Maybe one of our Greasespot cafe literary types can answer this for me.
I may stand to be corrected, but I believe the only book that VPW wrote, inwhich he later published a editionrevision, where he actually added more material to the manuscript was the second edition of "Jesus Christ is Not God". He added a chapter or appendix about a figure of speech in John 1, plus changed from 50 to 68 the number of times that the phrase "Son of God" is used in the bible.
It seems that all the further editionsrevisions of VPW's books just made minor sentence revisions, added a sentence, subtracted a sentence, synonymic revisions of words, etc.
My question is, as the ministry began to grow in the USA and worldwide, with more exposure of his works, did VPW possibly sense that he could be found out, thus he began to change some explicit plagirized sentences, even paragraphs, to save his A$$?
My other question is in the normal world of literary endeavors, when authors publish new editionsrevisions, do they do basically the same things VPW did or do they normally add more material to their work? I know they probalbly make corrections in spelling, correct errors, etc; but reword a sentence, take out a sentence, change a word?
It has ben mentioned that VPW's earlier works reeked with plagiarism; and as time went by and editionsrevisions increased, the dirty deeds became less apparent.
My understanding is that the original version of Receiving the Holy Spirit Today was a lot shorter than the last edition. There would have had to have been significant additions and changes.
This is not unusual in scholarship. As more details come to light, or new theories are propounded, or as mistakes are discovered, authors who know there will be a continued demand for their work will revisit it to make corrections, additions and deletions. The obvious example is dictionaries and encyclopedias. Happens with history books all the time. It's the norm for MANY textbooks.
I don't think it's an unusual practice at all.
It's my belief that Wierwille could have done one of two things: correct the plagiarism by saying what he wanted to say in his own words, or footnote the living daylights out of his books (at least, the ones where this was a problem).
In the case of Receiving the Holy Spirit Today, what he seems to have done is rearrange a lot of the thoughts and concepts while mostly retaining the wording. The book definitely plagiarizes Stiles, but I don't have the books of the other authors, so for me to make the comparison would be unfair.
Anyone in the various stages of going in or coming out of TWI has the right to know what came from where before they swap blood and spit with the house that Vic built.
Though sadly enough, some obviously care little about plagiarism until the wailing and chomping begins.
Personally, I think plagiarism is much less relevant regarding religious matters (though not unimportant) than it is regarding harder sciences like medicine and journalism. Around here, plagiarism often seems to be used against the bibleman like the Sabbath Law was used to stone whores.
Spirit, art, cult and myth REQUIRE plagiarism. And VPW was just a lousy thief. His farmboy academics limited his ability to "repaint" the car before he got it across the border. He was a hack and somewhat of a bully. TWI was just one trendy little fart bubble among a mudpuddle of wannabe spiritual Titans popping up elsewhere in the world. He could have learned a thing or two about starting religions from LR Hubbard.
What I have so far is RHST (2nd Ed.) plagiarized approx. 80% of the "faith blasters" statement of Stiles' "Gift of the Holy Spirit"; and RHST (6th Ed. (which is the one I own)) plagiarized "Gift of the Holy Spirit" approx. 50% of the same statement.
If anyone knows of any more instances of plagiarism from J.E. Stiles book only, please let me know.
I've ordered B.G. Leonard's "Gifts of the Spirit" to see what I can come up with.
quote: Why didn't Stiles, E.W. Bullinger, E.W. Kenyon, B.G. Leonard and others make a fuss when VP stole their work? VP is the small-timer here. By the time VPW got more than a couple thousand followers (the size of literally thousands of individual churches across the country) it was already the mid-1970s. By that time, Stiles, Kenyon, Cliffe, Starr, and Bullinger, had long lost track of VP and were probably all dead. When Leonard finally found out about VP's plagiarism, he started adding explicit and blunt copyright notes in his books warning people not to plagiarize.
Even at TWI's peak, VP was basically an unknown outside of towns which hosted his "root locations." VP's books were never available in bookstores or offered for sale via radio ads (although this may have been attempted once without success) -- only by taking the class and getting on TWI's mailing list. By controlling sale of the books closely, VP limited his exposure.
The above quote from Hope's post caused a little light bulb to go off in my head-aha! Now I finally understand why back in the late 80's and on into the 90's we were encouraged to check for copies of ministry books at yard sales and in used bookstores etc. We were told to buy anything we found to get it out of circulation among "unbelievers".
This never made sense to me. Shouldn't we WANT unbelievers to have access to all this great information? We were always told that without "THE CLASS", people would not be able to understand it, and it could do more harm than good. Now I realize that the perceived harm would have been to twi if vpw's plagiarism was out in the public eye where questions about it could not be controlled and spin doctored as well as it was within our fellowships.
This also explains the reasoning of not letting anyone outside of twi borrow any books or materials. Keep the information exclusive to the organization, and avoid any potential exposure to anyone who was not already under the twi thumb.
AUZDA
"I fall down on my knees and pray, I don't get fooled again".
Do you think the similarities of RTHST, p. 3 and the Stiles book, p. 15 are plagiarism or coincidence? I think the similarities prove plagiarism.
The first scriptural references in the Stiles book (starting on p. 15) are, in order:
John 14:16-17
Galatians 3:2,14
Acts 8:14-19
Acts 8:36-38
Acts 19:1-6
Acts 2:38-39
Acts 1:4-5
Matthew 28:19-20
Ephesians 5:18
Acts 1:8
Galatians 4:19
John 14:16-17
The first scriptural references of RTHST, starting on p. 3, in order:
John 14:17
Acts 1:8
Acts 8:14-19
Acts 19:1-6
Acts 2:38-39 (in a footnote).
Acts 1:4-5
Matthew 28:19-20
Acts 2:39 (repeated)
Ephesians 5:18
I Corinthians 14:5,13,37
John 16:13-15
I think it's clear that there's a digression in Chapter One, but that Wierwille is clearly making the same argument using the same verses in pretty much the same order. It's not exact, but it's eerily close.
Also, consider the wording. Wierwille did NOT write a single one of the following sentences:
quote:
Have you received since you believed? Many believe that all Christians receive the Holy Spirit in all His fulness at the time they are saved, but this evidently is not true... Jesus made a difference between the Spirit being WITH people and IN them...Here we find that these people of Samaria had been saved, and baptized in water by Philip, the evangelist, and still not one of them had received the Holy Spirit. Then it tells us that Peter and John laid hands on them and they received Him.
The similarities to the first chapter of RTHST are uncanny, especially if you were to adjust for doctrinal differences. I'll bet good money earlier editions of RTHST were closer, but I don't have them handy.
Plagiarism by observational example and comparison is one thing, but by ?contrary example? is quite another.
We have before us a medium in which ?free flowing opinions and beliefs? are expressed by ?not too small a number of posters? in these forums.
Questions for All Posters:
How many of us, and how many times, in these passing exchanges about ?sometimes? meaningless topics, did we (do we) give credibility and literary affirmation to ?scant phrases? or ?catchy observations? and attribute them to the original authors. I?d say all of the time.
Why?
How many of us use the ?quote? to express the ownership of another?s idea, both for debate and validation of our own petty opinions and thoughts, all throughout the threads in this medium?
Always. Mostly always. Why?
Why???
This is the internet, we are, for the more part, anonymous to each other and yet we endeavor to persistently sort through, in our thinking, that which is clearly ?our stated thought? from another?s?
And we try to give the author the credit for that ?just due?.
Why does this, oft times tumultuous rabble of ex cultists, exercise so carefully so as not to copy without accreditation to the original author these ?mere comments? ? and yet we question what is clearly the published and plagerisized words so clearly copied from other author?s literary inspiration and labor?
I think it speaks volumes to about the ?mutual integrity? here as it pertains to this category. And it must be governed by the ?mutual character? of the posters here also.
And I think it speaks especially of the common decency about most people who not only do not steal money, but used stolen ideas to do such.
And I think it is very hard to understand, by normal people, what is clearly sociopathic behavior from another.
And I think that the greatest indictment of VPW?s character, which is the stark reflection of his apparent plagiarism, is the ?subjective evidence we practice here?.
Do you think the similarities of RTHST, p. 3 and the Stiles book, p. 15 are plagiarism or coincidence? I think the similarities prove plagiarism.
Rafael,
I would say no, because there's a bunch of material that's different, and VP adds more stuff than Stiles says, and Stiles says other things that VP doesn't say. If you do a word by word comparison I would say definitely not. There are similarities yes, but I don't know if that rises to the level of plagiarism.
I respectfully disagree with you. It is the existence of similarities that prove plagiarism. It is not the existence of differences that disprove it. The similarities are there and they are overwhelming.
Try this exercise: take the two books to an academic you respect. Ask them to read the first two pages of each book and to offer their impressions. Don't tell them why you're asking.
Do you have ANY doubt as to what the academic will tell you? I don't.
quote:Proving plagiarism in the United States requires the plaintiff to show that 1) the defendant had access to the earlier work [in the Wierwille/Stiles case, this has already been established - Raf] and 2) the defendant's work bears a "substantial similarity" to the plaintiff's original. It sounds like a legal blur because it is. Different courts have different opinions on what constitutes "substantial similarity." For example, jazz drummer Bernard "Pretty" Purdie filed a copyright-infringement suit against a rapper who lifted a lone cymbal crash from one of Purdie's recordings. He claims that his cymbal crash--a single beat--is so recognizably his that any use of it violates his copyright.
Slate.com
I would htink that one cymbal crash is a little extreme. But that's music, and irrelevant to this discussion.
Plagiarism means the existence of similarities that are "beyond probability or coincidence.? I lost the source of that quote.
quote:Anytime you quote, summarize or paraphrase, you must acknowledge the original source. Even if you summarize or paraphrase, if you do not directly credit your source through a citation YOU ARE PLAGIARIZING!!!
If you quote a source, you must quote exactly, word for word. Cite the source in the paper with a footnote or parenthetical citation. (See How to Cite Sources.)
Summaries and paraphrasing must also be cited. Cite these exactly as you would a quote. Summaries and paraphrasing are merely condensed versions of someone else's work! You must give them credit for the information.
Simply put, PARAPHRASING is putting an author's work into your own words. Although the information is in your own words, it is still the original author's work. You have merely rephrased it! SUMMARIZING is writing out the main points of someone else's work in your own words. Once again, this is not information which you have created, therefore it is to be cited.
Now, Oldiesman, if you refute the above definitions of plagiarism, that's fine. But do so.
If you do NOT refute the above definitions of plagiarism, will you now acknowledge that Wierwille plagiarized Stiles at the beginning of chapter one of "his" book?
verbal attribution in an attempt to compensate for the lack of written acknowledgement.
It is NOT permissible to falsify or nudge research data, even just a "little bit" to make it better support your thesis.
In established universities ,violating any
one of these policies is sufficient grounds
for expulsion. Thats it. It happened 3 months ago at my university to a mid career faculty member looking to boost his sagging image by
publishing someone else's data albeit rewritten in a failed attempt to disguise it.
Back to VPW...He vanity published his works via TWI which allowed his books to escape the usual and customary scrutiny applied by an editor seeking to insure that the work being submitted is genuine and contains evidence of primary authorship - that is that someone else didn't write it or the author didn't rip off someone else. There was no one around to question him
probe him about his ideas, his conclusions, his
liberal interpretation of biblical languages.
He just skated.
So there is no excuse for his actions as an
author. Even a fledgling reporter for some high school paper could look at the books being offerred in comparison to the "works" of VPW and easily conclude that VPW plagiarized.
Hardcore VPW supporters don't want to go down
this road because then they have to start
looking at the other areas of VPW's life.
So its easy for them to throw up a smoke screen
(Juedes' mission in life is to tear down VPW) to deflect due scrutiny. But in their quietest moments they know its just an exercise in denial.
Anyway you look at it - plagiarizm is a very
big deal whether or not the context is VPW
or not. Its something that has been around since academic publications have. Dont' let
Recommended Posts
Lightside
Maybe one of our Greasespot cafe literary types can answer this for me.
I may stand to be corrected, but I believe the only book that VPW wrote, inwhich he later published a editionrevision, where he actually added more material to the manuscript was the second edition of "Jesus Christ is Not God". He added a chapter or appendix about a figure of speech in John 1, plus changed from 50 to 68 the number of times that the phrase "Son of God" is used in the bible.
It seems that all the further editionsrevisions of VPW's books just made minor sentence revisions, added a sentence, subtracted a sentence, synonymic revisions of words, etc.
My question is, as the ministry began to grow in the USA and worldwide, with more exposure of his works, did VPW possibly sense that he could be found out, thus he began to change some explicit plagirized sentences, even paragraphs, to save his A$$?
My other question is in the normal world of literary endeavors, when authors publish new editionsrevisions, do they do basically the same things VPW did or do they normally add more material to their work? I know they probalbly make corrections in spelling, correct errors, etc; but reword a sentence, take out a sentence, change a word?
It has ben mentioned that VPW's earlier works reeked with plagiarism; and as time went by and editionsrevisions increased, the dirty deeds became less apparent.
Thanks for comments.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
My understanding is that the original version of Receiving the Holy Spirit Today was a lot shorter than the last edition. There would have had to have been significant additions and changes.
This is not unusual in scholarship. As more details come to light, or new theories are propounded, or as mistakes are discovered, authors who know there will be a continued demand for their work will revisit it to make corrections, additions and deletions. The obvious example is dictionaries and encyclopedias. Happens with history books all the time. It's the norm for MANY textbooks.
I don't think it's an unusual practice at all.
It's my belief that Wierwille could have done one of two things: correct the plagiarism by saying what he wanted to say in his own words, or footnote the living daylights out of his books (at least, the ones where this was a problem).
In the case of Receiving the Holy Spirit Today, what he seems to have done is rearrange a lot of the thoughts and concepts while mostly retaining the wording. The book definitely plagiarizes Stiles, but I don't have the books of the other authors, so for me to make the comparison would be unfair.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sirguessalot
I agree with this re: plagiarism:
Anyone in the various stages of going in or coming out of TWI has the right to know what came from where before they swap blood and spit with the house that Vic built.
Though sadly enough, some obviously care little about plagiarism until the wailing and chomping begins.
Personally, I think plagiarism is much less relevant regarding religious matters (though not unimportant) than it is regarding harder sciences like medicine and journalism. Around here, plagiarism often seems to be used against the bibleman like the Sabbath Law was used to stone whores.
Spirit, art, cult and myth REQUIRE plagiarism. And VPW was just a lousy thief. His farmboy academics limited his ability to "repaint" the car before he got it across the border. He was a hack and somewhat of a bully. TWI was just one trendy little fart bubble among a mudpuddle of wannabe spiritual Titans popping up elsewhere in the world. He could have learned a thing or two about starting religions from LR Hubbard.
Change the names, at least.
Todd
Good artists copy great artists.
Great artists steal from everyone.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
What I have so far is RHST (2nd Ed.) plagiarized approx. 80% of the "faith blasters" statement of Stiles' "Gift of the Holy Spirit"; and RHST (6th Ed. (which is the one I own)) plagiarized "Gift of the Holy Spirit" approx. 50% of the same statement.
If anyone knows of any more instances of plagiarism from J.E. Stiles book only, please let me know.
I've ordered B.G. Leonard's "Gifts of the Spirit" to see what I can come up with.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Auzda
The above quote from Hope's post caused a little light bulb to go off in my head-aha! Now I finally understand why back in the late 80's and on into the 90's we were encouraged to check for copies of ministry books at yard sales and in used bookstores etc. We were told to buy anything we found to get it out of circulation among "unbelievers".
This never made sense to me. Shouldn't we WANT unbelievers to have access to all this great information? We were always told that without "THE CLASS", people would not be able to understand it, and it could do more harm than good. Now I realize that the perceived harm would have been to twi if vpw's plagiarism was out in the public eye where questions about it could not be controlled and spin doctored as well as it was within our fellowships.
This also explains the reasoning of not letting anyone outside of twi borrow any books or materials. Keep the information exclusive to the organization, and avoid any potential exposure to anyone who was not already under the twi thumb.
AUZDA
"I fall down on my knees and pray, I don't get fooled again".
The Who
Link to comment
Share on other sites
FreshAir 99
Auzda,
Great point!
Thanks for posting.
:)-->
Fresh
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Oldiesman,
Do you think the similarities of RTHST, p. 3 and the Stiles book, p. 15 are plagiarism or coincidence? I think the similarities prove plagiarism.
The first scriptural references in the Stiles book (starting on p. 15) are, in order:
John 14:16-17
Galatians 3:2,14
Acts 8:14-19
Acts 8:36-38
Acts 19:1-6
Acts 2:38-39
Acts 1:4-5
Matthew 28:19-20
Ephesians 5:18
Acts 1:8
Galatians 4:19
John 14:16-17
The first scriptural references of RTHST, starting on p. 3, in order:
John 14:17
Acts 1:8
Acts 8:14-19
Acts 19:1-6
Acts 2:38-39 (in a footnote).
Acts 1:4-5
Matthew 28:19-20
Acts 2:39 (repeated)
Ephesians 5:18
I Corinthians 14:5,13,37
John 16:13-15
I think it's clear that there's a digression in Chapter One, but that Wierwille is clearly making the same argument using the same verses in pretty much the same order. It's not exact, but it's eerily close.
Also, consider the wording. Wierwille did NOT write a single one of the following sentences:
The similarities to the first chapter of RTHST are uncanny, especially if you were to adjust for doctrinal differences. I'll bet good money earlier editions of RTHST were closer, but I don't have them handy.
More later.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
jediknight777
Plagiarism by observational example and comparison is one thing, but by ?contrary example? is quite another.
We have before us a medium in which ?free flowing opinions and beliefs? are expressed by ?not too small a number of posters? in these forums.
Questions for All Posters:
How many of us, and how many times, in these passing exchanges about ?sometimes? meaningless topics, did we (do we) give credibility and literary affirmation to ?scant phrases? or ?catchy observations? and attribute them to the original authors. I?d say all of the time.
Why?
How many of us use the ?quote? to express the ownership of another?s idea, both for debate and validation of our own petty opinions and thoughts, all throughout the threads in this medium?
Always. Mostly always. Why?
Why???
This is the internet, we are, for the more part, anonymous to each other and yet we endeavor to persistently sort through, in our thinking, that which is clearly ?our stated thought? from another?s?
And we try to give the author the credit for that ?just due?.
Why does this, oft times tumultuous rabble of ex cultists, exercise so carefully so as not to copy without accreditation to the original author these ?mere comments? ? and yet we question what is clearly the published and plagerisized words so clearly copied from other author?s literary inspiration and labor?
I think it speaks volumes to about the ?mutual integrity? here as it pertains to this category. And it must be governed by the ?mutual character? of the posters here also.
And I think it speaks especially of the common decency about most people who not only do not steal money, but used stolen ideas to do such.
And I think it is very hard to understand, by normal people, what is clearly sociopathic behavior from another.
And I think that the greatest indictment of VPW?s character, which is the stark reflection of his apparent plagiarism, is the ?subjective evidence we practice here?.
jedi...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
Rafael,
I would say no, because there's a bunch of material that's different, and VP adds more stuff than Stiles says, and Stiles says other things that VP doesn't say. If you do a word by word comparison I would say definitely not. There are similarities yes, but I don't know if that rises to the level of plagiarism.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Oldiesman,
I respectfully disagree with you. It is the existence of similarities that prove plagiarism. It is not the existence of differences that disprove it. The similarities are there and they are overwhelming.
Try this exercise: take the two books to an academic you respect. Ask them to read the first two pages of each book and to offer their impressions. Don't tell them why you're asking.
Do you have ANY doubt as to what the academic will tell you? I don't.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Some useful info, from a variety of sources...
Slate.com
I would htink that one cymbal crash is a little extreme. But that's music, and irrelevant to this discussion.
Plagiarism means the existence of similarities that are "beyond probability or coincidence.? I lost the source of that quote.
From Plagiarism.org
Feel free to peruse the following Web site as well: Defining Plagiarism
Now, Oldiesman, if you refute the above definitions of plagiarism, that's fine. But do so.
If you do NOT refute the above definitions of plagiarism, will you now acknowledge that Wierwille plagiarized Stiles at the beginning of chapter one of "his" book?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
washingtonweather
yeah-- we all know they plaster
NEW & IMPROVED...'specially on Soap
on everything--why would VP be any different...cept he claimed he researched it all on his own in most instance invented the soap.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
karmicdebt
Excellent points here. I was surprised not to see this before.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
Can you imagine what some of his books would look like with seventy percent of the content in block quotes or parentheis?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
diazbro
Plagiarism is a huge deal and it can get
you booted out of school even if you are
tenured faculty. In the academic environment
its required and expected that your research
conforms to presentation standards which
includes a *full* bibliography , footnotes,
endnotes, of sources. In fact this process
can be as time consuming and demanding as the
actual collection of research data and
preparation of the manuscript. Nevetheless
it is a necessary part of the process
It is NOT permissible to omit references
even if you have merely paraphrased the
words of another. It is NOT permissible
to omit a reference and later provide
verbal attribution in an attempt to compensate for the lack of written acknowledgement.
It is NOT permissible to falsify or nudge research data, even just a "little bit" to make it better support your thesis.
In established universities ,violating any
one of these policies is sufficient grounds
for expulsion. Thats it. It happened 3 months ago at my university to a mid career faculty member looking to boost his sagging image by
publishing someone else's data albeit rewritten in a failed attempt to disguise it.
Back to VPW...He vanity published his works via TWI which allowed his books to escape the usual and customary scrutiny applied by an editor seeking to insure that the work being submitted is genuine and contains evidence of primary authorship - that is that someone else didn't write it or the author didn't rip off someone else. There was no one around to question him
probe him about his ideas, his conclusions, his
liberal interpretation of biblical languages.
He just skated.
So there is no excuse for his actions as an
author. Even a fledgling reporter for some high school paper could look at the books being offerred in comparison to the "works" of VPW and easily conclude that VPW plagiarized.
Hardcore VPW supporters don't want to go down
this road because then they have to start
looking at the other areas of VPW's life.
So its easy for them to throw up a smoke screen
(Juedes' mission in life is to tear down VPW) to deflect due scrutiny. But in their quietest moments they know its just an exercise in denial.
Anyway you look at it - plagiarizm is a very
big deal whether or not the context is VPW
or not. Its something that has been around since academic publications have. Dont' let
VPW off the hook. He DID plagiarize.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Dot Matrix
to the top
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Belle
And again....
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
A lot of people don't know what's important about
"The Integrity of your word".
One answer is here:
http://www.greasespotcafe.com/editorial/pl...m-wierwille.htm
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.