Is this plagiarism?

MadMax said:

Are we talking about academic writing here or when writing a book that can be copyrighted?

Click to expand...

It doesn't matter what you're writing, the laws of copyright still apply. Copyright isn't applied later: it exists as soon as you create something original.

For example.. let's say I was writing about something that involved multiple people.. and it was necessary to include the bulk of information about several people using their biographies. In order to do it properly I would need to show their lives in the order they were written about in the biographies...

Would there be a limit to how much I could follow the pattern of the book even if totally reworded?

Click to expand...

If you rewrite someone else's book then you're plagiarising it, even if you change the structure of the prose.

If you read someone else's book, and a number of different books on the same subject, and a handful of articles, and you interview a few people who know stuff about the subject, and then use all that information to write your own book, then it's not plagiarism so long as you cite and acknowledge the sources you used.

I suspect you're hoping to be able to do something akin to the former, whereas you really need to follow the latter.

The reason i ask is because I have read you can't follow the same format in which the original used... this is the impression I got at least.

Click to expand...

The format is just one part of a work. You're not allowed to plagiarise any aspect of a book.

Sorry if this isn't making sense.. I have read so many seemingly conflicting things.

What I need to do is break down these other books, vids and websites to people before I can explain the way I feel the events tie together.

You seem to be saying there is no limit to how much can be used if I reword enough and cite the source.

Click to expand...

There are limits.

You can't just reword an article or book and call it your own, not even if you refer to the original. You have to do your own research, create your own arguments, and write your own original work. If you're reluctant or unable to do that, then you should not proceed with this project.

Old Hack said:

There are limits.

You can't just reword an article or book and call it your own, not even if you refer to the original. You have to do your own research, create your own arguments, and write your own original work. If you're reluctant or unable to do that, then you should not proceed with this project.

Click to expand...

I am not explaining myself well at all here.. ideally I wouldn't have to include much of the others work at all...

The reason I say this is because the volume of information I need to explain to others is already immense.. but people won't understand MY PART of the story without having this background info from other sources I speak of.

This is like trying to convey a semester or year of college in one book. what I need to do is to teach people enough about science to understand the things I have discovered.. but this is science few people in the world have an understanding of.

So this is my problem.. how do I convince people of what I discovered? If I tell people they have to go find all these obscure sources and not only that but disregard certain aspects of it.. it will take them as long as it did me to figure it all out - years.

So ideally what I would be able to do is to take as much info as I need from these non-fiction sources reword it and then these people wouldn't have to go through all I did...

Some people tell me this is legal some people tell me it isn't...

Someone told me the most you could use was 10%... someone else said that was only in England..

Lawyers tell me I need to pay lawyers to figure it out..

Someone else on another site just told me history isn't copyrightable... are the claims and accounts made in these non-fiction books now considered history?

Honestly the more I try to understand all this the more confused I get.

MadMax said:

I am not explaining myself well at all here.. ideally I wouldn't have to include much of the others work at all...

Click to expand...

Try not to worry. It's difficult when you don't know the writing world, but we'll get there. One way or another!

The reason I say this is because the volume of information I need to explain to others is already immense.. but people won't understand MY PART of the story without having this background info from other sources I speak of.

Click to expand...

This is like trying to convey a semester or year of college in one book. what I need to do is to teach people enough about science to understand the things I have discovered.. but this is science few people in the world have an understanding of.

Click to expand...

What you're describing is what writers do every day. Yes, it's a big job, but it can be done.

You can provide the background information you’ve discovered from your many sources. But you have to write your own version of those events (or biographies, or whatever they are), which you’ve worked out using material from several different sources. If you take a single source and rewrite it in your own words then that’s plagiarism, because you’re using the other writer’s research and hard work to produce your own version of those events; if you use a few sources, use your own structure, and come to your own conclusions, then you’re creating your own work and you should be ok.

If you quote anything then keep those quotes very brief, and cite them all very carefully. I think the Society of Authors give guidelines for fair use on their site. Use a reputable source for advice on these matters: don’t rely on what anonymous strangers tell you online because most of those anonymous strangers don’t know what they’re talking about.

So this is my problem.. how do I convince people of what I discovered? If I tell people they have to go find all these obscure sources and not only that but disregard certain aspects of it.. it will take them as long as it did me to figure it all out - years.

Click to expand...

So ideally what I would be able to do is to take as much info as I need from these non-fiction sources reword it and then these people wouldn't have to go through all I did...

Click to expand...

As I’ve said before, if you just reword other writers’ works then you’re plagiarising them. However, if you collect together information from a number of different sources then write your own version of events, you’re researching.

Some people tell me this is legal some people tell me it isn't...

Click to expand...

Someone told me the most you could use was 10%... someone else said that was only in England..
Lawyers tell me I need to pay lawyers to figure it out..
Someone else just old me history isn't copyrightable... are the claims made in these non-fiction books now considered history?
Honestly the more I try to understand all this the more confused I get.

Click to expand...

Of course history isn’t copyright: we can all write what we like about history.

Our writing about history is, however, covered by copyright. So while it’s fair game to write about any historical event, it is not acceptable to take a history book and rewrite it in your own words without adding a considerable amount of your own independent research. The book, and the ideas, conclusions and arguments it contains is protected under copyright; the events discussed in the book are not.

All books are covered by copyright law. You cannot just rewrite what you’ve read and consider it your own work. You have to do your own research, come up with your own opinions and conclusions, and then write them up in your own words for you to be safe.

Does that help?

MadMax said:

Interesting info MagicWriter. I this info applies to my situation too. I need to try to recreate images used to demonstrate some scientific principles and engineering theories. I wonder if there are work-a-rounds for this? I have read about "transformative" art work which is fair use but it's complex...

Click to expand...

If you have a genuinely new and tranformative idea, why would you need to recreate any given work, at length and unchanged? I just don't understand this.

Is it that you want to get all your material on any fact from just one book by just paraphrasing it? Because that is just poor research, you should use as many sources, as close to primary, as humanly possible.

If you are in fact combining elements from many works to create a new thesis there is not a twinkle of plagiarism involved. This is what a large proportion of non-fiction does every day.

I honestly think you are making this much harder than it needs to be. You read and view your sources. You write down your thesis. You illustrate and support it is evidence. You provide citations for the evidence. You have a book free and clear of any possible copyright issues. That is just how it is done.

Perhaps you could clarify how your book would differ from any other evidence based book published this year?

Old Hack said:

You can provide the background information you’ve discovered from your many sources. But you have to write your own version of those events (or biographies, or whatever they are), which you’ve worked out using material from several different sources.

Click to expand...

THIS is the key to my whole problem.. THIS is what I feel may be separating me from everyone else.. this is why I feel I may be getting conflicting information.


In MY case...I am in an incredibly unique situation.

We are in a time where believe it or not but a tremendous amount of information that was kept secret or just not discovered is coming out...

NO ONE else has this information... EACH of these sources provides information that can't be acquired from other sources.

There are like 8 different pieces of the puzzle that I have found that are completely unique and no one else provides this info.. and all these pieces fit together in a way no one else has put them together.

And EACH of these 8 elements requires a tremendous amount of thought and discovery and experimentation that went into finding this info.

So as I see it each element is like a piece of history.. some of these elements have actual full biographies as part of their story... and each element needs to be described in depth to convince others of their incredible discovery...

And this is why I am having so much trouble.. because to explain this to people I need others to understand each of these very complex elements fully to get to the point where they can understand how I have figured out how these elements fit together.

This is why I think people don't understand this situation.. I didn't understand it fully either until just now. I knew my problem but I didn't realzie how unique it is...

Probably 99.9999999999999999999999999999% of the time in the world people don't run into a problem like this.

I don't think that is an exaggeration either.. that is how incredible and rare and complex this information is and why it has taken so long to discover this. It also hurts because this general subject matter is absolutely SWAMPED with BS.. so people have no idea what is real and what isn't which is why they won't bother to look even if I tell them to look.

What makes this so rare now as well is how everything else in the world is covered by countless people and sources and parties..

This info I am providing is cutting edge info coming from many different sources and each requires a huge amount of explanation and thought that these people provide just to have a chance to understand it.

As crazy as this sounds this is true.

There is nothing unique about that at all. Just cited the sources wherever and whenever you refer to that content in your thesis. You don't have to reprise the entire article/book/video/whatever to explain how it supports your thesis.

Honestly. I don't see the difficulty. Books are written about complicated stuff all the time without plagiarising the sources.

But I don't think small excerpts are going to do it.

Full explanations might not even do it because of the complexity of the information.

Look at it like pieces of the puzzle.. if I only include a small part of each source then I am only including a couple pieces of the puzzle they provide...

I think the other aspect of this people aren't understanding is that there is a time factor here. If this takes a long time for people to understand then it defeats the purpose.. this information is relevant to events that are happening RIGHT now... I think that is the other aspect people don't understand.

Also remember that this whole thing involves elements that are unbelievably controversial and seemingly unrelated and of different disciplines... so it's going to take people a long long time to figure this out if I can't provide the pieces for them...

I guess at the very least I am trying to understand what is the maximum amount of information I can use... because the more info I can use the more likely people are to understand it..

But look at it from my perspective.. if I don't know that ahead of time then I waste a tremendous amount of time writing stuff that won't be able to be included in my over all work... this is why I need to know ahead of time.

So as Old Hack said... if I use multiple sources then I am not in danger.. but how much of each source can I use?

Because these sources are so unique this is very important for me to know...

Is it 10% ?

MadMax said:

In MY case...I am in an incredibly unique situation.

We are in a time where believe it or not but a tremendous amount of information that was kept secret or just not discovered is coming out...

Click to expand...

Scientific information is being kept secret? But you've found sources for it? I don't understand this part.

NO ONE else has this information... EACH of these sources provides information that can't be acquired from other sources.

Click to expand...

Is there a published source for each of these "sources?" If so, there is no issue--you describe the information in the sources and give an appropriate citation for each one. These represent work/theories/ideas that were formulated by some other person, right? Then that person's work where it was described requires a citation. You can summarize that work but you can't pass it off as your own. Just summarize it with a citation. Even if it you have to go into depth to get the ideas/information across, you can do that as long as you cite the original source and the original author.

There are like 8 different pieces of the puzzle that I have found that are completely unique and no one else provides this info.. and all these pieces fit together in a way no one else has put them together.

Click to expand...

Then you can describe each of the different pieces with appropriate citations. If they haven't been tied together in the way you are doing, then that is your original contribution to the work, and that doesn't require a citation (as long as you have propertly cited all of the published information that has led you to your conclusions/theories).

And EACH of these 8 elements requires a tremendous amount of thought and discovery and experimentation that went into finding this info.

Click to expand...

If that tremendous amount of thought and discovery and experimentation has been accomplished and published, you simply need to give it appropriate and proper citation and you can use it as the background information for your original ideas and theories. If you are lifting your ideas/theories from the work of others, then you can't claim it as your own, but you must (again) give proper citation.

So as I see it each element is like a piece of history.. some of these elements have actual full biographies as part of their story... and each element needs to be described in depth to convince others of their incredible discovery...

Click to expand...

I don't see where this is a problem. You can describe each element, using information from the biographies, you just have to give proper citation to the published work and its author(s). So, describe away and cite away. This is all background to your unique synthesis, so there is no problem. If you are writing about the work/theories/ideas of others that have been published, no matter how obscure the publication may be, you HAVE to cite it. Otherwise, you are, in effect, claiming that work, those theories, or those ideas as your own by publishing them without citation.

And this is why I am having so much trouble.. because to explain this to people I need others to understand each of these very complex elements fully to get to the point where they can understand how I have figured out how these elements fit together.[?QUOTE]
Then explain each complex element fully WITH PROPER CITATION OF THE ORIGINAL WORKS UNDERLYING THESE ELEMENTS.

[QUIOTE]This is why I think people don't understand this situation.. I didn't understand it fully either until just now. I knew my problem but I didn't realzie how unique it is...

Click to expand...

It is not unique. When we write scientific articles, we have an introduction where we describe all of the background work for the project with proper citation of the published articles. Then we report our methods (no citations are needed unless we are using the methods perviously used by others), our original data (no citations needed), and our conclusions in discussion format (with citations when we compare our conclusions with the previous works, and when we use the previous works to justify our conclusions/theories).

Probably 99.9999999999999999999999999999% of the time in the world people don't run into a problem like this.

Click to expand...

Writing academic non-fiction is not as mysterious or misunderstood as you think. Cite other people's work and use it as support for your original ideas. I think 99.99% of the people in the world can understand that.

I don't think that is an exaggeration either.. that is how incredible and rare and complex this information is and why it has taken so long to discover this. It also hurts because this general subject matter is absolutely SWAMPED with BS.. so people have no idea what is real and what isn't which is why they won't bother to look even if I tell them to look.

Click to expand...

If this incredible and rare and complex information is in some published form, it doesn't matter how obscure it is. It requires citation when being described. If you are going to clarify what you think is real and what isn't real, you still have to cite the published works that give the background information. You can evaluate the "quality" of previous ideas/theories, but again, you do that with citations of the published works. If you feel someone's published work is bogus, you can say so, as long as you cite the work and provide either new data or other published data that throws that bogus data in doubt.

This info I am providing is cutting edge info coming from many different sources and each requires a huge amount of explanation and thought that these people provide just to have a chance to understand it.

Click to expand...

Again, I don't see the problem. Go ahead and summarize all of this cutting edge information from the different sources, but give them all proper bibiolographic citation. Give the huge amount of explanation and thought those people have provided, but give them proper citation. Then, when you have your background set, go ahead with your synthesis, ideas, theories, etc. and support it with the pieces of these other works as appropriate (but again with proper citation to the supporting work).


Just out of curiousity, is this an evolution/intelligent design spin-off, and did you go through a long thread or two on the subject about six or seven years ago here, under a different name?


NOTE added in edit: You can use as much of these previous works as necessary, as long as you are careful to give all of it proper bibliographic citation. There is no mystery here.

MadMax said:

But I don't think small excerpts are going to do it.

Click to expand...

You summarize the point, concisely, in your own words. You use short quotes if you want.

An example from my last book--
When suggesting a theory is wrong I say
1) Actually experimental reports are consistent with this theory only half the time (cite all these experiments)
2) People who like the theory only report the positive findings (cite several examples)
When suggesting my theory is right I say
1) This is what my theory would predict
2) Actual experiments are consistent with my theory 90% of the time
3) Explain how I reconcile the 10% one by one
I do not explain every single experiment. I don't quote any of the experiments except for effect.

I am sure your thesis differs but I don't know what it is so I am using this one as an example.

As one of my supervisors once said: if you can't explain something to a 7 year old in 5 minutes, you probably don't really understand it.

Are you perhaps, as a novice writer, avoiding the heavy lifting of writing your thesis yourself? Because there is no substitute for that.

NeuroFizz, I think there is some misunderstanding here.. did you read the previous posts?

The issue was never me giving citations.. I am wondering if we are all talking about the same thing or different issues..

Let's use one book as an example.. Let's say I have found one book that I have an additional theory to that adds a whole new element to this persons book.

But this person is the only person to create all the info in his book.

But in order to convince others of the initial element he provides I need to include as much info from his book as possible.. everything in his initial book is key to understanding that this weird subject is real.

If I simply summarize his entire book people are unliekly to understand the portion he provides..

This is why I said I wanted to reword as much of the book as possible to include in my work.

But Old Hack seemed to be saying that was not acceptable.. even if I totally reowrd their work.. reformat their work and give full citations.. because I am using too much of their work.

So this is my issue.. HOW much of that original book can I use even rewording, reformatting and citing? Is there some standard limit where I am unlikely to get in trouble?

According to fair use law when QUOTING you can only use like 200 words of one source from my understanding.. but that only applies to actual quotations not rewording, right?

Scientific information is being kept secret? But you've found sources for it? I don't understand this part.

Click to expand...

It was being suppressed.. it's difficult to explain.. but there is information that was known but obscured and as I said multiple elements coming out at the same time has shown that others work was true.. it has just taken time for this info to come out.. and I am sure a huge amount of info they have developed since then is being kept secret as well.

Just out of curiosity, is this an evolution/intelligent design spin-off, and did you go through a long thread or two on the subject about six or seven years ago here, under a different name

Click to expand...

Absolutely not.. this is the first time I have posted on this board. Not related to intelligent design either.

The confusion is because you aren't making much sense, at least to me. You say you are using a great many sources, but you want to essentially restate every single source at length--which would suggest a book about a million words long.

I would suggest just writing your theory down. Start with why the old theory sucks, explain how your theory greatly reduces the sucking. The add citations to what you have written wherever they are apt.

Madmax,

First of all, you need to realize that your situation is not unique. others have done exactly what you are trying to do (with different materials of course) and you can look to these nonfiction books to see how they organize and cite information.

I think you have an organization problem as well as a plagiarism problem. It looks like you want to rewrite all your sources and present them in the exact same way you read them.

This is how I see your book.

Chapter 1-rewrite source 1
Chapter 2-rewrite source 2
Chapter 3-rewrite source 3
etc until we get to the last chapter
Chapter whatever-see how these things all come together to support my amazing theory.

the end

My appologies if I'm wrong and misunderstanding you, but that is how it seems to me that you want to write this book.

That is the wrong way of going about a project like this. It isn't only going to get you in trouble with plagiarism, it is also a poor way of presenting your idea. You said that you've pieced a whole bunch of stuff together. You need to focus on presenting that information in a cohesive manner. This probably means citing different sources multiple times in different places of your writing. Does that make any sense?

You really need to learn how to write a simple persuasive essay because that is what you are trying to do, but on a larger scale, and until you learn how to organize your thoughts, you aren't going to do a good explaining what you discovered.

This is the basic structure you should shoot for.

Introduction
Thesis- what you are trying to prove
Argument 1 (present and cite sources that support argument 1)
Argument 2(present and cite sources that support argument 2)
Argument 3(present and cite sources that support argument 3)
etc
Conclusion-See how all these things come together to support my amazing theory

If you do it this way then the sources that you site will be dispersed among your own ideas, and there will be no plagiarism as long as you properly quote and acknowledge your sources. It is also a better way to explain and convince others of your theory.

It is a lot of work, and it isn't easy to figure out how to present the information you've gathered, but writing is hard. Even that nonfiction stuff.

I hope you listen closely to what Old Hack and others have to say. I'd hate to see you get in trouble for this.

Good luck!

@Madmax

What you are talking about is not new. I don't know what the information is that you want to write about, however Watson & Crick's story of discovering DNA may be interesting to you, perhaps you should read about their work. Also, it took years for people to accept their work, even with experimentation behind it, to back it up.

Like I said before, be careful with the material you use and its terms of use. People can and will sue you, and I don't believe it would be over copyright as much as violation of terms of use. I have seen medical writers tear apart entire slide presentations that were put together by Physicians that innocently abused terms of use. And thankfully, those medical writers did rework those presentations, otherwise those Physicians could have been sued out of existence.

veinglory said:

As one of my supervisors once said: if you can't explain something to a 7 year old in 5 minutes, you probably don't really understand it.

Are you perhaps, as a novice writer, avoiding the heavy lifting of writing your thesis yourself? Because there is no substitute for that.

Click to expand...

First of all.. I should have been more clear about this earlier... I mentioned it a bit but I am not a writer in any way shape or form.. I fell into this situation.. I hate writing and I am sure my inexperience is contributing to the confusion.. but I think it is just part of the puzzle.. being a novice and in such a complex situation IMO compounds things.

What you said above doesn't make sense though.. if what you were saying was true everything in the world would be understood in 5 minutes of explanation...

There would be no need for colleges.. or books..

Why do people write such long books? Is it filler? From my view it took everything in these books to convey this info.. and as I said.. because this info isn't taken seriously people will have no reason to believe it... plus so few have the scientific knowledge to understand it.

If I simply said what I have discovered people likely wouldn't believe it... There are many accounts of history where people have had theories that weren't accepted for long periods of time..

Check this out..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Channeled_Scablands

Debate over the origin of the Scablands raged for four decades and is one of the great debates in the history of earth science.

Click to expand...

Bretz conducted research and published many papers during the 1920s describing the Channeled Scablands. His theories of how they were formed required short but immense water flows (500 cubic miles of water), for which Bretz had no explanation. Bretz's theories met with vehement opposition from geologists of the day, who tried to explain the features with uniformitarian theories.

Click to expand...

veinglory said:

The confusion is because you aren't making much sense, at least to me. You say you are using a great many sources, but you want to essentially restate every single source at length--which would suggest a book about a million words long.

I would suggest just writing your theory down. Start with why the old theory sucks, explain how your theory greatly reduces the sucking. The add citations to what you have written wherever they are apt.

Click to expand...

Well it is going to be long.. and it isn't that all the sources are that long but all the info IS that important...

How do you convey something properly if key information is not included.. AND you have to take it out of the order in which it most makes sense by reformatting it?

MadMax said:

Let's use one book as an example.. Let's say I have found one book that I have an additional theory to that adds a whole new element to this persons book.

But this person is the only person to create all the info in his book.

But in order to convince others of the initial element he provides I need to include as much info from his book as possible.. everything in his initial book is key to understanding that this weird subject is real.

If I simply summarize his entire book people are unliekly to understand the portion he provides..

This is why I said I wanted to reword as much of the book as possible to include in my work.

Click to expand...

I'll say this again. You can include as much of this other person's work in your book as long as you give it all proper citation. If you re-word any of it and present it without citation, you are plagarizing. Period. There is no limit to how much of a previous work you can include in your book, as long as you give proper citation for every bit of that other person's work. This is not a difficult concept, and there are no exceptions. So, cite as much of that other person's book as necessary to provide a framework for your additional ideas/theories. But don't just re-word a single bit of that person's work without proper citation.

So this is my issue.. HOW much of that original book can I use even rewording, reformatting and citing? Is there some standard limit where I am unlikely to get in trouble?

Click to expand...

There is no limit, as long as your give every bit of that other person's work proper citation.

According to fair use law when QUOTING you can only use like 200 words of one source from my understanding.. but that only applies to actual quotations not rewording, right?

Click to expand...

Where did this come from? If there is an appropriate quote, there is no word limit.

It was being suppressed.. it's difficult to explain.. but there is information that was known but obscured and as I said multiple elements coming out at the same time has shown that others work was true.. it has just taken time for this info to come out.. and I am sure a huge amount of info they have developed since then is being kept secret as well.

Click to expand...

Sorry, but this all smacks of pseudo-science, not the real thing. Unless the work is a matter of national security, there is no suppression of scientific data that lasts for long, and without formal complaints. Now, if the work didn't pass the peer review process, that's a different animal, but then it goes back to the pseudo-science issue.

Absolutely not.. this is the first time I have posted on this board. Not related to intelligent design either.

Click to expand...

Just checking. Welcome to AW. I hope you find what you want here.

Thanks for the explanation MAP.

This is how I see your book.

Chapter 1-rewrite source 1
Chapter 2-rewrite source 2
Chapter 3-rewrite source 3
etc until we get to the last chapter
Chapter whatever-see how these things all come together to support my amazing theory.

the end

My appologies if I'm wrong and misunderstanding you, but that is how it seems to me that you want to write this book.

Click to expand...

That is essentially true.. BUT.. there are certain aspects of the other people's work that is wrong... and the issue is how people don't understand how these seemingly different elements tie together... and then in addition what we find is that this info impacts MANY MANY other things...

So my chapter is also a lot of work.. and lot of info.. BUT without people understanding those previous works they can't possible understand my info.

It is like trying to understating some element of high math when people have no understand of math at all. How can I possibly convince them of what I have discovered?

I fully recognize that without these people I couldn't figure this all out. So they deserve more credit than me I think.. but what is incredible is when you put these pieces together.. the puzzle is finally solved... and the implications are unbelievable..

MadMax said:

How do you convey something properly if key information is not included.. AND you have to take it out of the order in which it most makes sense by reformatting it?

Click to expand...

If you change the context of the previous author's work by taking it out of order or somehow changing it in the way you re-word it, then it becomes your own interpretation. You will have to give the PROPER context (with citation) and then justify why you are changing that context.

If you are providing the missing key information, you present what the previous author said (with citation) and add your new key information: if it is information that comes from another work, you have to cite that work as well, but if it is your work you just have the burden of justification for the addion.

NOTE added in edit: When you summarize (not re-write) other people's work you are critically anlyzing that work, which means you explain what is good about it and what is not so good about it. However, you have to provide justification for both support and dismissal of pieces of that other work--again all with proper citations.

MadMax, I'm not sure I'm understanding what it is you want to do.

The gist seems to be that someone has written an authorative textbook on a complex subject. Everyone accepts that textbook as truth. You've got additional information on this complex subject which throws that textbook's assertions into doubt, and you've come up with a completely different explanation for that complex subject which is radical and, perhaps to some, unbelievable. You would like to let the world know about it.

Options
1. Reprint that textbook with your own chapter at the end explaining why the author is wrong. You can't do that, though, without the original author's permission.

2. Write a textbook in your own words that fully covers the subject, re-examining all of the information that the original textbook's author discussed (with citations), interspersed with additional data that explain why the original author's assertions are wrong. This will be a whole lot of work.

3. Write a short essay describing why the original textbook is wrong, citing the additional information you've compiled. This essay will only make sense to readers who have already read the original textbook, which will give your essay a limited audience, and will also limit the venues where you might be able to publish it.

NeiroFizz.. I want to respond to your other comments but I don't want to confuse this issue..

See this post by Old Hack..

Aren't you both contradicting each other?

http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7768493&postcount=26


I said -

Quote:

Sorry if this isn't making sense.. I have read so many seemingly conflicting things.

What I need to do is break down these other books, vids and websites to people before I can explain the way I feel the events tie together.

You seem to be saying there is no limit to how much can be used if I reword enough and cite the source.
There are limits.

Click to expand...

Old Hack said -

You can't just reword an article or book and call it your own, not even if you refer to the original. You have to do your own research, create your own arguments, and write your own original work. If you're reluctant or unable to do that, then you should not proceed with this project.

Click to expand...

MadMax said:

and the implications are unbelievable..

Click to expand...

Time for a little grin....for a science-based work of non-fiction, this descriptive word choice is horrible. Your job is to make it, and its implications, totally believable.

Unimportant said:

MadMax, I'm not sure I'm understanding what it is you want to do.

The gist seems to be that someone has written an authorative textbook on a complex subject. Everyone accepts that textbook as truth. You've got additional information on this complex subject which throws that textbook's assertions into doubt, and you've come up with a completely different explanation for that complex subject which is radical and, perhaps to some, unbelievable. You would like to let the world know about it.

Options
1. Reprint that textbook with your own chapter at the end explaining why the author is wrong. You can't do that, though, without the original author's permission.

2. Write a textbook in your own words that fully covers the subject, re-examining all of the information that the original textbook's author discussed (with citations), interspersed with additional data that explain why the original author's assertions are wrong. This will be a whole lot of work.

3. Write a short essay describing why the original textbook is wrong, citing the additional information you've compiled. This essay will only make sense to readers who have already read the original textbook, which will give your essay a limited audience, and will also limit the venues where you might be able to publish it.

Click to expand...

It isn't that they are wrong.. it's that they didn't see it in the right light or understand the full implications.. or in other words they got a small but incredibly important part wrong..

The other strange issues of this is that it is possible they INTENTIONALLY got it wrong..

Are you familiar with the term disinfo?

This is why I am extremely leery of asking fro permission...

NeuroFizz said:

Time for a little grin....for a science-based work of non-fiction, this descriptive word choice is horrible. Your job is to make it, and its implications, totally believable.

Click to expand...

I agree.. but this is the reality unfortunately...

There is a reason this has gone undiscovered for so long.. it's because it is unbelievable... it contradicts everything we have been told all through life..

And that part isn't even the weirdest part.. truth truly is stranger than fiction..