Flawed evidence : a case study of misquoting and inaccurate referencing

Ken Masters


The need to quote and reference accurately is crucial to academic writing and debate. While small errors are excusable, obvious interpretations, alterations, additions and deletions are not, unless indicated. In addition, primary texts are preferred; if secondary texts are used, this should also be clearly indicated. This article details a case in which these rules have been ignored. It begins by identifying the scope of the particular case: the mis-quoting of Michaels Gibbons. It then traces the route of the inaccurate quotation as it moves from its source through various influential documents and journal articles, until it is firmly established, and easily cross-referenced, but as a vague resemblance of the original, not recognised by the original author. Although this article deals with this one case, it is obvious that the circumstances are not unique, and that there is little reason to suppose that these events cannot be replicated elsewhere. This case illustrates the need for writers to always, where possible, refer to the original documents when citing them.


Evidence; plagiarism; quotation; Michael Gibbons; referencing

Full Text:


DOI: https://doi.org/10.7553/71-3-598


  • There are currently no refbacks.

ISSN 2304-8263 (online); ISSN 0256-8861 (print)
Powered by OJS and hosted by Stellenbosch University Library and Information Service since 2012.



This journal is hosted by the SU LIS on request of the journal owner/editor. The SU LIS takes no responsibility for the content published within this journal, and disclaim all liability arising out of the use of or inability to use the information contained herein. We assume no responsibility, and shall not be liable for any breaches of agreement with other publishers/hosts.

SUNJournals Help

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.