Comments on: Battle for Chitor: Storming the Last Hindu Fortress in 1567 http://www.historynet.com/battle-for-chitor-storming-the-last-hindu-fortress-in-1567.htm From the World's Largest History Magazine Publisher Sun, 26 May 2013 05:23:36 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2 By: Gerald Swick http://www.historynet.com/battle-for-chitor-storming-the-last-hindu-fortress-in-1567.htm#comment-788136 Gerald Swick Fri, 03 Feb 2012 17:06:00 +0000 #comment-788136 HistoryNet takes seriously any allegation of plagiarism, but we do not believe this article constitutes plagiarism. HistoryNet takes seriously any allegation of plagiarism, but we do not believe this article constitutes plagiarism.

]]> By: Ruth Vendler http://www.historynet.com/battle-for-chitor-storming-the-last-hindu-fortress-in-1567.htm#comment-788079 Ruth Vendler Thu, 02 Feb 2012 17:39:18 +0000 #comment-788079 Concur with dave porter and trevor. Personally, I'm very disappointed with the way Historynet does not uphold scholarly standards for the articles submitted to them. In this piece written by jeffrey say seck leong, what's unacceptable is that there's absolutely no proper citation of sources, when it's clear that the material is not created by Jeffrey say seck leong in a vacuum. The point is this: presenting historical material in an article without due acknowledgement of the multiple sources from which the material is derived is a form of intellectual dishonesty and is tantamount to plagiarism. Concur with dave porter and trevor. Personally, I'm very disappointed with the way Historynet does not uphold scholarly standards for the articles submitted to them.

In this piece written by jeffrey say seck leong, what's unacceptable is that there's absolutely no proper citation of sources, when it's clear that the material is not created by Jeffrey say seck leong in a vacuum.

The point is this: presenting historical material in an article without due acknowledgement of the multiple sources from which the material is derived is a form of intellectual dishonesty and is tantamount to plagiarism.

]]> By: Trevor Lane http://www.historynet.com/battle-for-chitor-storming-the-last-hindu-fortress-in-1567.htm#comment-787925 Trevor Lane Tue, 31 Jan 2012 17:28:10 +0000 #comment-787925 Dave Porter: Yeah, and why are there no footnote and proper citation of sources? That says a lot about this jeffrey say seck leing doesn't it? The historical material in this piece is certainly derived from multiple sources and does NOT originate from this jeffrey say seck leong, whoever u are. To claim that he is the originator of the material written is plain intellectual dishonesty. Dave Porter: Yeah, and why are there no footnote and proper citation of sources? That says a lot about this jeffrey say seck leing doesn't it?

The historical material in this piece is certainly derived from multiple sources and does NOT originate from this jeffrey say seck leong, whoever u are. To claim that he is the originator of the material written is plain intellectual dishonesty.

]]> By: jon thompson http://www.historynet.com/battle-for-chitor-storming-the-last-hindu-fortress-in-1567.htm#comment-787675 jon thompson Fri, 27 Jan 2012 19:57:37 +0000 #comment-787675 This must be one of the worst articles I've read of late. Sheesh. This must be one of the worst articles I've read of late. Sheesh.

]]> By: Dave Porter http://www.historynet.com/battle-for-chitor-storming-the-last-hindu-fortress-in-1567.htm#comment-787634 Dave Porter Fri, 27 Jan 2012 02:35:33 +0000 #comment-787634 It's quite interesting that there's no acknowledgement of sources for this article.. did the writer create the material all by himself? And we know how ideas can be stolen in diff ways. It's quite interesting that there's no acknowledgement of sources for this article.. did the writer create the material all by himself? And we know how ideas can be stolen in diff ways.

]]> By: Gerald Swick http://www.historynet.com/battle-for-chitor-storming-the-last-hindu-fortress-in-1567.htm#comment-787526 Gerald Swick Wed, 25 Jan 2012 15:57:22 +0000 #comment-787526 Apparently, my response to timjesse wasn't clear. If not, I apologize. The author, Jeffrey Say Seck Leong, did not plagiarize; he is the original author of the article. If anyone has evidence to the contrary, they should provide us with the original source of that evidence so we can investigate. He submitted his article to <em>Military History</em> magazine and, as stated at the end of the article above, <em>Military History</em> published it in the February 1999 issue. <em>Military History</em> magazine is one of the magazines published by the Weider History Group, which also owns this Website, <em>HistoryNet</em>. That is what I did not make clear in my first response, and I apologize for that omission. Republishing the article on our own site is not an act of plagiarism; for those unfamiliar with publishing terms, this is called second-use rights, and those rights are usually extended to a publisher as part of the original agreement between an author and that publisher. If anyone else publishes the article, they must first secure permission from the author and/or publisher. If you Google Jeffrey Say Seck Leong's name, you'll see several sources that cite the February 1999 issue of our magazine Military History as the original publisher. Among them is <em>Beseiged: an encyclopedia of great sieges from ancient times to the present</em>, edited by Tim Davis and published by ABC-CLIO. The encyclopedia does not reprint the article but does cite it as one of the references used in writing the entry on Chitor Gahr. Sorry for the detailed response, but thanks for taking time to read it. It is important that readers know our company does not plagiarize and, to the best of our knowledge, neither did the author in creating his article. Again, if anyone has evidence to the contrary, they should provide us with the original source of that evidence rather than simply accusing the author of plagiarizing the work of others. Thanks again. Apparently, my response to timjesse wasn't clear. If not, I apologize. The author, Jeffrey Say Seck Leong, did not plagiarize; he is the original author of the article. If anyone has evidence to the contrary, they should provide us with the original source of that evidence so we can investigate.

He submitted his article to Military History magazine and, as stated at the end of the article above, Military History published it in the February 1999 issue. Military History magazine is one of the magazines published by the Weider History Group, which also owns this Website, HistoryNet. That is what I did not make clear in my first response, and I apologize for that omission.

Republishing the article on our own site is not an act of plagiarism; for those unfamiliar with publishing terms, this is called second-use rights, and those rights are usually extended to a publisher as part of the original agreement between an author and that publisher. If anyone else publishes the article, they must first secure permission from the author and/or publisher.

If you Google Jeffrey Say Seck Leong's name, you'll see several sources that cite the February 1999 issue of our magazine Military History as the original publisher. Among them is Beseiged: an encyclopedia of great sieges from ancient times to the present, edited by Tim Davis and published by ABC-CLIO. The encyclopedia does not reprint the article but does cite it as one of the references used in writing the entry on Chitor Gahr.

Sorry for the detailed response, but thanks for taking time to read it. It is important that readers know our company does not plagiarize and, to the best of our knowledge, neither did the author in creating his article. Again, if anyone has evidence to the contrary, they should provide us with the original source of that evidence rather than simply accusing the author of plagiarizing the work of others. Thanks again.

]]> By: nick hume http://www.historynet.com/battle-for-chitor-storming-the-last-hindu-fortress-in-1567.htm#comment-787503 nick hume Wed, 25 Jan 2012 11:24:59 +0000 #comment-787503 agree with timjesse and craig denver. If this jeffrrey say seck leong is a fraud & has plagarized from books n stuff, why are we made to read plagarized material ?? agree with timjesse and craig denver.

If this jeffrrey say seck leong is a fraud & has plagarized from books n stuff, why are we made to read plagarized material ??

]]> By: Janice Mayes http://www.historynet.com/battle-for-chitor-storming-the-last-hindu-fortress-in-1567.htm#comment-785100 Janice Mayes Thu, 22 Dec 2011 17:34:32 +0000 #comment-785100 Thats laughable really. I must say this is inferior unlike other articles here which I enjoy. Never knew simply narratinng some thing from the past would be good enough for a publication! Thats laughable really.

I must say this is inferior unlike other articles here which I enjoy. Never knew simply narratinng some thing from the past would be good enough for a publication!

]]> By: craig denver http://www.historynet.com/battle-for-chitor-storming-the-last-hindu-fortress-in-1567.htm#comment-785071 craig denver Thu, 22 Dec 2011 07:53:24 +0000 #comment-785071 duh. I think what she means is the original writer plagarized stuff from others , not HistoryNet .. duh. I think what she means is the original writer plagarized stuff from others , not HistoryNet ..

]]> By: Gerald Swick http://www.historynet.com/battle-for-chitor-storming-the-last-hindu-fortress-in-1567.htm#comment-784863 Gerald Swick Mon, 19 Dec 2011 14:29:29 +0000 #comment-784863 timjesse, you assume HistoryNet plagiarized this article. It does indeed appear verbatim on some other sites—all of which published it after August 16, 2006, the date it was published on HistoryNet. Previously, it appeared in the February 1999 issue of our Military History magazine. Pakshahara.blogspot, which published it on January 1, 2010, acknowledges it was taken from HistoryNet. Newsgroups/derkeiler cites the issue of Military History magazine in which it first appeared. We take charges of plagiarism very seriously. Please, before you levy those charges against us or any other publisher, take time to verify who <em>originally</em> published the article in question. Thanks for visiting HistoryNet and for calling to our attention the fact that our article is appearing elsewhere. We will contact those sites that have not acknowledged us as the original publisher. timjesse, you assume HistoryNet plagiarized this article. It does indeed appear verbatim on some other sites—all of which published it after August 16, 2006, the date it was published on HistoryNet. Previously, it appeared in the February 1999 issue of our Military History magazine.

Pakshahara.blogspot, which published it on January 1, 2010, acknowledges it was taken from HistoryNet. Newsgroups/derkeiler cites the issue of Military History magazine in which it first appeared.

We take charges of plagiarism very seriously. Please, before you levy those charges against us or any other publisher, take time to verify who originally published the article in question.

Thanks for visiting HistoryNet and for calling to our attention the fact that our article is appearing elsewhere. We will contact those sites that have not acknowledged us as the original publisher.

]]>