hort.net Seasonal photo, (c) 2006 Christopher P. Lindsey, All Rights Reserved: do not copy
articles | gallery of plants | blog | tech blog | plant profiles | patents | mailing lists | top stories | links | shorturl service | tom clothier's archive0
Gallery of Plants
Tech Blog
Plant Profiles
Mailing Lists
    Search ALL lists
    Search help
    Subscription info
Top Stories
sHORTurl service
Tom Clothier's Archive
 Top Stories
New Trillium species discovered

Disease could hit Britain's trees hard

Ten of the best snowdrop cultivars

Plant protein database helps identify plant gene functions

Dendroclimatologists record history through trees

Potato beetle could be thwarted through gene manipulation

Hawaii expands coffee farm quarantine

Study explains flower petal loss

RSS story archive

Re: Plagiarism Story VI

> Robins, I'm back with more.
> I noted that this afternoon  Bill Nash wrote a four page post to
> hosta-open in order to layout a few  historical facts about what
> happened almost immediately after his now famous "Is This Plagiarism"
> post of Nay 16, 1997. Because his description was  not quite complete,
> let me try to fill in some gaps. I will try to describe a series of
> events/comments of major players during this period just prior to and
> after the Convention in 1997. Many of the events occurred on the Hosta-l
> Robin. I have a comprehensive record of these communications. I will not
> quote them because points I wish to make in this story are principally
> about Ben Zonneveld, not others. But if specific proof is needed to back
> up my statements, just ask for the documentation and it will be produced
> electronically for you.
> The series of events will be capsulated in brief summary-like statements
>  as the events occurred chronologically.
> 1.On May 16, 1997,  Bill Nash posted 'Journal 28.1 arrives in Canada".
> The text of this post was cc'ed again today around 3 PM.
> 2. It resulted immediately  in strong comments from "Wilddog"  demanding
> an apology.
> 3.Dave Stevenson, Registrar, on May 17, 1997 also demanded an apology of
> Bill Nash. Text of this post is cc'ed in the Nash post of this
> afternoon. I have characterized it as a post to "defend" Ben from an
> "attack" by Nash. Readers may judge for themselves its purpose.
> 4.Wilddog asked Hawes to defend Ben from this "accusation".
> 5. Hawes had not seen the article yet and declined to comment.
> 6.Bill Nash apologized for raising the question of Plagiarism which had
> begun a major conflict within the hosta community.
> 7.Stevenson had made the case that "Jim had not intended to use the term
> "group" in the manner as defined  by the ICNCP".
> 8. Hawes stated that his articles were written before new ICNCP rules
> were written and enacted, thus my intent in writing the article(s)  had
> nothing to do with ICNCP or its rules.
> 9. Stevenson insisted  on the validity  of his interpretation of Hawes'
> intent re writing his article(s).
> 10.Hawes insisted upon a retraction of Stevenson's insistence in
> determining Hawes' intent for writing his article(s) since intent was
> not the issue...that the issue was... that my intent in writing an
> article was none of Stevenson's business to inquire about.
> 11. Stevenson retracted his insistence and other statements made to
> support his positon....although reluctantly.
> 12.In a post to hosta-l,  Walek thanked Stevenson "for accurately
> relating the process he, Jim Hawes and I went through in determining
> that what Ben's article did was expand on a theme that Jim started.
> Ben's was consistent with the intent of  the ICNCP, and was not
> plagiarism".
> 13. I have never raised this obvious false statement of fact by Walek. I
> declare that I know nothing of any process that Stevenson , I and Walek
> went through as described in 12 above. I am surprised to this day
> regarding the  opinion of others,  that complying with ICNCP rules in
> the  writing of an article,  has anything to do with plagiarism,
> i.e.whether Ben copied data of others and used it as his own work. This
> issue has never been raised until now.
> I also question the authority of Walek, serving either Robin majordomo
> or as  Editor, in entering into this conflict as a decision maker,
> especially by fiat, without all facts being known. Since he had served
> as a major participant in deciding to publish the Cultivar Group
> article, he should not have taken the positon that he took... that no
> plagiarism had been committed. This issue was not in the realm of Robin
> authority nor of anyone with a conflict of interest in the matter.
> I believe we can conclude that none of us have ALL of the facts of this
> case. But we can all smell that something went very wrong. Odors are
> now wafting back and we must use more than  Airwick to address the
> issues. I intend to continue discovery and revelation of as many facts
> as possible.
> Jim Hawes

To sign-off this list, send email to majordomo@mallorn.com with the

 © 1995-2017 Mallorn Computing, Inc.All Rights Reserved.
Our Privacy Statement
Other Mailing lists | Author Index | Date Index | Subject Index | Thread Index