Talk:Oahspe: A New Bible
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate, you can edit the article. You can discuss the Project at its talk page. |
| Start | This article has been rated as start-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at in the comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.) |
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religious texts, a joint subproject of WikiProject Religion and WikiProject Books, and a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religious texts-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details. | |
| Start | This article has been rated as start on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.) |
|
While researching Pandeism, I came across a usage of the term in the Oahspe Bible that sounds very much like Godfrey Higgins' use in his Anacalypsis. Can anyone tell me if Newbrough cited or credited Higgins? I think a fairly significant chunk of the Oahspe Bible may be a derivation of Higgins' work. BD2412 talk 02:09, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
- Having had the opportunity to read further in Oahspe, I have satisfied myself that Newbrough correctly cited to Higgins for the material with which I was concerned. BD2412 T 14:18, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Accusations of plagiarism (Moved to talk)
Some observers have contended that portions of Newbrough's writings constitute plagiarism - either by copying or paraphrasing from previous works, such as Morals and Dogma of the Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite of Freemasonry by Albert Pike, the Anacalypsis of Godfrey Higgins, and various works of Andrew Jackson Davis.[1] The "accusations of plagiarism" mentioned here are made by the "oahspe.com" group. The oahspe.com group is an anti oahspe group and their "observations" should be consided subjective. The self defined purpose of the oahspe.com page is to steer interested parties away from an objective read of the oahspe. It then goes on and pushes it's chosen book. Oahspe.com could best be described as a for profit venture, so therfore, not faithist at all. I maintain the "East Tennessee Oahspean Library" {etol} for the purpose of sharing the oahspe and other oahspe related materials with any interested person. contact me by email if you want. Etol00@hotmail.com Rick whitaker
- I have moved this section to talk: it seems to have aroused some contention. I'd point out that, first, it isn't the custom here to sign contributions to the actual articles. Statements of personal belief are also not really appropriate here either; they may constitute original research, and that too is somewhat frowned upon.
- I admit, though, that I am also sceptical that anything in Oahspe constitutes "plagiarism", especially given its highly original style. Oahspe contains speculations about human antiquity and history; so do Morals and Dogma and Anacalypsis. Unless they are quoted verbatim, ideas about history cannot be "plagiarized". More details about what was allegedly borrowed, stated in a NPOV tone, might be appropriate. Smerdis of Tlön 13:38, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
