” It is not gracious to hold an individual to the standard of same-day blog response to all accusations. This is not a Scriptural expectation that we should have, hence the disappointment. Also, this is a bit of a different situation than the last. This revelation has led to some interruptions of plans (no book signing), it involves more than one party, requiring communication back and forth, and is a different sort of accusation than the Jezebel… Read more »
I don’t think same-day should be the standard – I’m just concerned that it’s been longer than responses to the spurious Jezebel article. Jane has pointed out that it was likely part of a carefully collected post Doug had prepared in case someone decided to make exactly the sorts of public accusations that Jezebel eventually did, so my expectation of a rapid response is tempered by that knowledge. But I maintain my stance that there should be a response, and a detailed one.
Ryan must really get to you, huh?
Nope. One person is questioned based on her association with someone whose character and known, public behavior, including his own account of himself, indicated that he was not someone that a Christian woman should have involved herself closely with. The other person is questioned based on his association with someone of good reputation, who ostensibly did something wrong during the course of their association. One person’s judgment is questioned based on the kind of person she knowingly involved herself with despite it being obviously ungodly to do so, the other on something that very likely could not have predicted as… Read more »
Umm, not true, Doug questioned the character of Boz, myself and others as well not just the victim. But the logic is awful either way.
Slither, you certainly have honesty and objectivity problems. Of that there is no question.????
Just to clarify your interpretation of events:
Do you believe that –
1) Doug knew about the plagiarism, and only approved of the retraction of the book when it was made public?
2) Doug participated in the plagiarism, and is lying about it?
3) Doug did not know about the plagiarism, and is now happy to correct the error?
If your answer is #3, then the situations are clearly not analogous. If you believe #1 or #2, then clearly you have a serious accusation to make other than failing to understand association and its consequences.
#1 is obvious, #2 only God and DW know. The author had the obligation to insure thievery wasn’t taking place…he didn’t do that and another man’s work was profited unjustly.
And let’s remember this isn’t the first time…
Yes this is serious, that’s why the book was blown up in less than a day…by his son.
Okay, so you believe that Doug knew about the plagiarism before it was revealed. Your evidence for this is a previous example of plagiarism, which was similarly retracted. I’m fairly certain that you simply believe the worst of Doug no matter what – do you even believe in the concept of innocent until proven guilty? You pride yourself on “believing victims” – but you should believe truth, whether it comes from a victim or not. You’ve shown absolutely no desire to find truth, only to fit everything into your outrage-driven, sloppy, and poorly constructed narrative that Doug Wilson gleefully lies,… Read more »
Umm, whether he “knew” doesn’t matter. As a co author of the book he had obligation to know and is responsible because he didn’t.
What’s frothy mouthed about what I said?
But you clearly believe that he did know. What is your evidence for this? Please don’t change your statement without acknowledging that you are changing your accusation. Whether or not Doug has an obligation to know is irrelevant to the question of whether he actually knew. I actually agree with you – Doug did have an obligation to know. But when you are working with someone you trust and respect, you don’t usually go around saying, “You aren’t plagiarizing this, are you?” I would imagine that Doug knew and trusted Mr. Booth, and that trust has been sadly damaged with… Read more »
“Obvious” in what sense? There are many ways it could be true that Doug was not aware of the plagiarism. None of those possibilities reflect all that well on him, but just because a guy comes off looking at best extremely sloppy when he should know better, does not mean that any possible charge you throw at him is true. To think it does, is irrational and frankly childish.
Unless you believe that Doug Wilson derangement syndrome is normal. Then all is well.
Doug you have a big problem at hand…I suggest you resign or your Elders should ask you to step down. It is horrible the dishonesty you have shown in your “Slavery” book (plagiarism), your present book you and Booth plagiarized in. Added to this theft and then worst of all your attacks and lies about Natalie (sexually abused). Bye, bye Doug Wilson!
Amazing “grace”. ; – (
Just remind yourselves what Doug did with his book on Slavery: http://archive.moscowid.net/1996/06/01/plagiarism-as-it-is/9-2/
Then remind yourselves what came out today about his book with Booth: https://adaughterofthereformation.wordpress.com/2015/12/10/justice-character-and-plagiarism/
Then just look through the crud Doug Wilson has said, done and implied about Natalie, her husband and family. Plus minimizing sexual abuse of a minor and protecting a pedophile.
DW you need to truly step down and end all of this!!
“Well done good and faithfull servant, you outed a co-author for missing footnotes?”
Your rendition of Wilson’s reaction in the Wight and Sitler crimes is not graceful or true.
The fruit of Wilson’s minsitry to domestic abuse is found here:
“If you want to read an indictment of American academia, as if you needed one, then I recommendPlagiarism and the Culture War.” — Douglas Wilson
The most entertaining commentary I’ve read today was from Carl Trueman, speculating upon which authors (including deceased ones) might show up at the now-cancelled Moscow book signing:
“Because it’s a very small, self-policing world, as Rod Dreher makes clear in his critique of this mendacious buffoonery at the end of his blog.
But I am sure I can hear the sound of the Idaho wagon train circling even as I write.
STOP PRESS: Looks like the book signing is off. I guess they just realized White and Bahnsen couldn’t make it without somebody breaching Old Testament law.”
Yeah, I don’t quite get a notable advocate of Reformation theology mocking a publisher for selling dead authors, but maybe that’s just me.
“In The Chronicle of Higher Education, the academy’s trade paper, one of King’s defenders noted that King had grown up in the sermonizing tradition of the black church, where one pulpit orator echoes another, arguing that it thus never dawned on King that “voice merging” wasn’t an appropriate approach to scholarship. In plain English: Because there aren’t footnotes in oral expression, it’s OK to pass off another’s work as your own in written form. A committee appointed by Boston University to investigate the affair reported that because King’s filching amounted to ” `only’ one-third” of his dissertation, it wasn’t necessary… Read more »
how “sweet” the sound.
That’s really funny! Your name that is, … Just like ‘You can’t be serious’ couldn’t be serious. You don’t seem full of grace, nor interested in finding truth.
Interesting quote about the standards students at the “college” run by Doug are held to: ACADEMIC INTEGRITY New Saint Andrews expects students to express themselves truthfully and honestly in all facets of their academic work and personal relations. Students must own as their own, all assignments, exercises, and examinations, oral or written, except where disclosed properly and fully in citations, footnotes, endnotes, bibliographies, and/or other appropriate forms, and only within the limits allowed by the instructor and commonly recognized academic standards. Students must have nothing to do with plagiarism, misrepresentation, misappropriation of the work of others, or any other form… Read more »
I expect they also don’t allow students to co-write papers.
I think it’s interesting that a bunch of people who don’t even attend Wilson’s church are calling him to step down from it.
Interesting, and kind of hilarious.
Hilarious? These things are not funny in any manner. But quite telling on your part as to how things are being handled.
Absolutely hilarious! Folk who have only seen Doug on YouTube (if that) and have never set foot in Moscow, let alone Christ Church are behaving this way. If you don’t get that, it says a bit more about you than it does Rachelle.
Or in my office
Just apologize and step down Ryan. All this will go away.
“But quite telling on your part as to how things are being handled.”
What am I handling, exactly?
Um, you not having a clue what’s going on yet certain those who disagree with Wilson are wrong.
That’s not what I said at all. But try again.
“A plagiarist does not cease to be a plagiarist because he admits the obvious after he has been caught.” — Douglas Wilson
Earlier quote by DW: Foreshadow▪▪that you and Booth have been caught?
I have no idea if the man is guilty of plagiarizing or not. I didn’t read his book, and had no plans to. Has he released a statement about the accusation? But that’s not even what I was addressing with my comment. My comment addressed the appropriateness of the multiple people in this comment section calling for the resignation of Doug from the church he is pastoring. A church that many of the commenters here don’t even attend. That’s what I find humorous. I didn’t even mention the other parts because I don’t know anything about it. Maybe he IS… Read more »
In other words you don’t know what you’re talking about and you’re convinced no one else does either…
Or, she senses the Spirit of God at work using Pastor Wilson for His ends and has a kind heart and patient demeanor.
I think it’s more like, she’s convinced that no one who is sitting there in their computer chair, with no direct knowledge of this situation except the statements posted on the Canon Press site, which amount to a couple of hundred words posted less than 24 hours ago, knows enough about what’s going on to make judgments — including herself. So they/we aren’t the ones who should be concerning themselves with it, let alone deciding what should be done.
On what basis do you dispute that position?
Uh-oh, more “plagiarism”. ; -)
“We would identify it by its proper name — plagiarism — and recognize it as a species of theft.” — Douglas Wilson [Interesting Douglas that your words are turning on you and Booth….] Theft??
Very interesting words from Doug Wilson, in which he claims that John Wesley was not qualified to be a leader of God’s people due to his plagiarism. Here it is: http://www.reformed.org/webfiles/antithesis/index.html?mainframe=/webfiles/antithesis/v2n1/ant_v2n1_Wesley.html The problem with the pamphlet was that Wesley did not write substantial portions of it. In the course of approximately ten pages, Wesley used numerous sections taken verbatim from Samuel Johnson’s Taxation No Tyranny. In the first edition of Calm Address, Wesley did not indicate in any way that he had borrowed text from Johnson — Wesley represented the work as his own. This laid him open to the… Read more »
Ah, a call for consistancy on Doug’s part. You’re a fine, outstanding Christian leader, so how about you lead by example and show some consistancy yourself, Ryan. Use the same denouncing language against Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. for his plagarism as you have against Doug. As I said below, “It’d be pretty simple, you could just say “Yes, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. had no real concern for thievery””
You’re no respecter of persons, so you should have no trouble saying that. Sin is sin no matter who does it, right?
I don’t know what you’re talking about? What haven’t I said?
You want me to say that a guy who is now dead was wrong to plagiarize? I agree. That was wrong.
Do you agree with the example sentence I provided? Did MLK have no concern for thievery?
Edit: For the record, I myself do not think that plagarism, intentional or not necessarily implies that the plagariser has no concern for thievery. But Ryan seems to think that, but ONLY if the plagariser is somebody he doesn’t like. I’m simply calling his bluff.
So the problem is what? Doug says John Wesley disqualified himself from leadership for not acknowledging that he was wrong in lifting something from another source, even after it was made known that he did.
Has Doug Wilson lifted something from another source, published a new corrected edition, and not acknowledged wrongdoing in the previous edition? When?
I thought the situation was more like: he acknowledged the problem and then you freaked out because his publisher did the only thing reasonably open to non-crooked publishing houses — pulled the book and canceled the contract.
His point was that leaders are held to a higher standard and if you engage in plagiarism (Wilson has done it w 2 books that we know of btw) you are no longer fit to lead. It wasn’t because he didn’t acknowledge, it was because he did it.
Wison has co-writen 2 books which contain plagiaristic sections, in both of them his co-author has claimed responsability. I don’t know how many books Doug has co-writen but if 2 is all or most of them Doug should recondsider future co-writing progects. Doug is clearly guilty of some negligence in these cases I’m not sure it’s gross or criminal though.
The publisher called it a gross breach of contract.
Gross breach of contract is not synonymous with gross and or criminal negligence.
That was in reference to Booth. Are you even TRYING to keep your story straight anymore?
They jointly wrote book, they both are at fault
The publisher called gross breach of contract on Wilson’s co-author.
Your derangement syndrome is having a field day with your honesty factor.
They co-authored the book, regardless of what publisher says, both must take ownership since both wrote the book. No where in the book does it say who is and isn’t writing.
Nice try at a dodge. Didn’t work but nice try.
No Dodge just stating facts
Ryan, If I were to copy and paste only your commentary on this issue into a word document, it would be apparent that you were accusing Doug Wilson of criminal conduct.
That is dishonest. This is not the first honesty issue you have manifested on this blog site
You obviously have a problem seeing straight when Doug Wilson is involved.
I suggest you step down from your position in ministry and seek counseling for your issues.
Read the last paragraph of the passage you quoted from Doug again, Ryan.
Did you read this statement from Doug?
A plagiarist does not cease to be a plagiarist because he admits the obvious after he has been caught.
Yes. That is not incompatible with suggesting that a man who repents his plagiarism is not disqualified to be a leader in the church. He’s still a plagiarist, yes. Is he disqualified?
Is a man who repents still a plagiarist?. Is a woman who repents still a harlot?. Do we identify repentant and forgiven people by their past sins?
The man who is repentant is not “still a plagiarist” in the sense you mean, but I think what we’re talking about here is whether it’s still true that he committed plagiarism, if he retracts the plagiarism when it’s discovered. To that extent, I agree with Ryan.
O thank you! I was afraid someone had kidnapped Lady Jane and hacked her account. :)
Or maybe I just didn’t read through enough. That does happen. If that is the case I repent.
Coming back to this, I think it might clarify things if we use the “nonetheless” sense of “still,” rather than the “continuing to this time” sense, in the phrase “still a plagiarist.”
Doug said yes, I would actually not agree.
And, btw, Doug seems to think intent is important in that he supposedly did not intentionally plagiarize.
However, how does Doug know Wesley error was intentional? He writes as if that didn’t matter. Leaders make mistakes, held to higher standard, no longer fit to lead…Except if you’re Doug, then you get a pass?? Really??
Plagiarism now seems to be a recurring theme with Wilson. I guess he didn’t learn his lesson the first time with his morally reprehensible apologetic for american slavery- “Southern Slavery As it Was”? That ‘work’ contained 24 instances of plagiarism where Wilson and his partner stole from “Time on the Cross”.
Maybe he should sign up for some NSA classes? Still waiting for the slippery blog post where he redefines plagiarism or some such Wilson-esque sde-step. Maybe tomorrow?
Wesley acknowledged his indebtedness to the other pamphlet, but this was too late. A plagiarist does not cease to be a plagiarist because he admits the obvious after he has been caught. I suspect what Doug is getting at here is that when someone comes clean before the evidence (of any crime) is presented then he is honest about the failing. If he denies it then the evidence is presented for all to see and he has to admit it, he can’t then claim ignorance. Of course it is difficult to know when the evidence is presented before the person… Read more »
That’s a good point and would have been wise I think to have gone privately first.
In terms of Wesley, how do we know for certain that he didn’t put the acknowledgement in the first pamphlet and it got left out by mistake (busy, sermon notes, etc…?) Like Booth and Wilson are now claiming about this one?
My point is, Wilson seems to care little about intent for Wesley error, assumes worst motives and then goes for jugular saying he isn’t fit to be a Christian leader. What’s good for goose not good for the gander?
If Wesley did that then fine. I took it by Wesley’s subsequent comments that Wesley was acknowledging that he plagiarised another. I think that is Wilson’s point.
I actually think plagarism per se is a relatively minor issue. The question is one of intentional or not. Intentional in our culture usually testifies to dishonesty, an important issue. Unintentional points to negligence, and a minor form of negligence.
Well, I actually think plagarism is a smallish issue. Intentionality (in Christendom, at least) is the real issue. Unintentional plagiarism is but negligence.
I keep seeing MLK brought up as a defense of Doug’s plagiarism. I don’t get what MLK has to do with anything. Or what any other writers or speech givers or sermon writers etc…. Have to do with someone else’s sin/lie/error. Is the argument “someone famous did it so it’s not that bad” really what you’re going for here?
Stealing is stealing. Plagiarism is plagiarism. Murder is murder. No matter name, title, office, or followers or how many other people have done it as well.
jigawatt is trying to get Ryan to consistantly apply the statement that a plagiarist has no concern for thievery, it’s an attack on Ryans position not a defence of Doug.
Except, I’ve said Doug had shown a lack of concern for thievery as expressed in the plagiarism he’s between part of that has resulted in two books being blown up
I never said he didn’t care about thievery in general, it’s been in context of plagiarism…If he did care he wouldn’t have written two books filled with it
Co-written. If he didn’t care his other books should be full of plagiarism as well.
He should care as much or perhaps even more when cowriting. A mans good name shouldn’t be thrown around or on books lightly.
Ryan Sather had some very harsh things to say about Doug because of his plagarism. He’s unwilling to say the same things about MLK.
Doug Wilson plagarised -> Big time problem!! He has no concern for theivery!
MLK plagarised -> Yeah, um, it was wrong.
Um I was just paraphrasing what doug said about John Wesley
“A” dad to Ryan Sather:
“An association fallacy is an inductive informal fallacy of the type hasty generalization or red herring which asserts that qualities of one thing are inherently qualities of another, merely by an irrelevant association………”
Ryan Sather to “A” dad:
” In other words you’re a supporter of thievery.”
Slither, where is your attribution to Wilson here? ; – )
But answer the point; if you were alive when MLK Jr. Was, would you have followed him around saying he had no concern for theft since he, according to what jigawatt is saying, plagiarized?
Also, you never answered whether or not, due to his silence on the subject and failure to call Doug out, John Piper is covering for a man who covers for rapists.
Public leaders must never be silent on an issue so serious if there’s overwhelming evidence that grave evil has been committed.
No, ib do not believe John Piper is covering for Doug Wilson.
Then why has he not spoken out publicly condemning him? Why would John Piper STILL allow Doug to write for Desiring God?
Ryan Sather has some very harsh things to say about Doug because Ryan Sather has Doug Wilson derangement syndrome. That is the name of that tune.
I like how Doug let’s Randy completely take the fall for it all. He doesn’t even apologize. Did Doug let Randy completely take all the credit for the book? The profits? Their names are on there together and only one completely takes all responsibility.
Doug Wilson’s blog has The Plague. There are Sather Pox all over it. Ahhhhhhhhhhh
The truth is often a tough pill to swallow
I’ve said my piece, I will quit commenting.
Merry Christmas to all and to all a good night.
God bless us, everyone.
“I’ve said my piece, I will quit commenting.”
I’m saving this quote for future reference.
I pray that if Ryan comes back, it will be under his own name. But if someone starts making cracks about how we’re all horrible people who believe everything Doug says, that person is probably Ryan, whatever their name is.
Good one Ian, you should go into stand up comedy. Although guys who make stuff up aren’t very funny.
I am not making up the fact that you said you were done, but were really back under a new name, and that’s what you spent all your time as JP doing.
Except you’re wrong…that’s not the timeline…I did leave for close to a month…came back under name JP for about 10 days…
Straining a gnat, Ryan. You posted as JP with the intent to deceive or mislead everyone except Doug.
Likely as “stone Kirk” too. a.k.a. “stoney boo boo”.
Btw, I Kant I’m done commenting on the thievery issue in this blog. Not that I’m done commenting here for good.
*i meant I’m done commenting…
I think he Khan.
How much Kant could Immanuel chant if Immamuel could chant Kant? As much Kant as Immanuel could chant if Immanuel Kant could chant.
“I’ve said my piece, I will quit commenting.”
That’s all I want for Christmas.
Do I need to finish reading Moby Dick? I suspect Captain JP’s hunt for The Great White Wilson is thematically related.
I hear there’s a new movie of it, where the whale is actually Jaws. :)
That has wit! Well done, sir! You should get some award for cleverness. :)