NationStates Jolt Archive

AMONG the numerous advantages promised by a wellconstructed Union, none deserves to be more accurately developed than its tendency to break and control the violence of faction. The friend of popular governments never finds himself so much alarmed for their character and fate, as when he contemplates their propensity to this dangerous vice. He will not fail, therefore, to set a due value on any plan which, without violating the principles to which he is attached, provides a proper cure for it. The instability, injustice, and confusion introduced into the public councils, have, in truth, been the mortal diseases under which popular governments have everywhere perished; as they continue to be the favorite and fruitful topics from which the adversaries to liberty derive their most specious declamations. The valuable improvements made by the American constitutions on the popular models, both ancient and modern, cannot certainly be too much admired; but it would be an unwarrantable partiality, to contend that they have as effectually obviated the danger on this side, as was wished and expected. Complaints are everywhere heard from our most considerate and virtuous citizens, equally the friends of public and private faith, and of public and personal liberty, that our governments are too unstable, that the public good is disregarded in the conflicts of rival parties, and that measures are too often decided, not according to the rules of justice and the rights of the minor party, but by the superior force of an interested and overbearing majority. However anxiously we may wish that these complaints had no foundation, the evidence, of known facts will not permit us to deny that they are in some degree true. It will be found, indeed, on a candid review of our situation, that some of the distresses under which we labor have been erroneously charged on the operation of our governments; but it will be found, at the same time, that other causes will not alone account for many of our heaviest misfortunes; and, particularly, for that prevailing and increasing distrust of public engagements, and alarm for private rights, which are echoed from one end of the continent to the other. These must be chiefly, if not wholly, effects of the unsteadiness and injustice with which a factious spirit has tainted our public administrations...

No man is allowed to be a judge in his own cause, because his interest would certainly bias his judgment, and, not improbably, corrupt his integrity. With equal, nay with greater reason, a body of men are unfit to be both judges and parties at the same time; yet what are many of the most important acts of legislation, but so many judicial determinations, not indeed concerning the rights of single persons, but concerning the rights of large bodies of citizens? And what are the different classes of legislators but advocates and parties to the causes which they determine? Is a law proposed concerning private debts? It is a question to which the creditors are parties on one side and the debtors on the other. Justice ought to hold the balance between them. Yet the parties are, and must be, themselves the judges; and the most numerous party, or, in other words, the most powerful faction must be expected to prevail. Shall domestic manufactures be encouraged, and in what degree, by restrictions on foreign manufactures? are questions which would be differently decided by the landed and the manufacturing classes, and probably by neither with a sole regard to justice and the public good. The apportionment of taxes on the various descriptions of property is an act which seems to require the most exact impartiality; yet there is, perhaps, no legislative act in which greater opportunity and temptation are given to a predominant party to trample on the rules of justice.

You sound like a promotional brochure.

No copy and paste plagerism please.

Thanks for sharing. (http://ahp.gatech.edu/federalist_10_1787.html)

I won't say that the OP claimed that work as his own (he never did) but he didn't post his own thoughts... so it's either spam, plagiarism or both.

EDIT: Eichen beat me to the punch!

It is not plagiarism when it has fallen into public domain. The intent was to provoke a response and to see how they would have responded had they known the origin of the words they refuted, but you've denied me that already. Can you not keep silence if only to see how people would respond? There was no need to declare the nature of these words to satisfy your own arrogance. At the very least, I can say it is a greater need to satisfy such curiosity, thus granting knowledge, than it is to sate one's own desire to be superior by marking others as inferior. Words, though ages have passed, may still spark lightning in their turn. (These words have been loosely based on Dylan Thomas's.) There was a reason why those words were signed initially under the single name of "publius" than under the true name of their authors. Their creators were brought to light when the words have served their purpose. You needn't bring them to light when the words are called to serve their purpose once more. For this act, I wholly do thank you with the utmost lack of sincerity.

Regardless of it's status in the public domain, it is spam to post something without a commentary on it, if only a small one. It's also good form to leave a link to your source. I'm not some egomaniac who likes to "satisfy his own ignorance", so calm down. How on earth do you expect anyone to know your intent in posting it in such a way? I can't read minds...

If the person's name is still attached to the paper, then it is NOT public domain. It is just up for the PUBLIC to read, not to Copy, Paste and not credit. Any decendant of James Madison could come out of the woodwork and sue you for thousands upon thousands of dollars.


And also, Plagerism is illegal not only in real life, but also on the NationStates Forums here.

If I post just the words, maybe my intent is to have people respond to just the words?

Also, all words fall into the realm of public domain after a set amount of time. No descendant of Hamilton has the right to sue me for using his words.

Shazbotdom, don't make your perception look like fact. See here (http://www.copyright.cornell.edu/training/Hirtle_Public_Domain.htm) concerning public domain works. You are completely mistaken. The next time when what you believe disagrees with what someone is saying, look it up first before making your claim.

Also, good form isn't something you make blanket generalizations about. While it may be good form to start off by saying "en garde" in fencing, it would be the worst thing to do when you're talking to someone who is scared of combat beyond the realm of counterconditioning. I do not consider it to be good form to negate the intent of posting the words.

It is not plagiarism when it has fallen into public domain. The intent was to provoke a response and to see how they would have responded had they known the origin of the words they refuted, but you've denied me that already. Can you not keep silence if only to see how people would respond? There was no need to declare the nature of these words to satisfy your own arrogance. At the very least, I can say it is a greater need to satisfy such curiosity, thus granting knowledge, than it is to sate one's own desire to be superior by marking others as inferior. Words, though ages have passed, may still spark lightning in their turn. (These words have been loosely based on Dylan Thomas's.) There was a reason why those words were signed initially under the single name of "publius" than under the true name of their authors. Their creators were brought to light when the words have served their purpose. You needn't bring them to light when the words are called to serve their purpose once more. For this act, I wholly do thank you with the utmost lack of sincerity.

Sorry, but it IS plagiarism, and being snarky about it does not change that fact. The implication you make when you post words without citing the original author is that the words are yours; such dishonest actions have lost respected historians their jobs and have resulted in expulsions from colleges (it's called academic misconduct there).

I don't believe it was those who pointed out this intellectual theft who have been arrogant; additionally, your reaction to being exposed has painted a very vivid picture for the rest of us.

This is indeed cut-and-paste spam. Don't post others' words without properly citing the source, and don't reproduce articles in part or in full unless the purpose is to give a background for your own argument.

Sorry, but it IS plagiarism, and being snarky about it does not change that fact. The implication you make when you post words without citing the original author is that the words are yours; such dishonest actions have lost respected historians their jobs and have resulted in expulsions from colleges (it's called academic misconduct there).

I don't believe it was those who pointed out this intellectual theft who have been arrogant; additionally, your reaction to being exposed has painted a very vivid picture for the rest of us.

This is indeed cut-and-paste spam. Don't post others' words without properly citing the source, and don't reproduce articles in part or in full unless the purpose is to give a background for your own argument.
"As long as such writing deals with things that are essentially public domain, even though at times specific wordings may be very similar indeed, this is not plagiarism because it does not involve deliberate fraud" (Hexham 1992 (http://www.ucalgary.ca/~hexham/study/plag.html)). Public domain is the exception to plagiarism under many academic plagiarism standards.

Furthermore, it indeed is arrogance when a person does this to mark a person as an inferior in a manner that the person sets himself up into a position where he could be deemed superior to the aforementioned person. All those posts were implicit of that. I suppose my words may be considered arrogant in and of themselves; however, I feel that the need I stated should overrule theirs.

EDIT: As the intent of the thread has been well undermined, I suppose this thread can die quietly now, unless someone actually wishes to respond to the words.

Kat gave her ruling. Arguing about it won't help your case....

Kat gave her ruling. Arguing about it won't help your case....
Feel free to speak for yourself, instead of hiding behind a mod. Also, I do not give lip service to anyone. If I disagree, I will be blunt and forthright. Mods are ordinary people like the rest of us, so I take the liberty of treating them as such in every regard.

I am also a teacher, and therefore can say with authority that failing to cite your source when presenting another's work is unacceptable. Beyond that, it is lazy and dishonest.

You are misusing Hexham as the piece you provided is not "very similar" but precisely the same, word for word, as the work that Madison created.

Further, that ruling was made to protect people from being punished for failing to cite something that is common knowledge -- such as "George Washington was the first president of the United States."

It is not intended so that people can imply ownership of or claim authorship of a work they did not create.

Additionally, it is interesting to see that you cite Hexham as he clearly states in his definition of plagiarism:

Plagiarism is the deliberate attempt to deceive the reader through the appropriation and representation as one's own the work and words of others. Academic plagiarism occurs when a writer repeatedly uses more than four words from a printed source without the use of quotation marks and a precise reference to the original source in a work presented as the author's own research and scholarship. Continuous paraphrasing without serious interaction with another person's views, by way or argument or the addition of new material land insights, is a form of plagiarism in academic work.

Additionally, he clearly speaks as to how to use common knowledge (same link)

10.3 Commonly known facts, available in numerous sources, should not be enclosed in quotation marks or given a source citation unless the wording is taken directly from another. Also not treated as quotations are proverbial, biblical, and well-known literary expressions used as part of the author's text. (The Chicago Manual of Style, 1982: 282)

Although these comments are very helpful, many people might be left wondering when they ought to use quotation marks. The accepted rule of thumb is after four words. [emphasis mine] That means you must use quotation marks for any passage copied from another work containing five or more words. To help students avoid such problems many university departments publish essay guides. These should be carefully read. For example, the Department of Politics at the University of Calgary publishes an essay guide: Write On: A Reference Manual for Students Research and Writing which states:

If you use more than four words from any source, put them in quotation marks and identify the source with a reference mark.@ (Write On, Calgary, Department of Politics, 1989: 20)[emphasis mine]

http://www.ucalgary.ca/~hexham/study/plag.html