Comments for en-gb 30 Tue 22 Jul 2014 14:19:51 GMT+1 A feed of user comments from the page found at Gaz This post has been Removed Sun 03 Oct 2010 06:10:31 GMT+1 JunkkMale There are always a variety of takes on any issue, and when things get obscured by who knows what and when, often only solely down to an individual's recollection of their own actions, perhaps all that is left is to look at the facts, especially timelines. Be they hours. Or days. The BBC can often be a little reluctant to respond to and even concede mistakes, after all. the longer the response delay, there more likelihood of a range of subjective views, especially as to the 'niceness' and completeness of clarity of responses.However it does strike one, and is perhaps a shame, how often these can fall along tribal lines, especially with use of 'them vs. us' terms such as 'you lot'. Mature and humble though they may be.But one does look forward to the BBC and its reporters according the principle of 'benefit of the doubt' in their professional conduct... in future. Mon 26 Jul 2010 06:48:31 GMT+1 Maurizio Morabito Tom (the commenter): Had Tom (the journalist) and the BBC reacted more promptly, none of the accusations would have appeared. There's full 25 hours between comments 2 (Switek pointing out the similarities between his blog and Feilden's) and 4 (the first comment about "Shame!"), and the "correction" must have happened three days after Switek raised the issue. If you're ever in court and you think you can reply to questions and requests with a 72 hours' delay, you're going to have a hard time whatever the jury...Tom (the journalist): Had you put a link to Switek's blog, nobody would have ever accused you of plagiarism. Now, could you and the BBC Editors please come around to understand what Internet is, and stop agonising about adding any link to outside sources??? THANK YOU! Sun 25 Jul 2010 17:49:26 GMT+1 Tom Nice response from Tom Feilden above, which makes it completely clear this was a sincere mistake. The rest of you should be ashamed of yourselves. Although this was an important issue to raise, accusations of plagiarism - a serious accusation indeed - have been made without offering the benefit of the doubt. Calls to 'reconsider Today as a source of journalism' and for Feilden to 'dig himself out of this one' are childish and self-important. Are you really so impatient that you can't wait a few hours for a response before firing your kneejerk broadsides?If I'm ever in court I hope I don't get a jury like you lot. Fri 23 Jul 2010 16:02:06 GMT+1 Carl May I completely agree with earlier posts. There are really clear rules about how to present other people's work. This is a BBC website, not Fox News, so we should be able to trust it completely and we can only do that if its contributors do the right thing. An apology to Switek might not go amiss either. Wed 21 Jul 2010 19:01:39 GMT+1 AndrewM oh dear, oh dear... score 1-nil to the N. American Mammal.Plagiarism is the ultimate crime for researchers & journalists. How are you going to dig yourself out of this one Tom?Presumably not by repeatedly sticking your foot into the hole and raking out the sediment - (hope you don't mind me borrowing that analogy!) Wed 21 Jul 2010 18:31:11 GMT+1 DisgustedOfMitcham2 Oh dear.I've always regarded Today as one of the best sources of journalism on the planet. However, if a really, really good explanation of the remarkable similarities between your piece and Brian Switek's piece isn't rapidly forthcoming, I am going to have to reconsider that. Wed 21 Jul 2010 18:11:54 GMT+1 OrualUndone 1: This article is clearly a rip-off of this Smithsonian post by Brian Switek The topic, form, and structure are the same and his was the first popular coverage of these findings.2: You do not reference the paper that this information originally came from: Edward L. Simpson, Hannah L. Hilbert-Wolf, Michael C. Wizevich, Sarah E. Tindall, Ben R. Fasinski, Lauren P. Storm and Mattathias D. Needle (2010). Predatory digging behavior by dinosaurs Geology, 38, 699-702 : 10.1130/G31019.1 And it is clear that you did not actually speak to the scientist involved BECAUSE...3: The first half of your "quote" from Dr. Simpson is lifted word for word from the Smithsonian post, which is original work and not Switek quoting Simpson either in person or from the paper. 4: That is really a terrible graphic for this story. And I hope you got permission to use it. Wed 21 Jul 2010 17:50:48 GMT+1 David Orr The banner image is not a problem to me. It's obviously King Kong, and it's a humorous compliment to the story's mammals-vs-dinosaurs theme.The problem here is Brian Switek's charge that the piece is basically regurgitated from his post at the Smithsonian blog. This is sloppy at best, baldly unethical at worst. This isn't the most difficult story in the world to write. Can't you do better than tossing a blogger's work in a blender? Switek's not exactly a kid doing this as a hobby, either: he's a well-respected member of the science blogosphere and a great freelance writer. You should know better than this. Wed 21 Jul 2010 17:49:22 GMT+1 Chris Clarke This article is quite clearly substantially plagiarised from Brian Switek's post linked above. Shame, BBC. Shame. Wed 21 Jul 2010 17:32:59 GMT+1 Benjamin Brooks I must concur with mtbee's comment here; as a News Outlet the BBC needs to be seen to get its facts right. Whilst the picture is clearly a reference to the "fight scene" from King Kong, it adds nothing to the story and will in fact misinform anyone who has not come across this film.Were there no suitable images in the Journal Article with which to festoon your piece? Tue 20 Jul 2010 16:19:04 GMT+1 Brian Switek This post is quite similar - especially in the introduction - to a post I wrote last week (July 16) for the Smithsonian blog Dinosaur Tracking: Tue 20 Jul 2010 16:04:02 GMT+1 mtbee The graphic with this article appears to show a gorilla with a dinosaur. This is as bad as showing a human with a dinosaur. They did not exist at the same time! The mammals that dinosaurs may have been hunting would be small rat like ground or tree dwelling early mammals. Tue 20 Jul 2010 13:42:08 GMT+1