Senator Rand Paul Plagiarized from Wikipedia

USincognito · Nov 6, 2013

Bedford said:
Did you notice that you took two of my sentences which belonged together and split them, which distorted the thought, then you posted individual comments on them which made no sense regarding the intended meaning.

No wonder why you failed to see my beef, because there was no beef.

I guess quote mining is as acceptable to some around here as plagiarism.

SummerMadness · Nov 6, 2013

USincognito said:
He plagiarized, verbatim, nearly a paragraph of a movie review from Wikipedia. Big difference. But if you want to defend his malfeasance, good luck with that.

Especially since it's been revealed that he's done it more than once and in numerous different venues.

Here's his theft of intellectual property from The Week in the Washington Times:
Rand Paul faces another plagiarism claim - Tal Kopan - POLITICO.com

Paul wrote in one section of his September piece:

"By design, mandatory-sentencing laws take discretion away from prosecutors and judges so as to impose harsh sentences, regardless of circumstances. Since mandatory sentencing began in the 1970s in response to a growing drug-and-crime epidemic, Americas prison population has quadrupled, to 2.4 million. America now jails a higher percentage of its citizens than any other country, including China and Iran, at the staggering cost of $80 billion a year. Drug offenders in the United States spend more time under the criminal justice systems formal control than drug offenders anywhere else in the world.

Most public officials liberals, conservatives and libertarians have decided that mandatory-minimum sentencing is unnecessary. At least 20 states, both red and blue, have reformed their mandatory-sentencing laws in some way, and Congress is considering a bipartisan bill that would do the same for federal crimes.

That compares to editor Dan Stewarts op-ed in The Week:

By design, mandatory sentencing laws take discretion away from prosecutors and judges so as to impose harsh sentences, regardless of circumstances. Mandatory sentencing began in the 1970s as a response to a growing drug-and-crime epidemic, and over the decades has put hundreds of thousands of people behind bars for drug possession and sale, and other non-violent crimes. Since mandatory sentencing began, Americas prison population has quadrupled, to 2.4 million. America now jails a higher percentage of its citizens than any other country, including China and Iran, at the staggering cost of $80 billion a year.

Most public officials including liberals, conservatives, and libertarians have decided that its not. At least 20 states, both red and blue, have reformed their mandatory sentencing laws in some way, and Congress is considering a bipartisan bill that would do the same for federal crimes.

According to Mach, he added a hyphen, added or dropped a few words, and rearranged a sentence, so it's not plagiarism.

However, it is plagiarism according to everyone else:
The Writer's Handbook @ University of Wisconsin - Madison: Avoiding Plagiarism
Purdue Online Writing Lab - Paraphrase: Write it in Your Own Words (something that seems impossible for Rand Paul)
California State University San Marcos: How to Avoid Plagiarism
Indiana University Bloomington: How to Recognize Plagiarism
And for the K-12 crowd: Paraphrase Craze: A Lesson in Expository Writing (I think Senator Paul should probably use this page)

If Rand Paul spent more time reading these guidelines instead of copying from Wikipedia, he would not be in this mess.

USincognito · Nov 6, 2013

MachZer0 said:
So did wikipedia plagiarize IMDB or did IMDB plagiarize wikiedia?

Neither.

IMDB summary:
Gattaca (1997) - Plot Summary - IMDb

In the not-too-distant future, a less-than-perfect man wants to travel to the stars. Society has categorized Vincent Freeman as less than suitable given his genetic make-up and he has become one of the underclass of humans that are only useful for menial jobs. To move ahead, he assumes the identity of Jerome Morrow, a perfect genetic specimen who is a paraplegic as a result of a car accident. With professional advice, Vincent learns to deceive DNA and urine sample testing. Just when he is finally scheduled for a space mission, his program director is killed and the police begin an investigation, jeopardizing his secret.

Wikipedia summary:
Gattaca - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In "the not-too-distant future", eugenics is common, and DNA plays the primary role in determining social class. A genetic registry database uses biometrics to instantly identify and classify those so created as "valids" while those conceived by traditional means and more susceptible to genetic disorders are derisively known as "in-valids". Genetic discrimination is forbidden by law, but in practice genotype profiling is used to identify valids to qualify for professional employment while in-valids are relegated to menial jobs.

Looks like we not only a have a number of people posting who support plagiarism, they don't understand what it is.

USincognito · Nov 6, 2013

MachZer0 said:
There are only slight differences between the versions by wikipedia and IMDB so following your logic, one of them had to plagiarize the other, but only Paul is being called to account. We don't have a double standard here do we?

Really? The quotes above don't bear out your claim.

MachZer0 · Nov 6, 2013

USincognito said:
Really? The quotes above don't bear out your claim.

Of course they're different, if you quote the wrong section. But if you quote IMDB where the wikipedia account seems to come from they aren't so different:

"In "the not-too-distant" future, where genetic engineering of humans is common and DNA plays the primary role in determining social class,"

USincognito · Nov 6, 2013

MachZer0 said:
Of course they're different, if you quote the wrong section. But if you quote IMDB where the wikipedia account seems to come from they aren't so different:

"In "the not-too-distant" future, where genetic engineering of humans is common and DNA plays the primary role in determining social class,"

I quoted that review in post #185. How did I "quote the wrong section"?

USincognito · Nov 6, 2013

USincognito said:
I quoted that review in post #185. How did I "quote the wrong section"?

Looks like this review also appears on Metacritic.
Gattaca Details and Credits - Metacritic

Summary: In the not-too-distant future, a less than perfect man wants to travel to the stars. Society has categorized Vincent Freeman as less than suitable given his genetic make-up and he has become one of the underclass of humans that are only useful for menial jobs. To move ahead, he assumes the identity of Jerome Morrow, a perfect genetic specimen who is a paraplegic as a result of a fall. With some professional advice, Vincent learns to deceive DNA and urine sample testing. When a colleague is killed he is finally scheduled for a space mission, but a colleague suspects his origins and the police begin an investigation.

A couple of differences from the IMDB summary (and who knows which was posted first) but, except for two phrases, the language and content of the Wikipedia entry is different from the entire paragraph of either review.

Looks like the "Wikipedia plagiarized IMDB" effort to excuse Paul's theft of intellectual property is a fail.

USincognito · Nov 6, 2013

SummerMadness said:
According to Mach, he added a hyphen, added or dropped a few words, and rearranged a sentence, so it's not plagiarism.

Well, when you're trying to defend the indefensible, you have to be elastic with your definitions. That Indiana University one is great because it has an example of what is plagiarism that is basically what Rand Paul did.

SummerMadness · Nov 6, 2013

Actually, it is easy to show which one was first, there is an edit history on both pages. This is also true for Stand and Deliver. In all cases, charges that Wikipedia plagiarized IMDb are unfounded. Unless Mach can show that Wikipedia plagiarized in both cases, he is making a false accusation in an attempt to derail the thread. If Mach wants to accuse Wikipedia of plagiarism, he has the edit history from both sites. If you are going to accuse Wikipedia of plagiarism, please provide the evidence.

USincognito · Nov 6, 2013

SummerMadness said:
Actually, it is easy to show which one was first, there is an edit history on both pages. This is also true for Stand and Deliver. In all cases, charges that Wikipedia plagiarized IMDb are unfounded. Unless Mach can show that Wikipedia plagiarized in both cases, he is making a false accusation in an attempt to derail the thread. If Mach wants to accuse Wikipedia of plagiarism, he has the edit history from both sites. If you are going to accuse Wikipedia of plagiarism, please provide the evidence.

- eta (note, this reply is all in regard to Gattaca, I'm not addressing Stand and Deliver)

I mentioned the edit history for the Wikipedia page earlier and challenged Mach Zero to provide evidence for his hypothesis. I was referring to the IMDB and Metacritic reviews. I looked around the pages and couldn't see which of them was posted first.

And one only has to look at the entirety of the Wiki entry vs. the IMDB and Metacritic summary and one can see - if one is interested in honest discourse - that the former is not plagiarized from the latter two.

In case any of the Paul apologists can't bring themselves to watch Maddow's reporting, here's a short segment from Louisville, KY ABC affiliate.
Maddow accuses Rand Paul of plagiarizing Wikipedia - YouTube

trunks2k · Nov 6, 2013

SummerMadness said:
If you are going to accuse Wikipedia of plagiarism, please provide the evidence.

Even if it did, it wouldn't be relevant. If something on Wikipedia is plagiarized (which I am sure there is a lot of given how entries are open for edits, but there's at least attempts to properly attribute), that doesn't give another person the OK to also plagiarize.

DaisyDay · Nov 6, 2013

USincognito said:
Neither.

IMDB summary:
Gattaca (1997) - Plot Summary - IMDb
In the not-too-distant future, a less-than-perfect man wants to travel to the stars. Society has categorized Vincent Freeman as less than suitable given his genetic make-up and he has become one of the underclass of humans that are only useful for menial jobs. To move ahead, he assumes the identity of Jerome Morrow, a perfect genetic specimen who is a paraplegic as a result of a car accident. With professional advice, Vincent learns to deceive DNA and urine sample testing. Just when he is finally scheduled for a space mission, his program director is killed and the police begin an investigation, jeopardizing his secret.
Wikipedia summary:
Gattaca - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
In "the not-too-distant future", eugenics is common, and DNA plays the primary role in determining social class. A genetic registry database uses biometrics to instantly identify and classify those so created as "valids" while those conceived by traditional means and more susceptible to genetic disorders are derisively known as "in-valids". Genetic discrimination is forbidden by law, but in practice genotype profiling is used to identify valids to qualify for professional employment while in-valids are relegated to menial jobs.
Looks like we not only a have a number of people posting who support plagiarism, they don't understand what it is.

Oh man, I took Mach at his word that they were the same or extremely similar because it seemed so plausible and even likely. I won't be making that mistake again soon.

Sistrin · Nov 6, 2013

Bedford said:
You call others loyalist and/or cult followers, be expected to have it thrown right back in your face.

Ah, the Johnny Bravo defense.

SummerMadness said:
Yes, yet another attempt to deflect criticism by saying, "You are supportive of someone else's actions. Despite not having evidence for the claim, I will continue to say you support wrongdoing."

In context of my actual comment, the evidence to support my claim is vast and indisputable. All of the examples I listed are directly attributable to various liberal Democrats, actions these icons of the left were either guilty or accused of. Yet in each case the left at large dismissed these actions as irrelevant, displayed only contemptuous derision for those pursuing any form of accountability from those guilty of these actions, and elevated those responsible to rock-star status.

My point is simple. A leading liberal Democrat can be guilty of anything, from issuing false statements under oath to negligent homicide to pedophilia, and their supporters will demand retribution from only those who brought the charge. Yet any questionable action on the part of a Conservative and/or Republican is grounds for the immediate banishment of that Conservative from public life.

It is called selective outrage, or manufactured outrage. Take your pick.

SummerMadness said:
You are trying to change the subject. "You support pedophilia! I have no evidence, I'll just say that to change the subject."

You could at least attempt to be honest in your response. I did not say you, nor any specific member here, supports pedophilia. I said the left at large is only too willing to ignore pedophilia if the person guilty of it is a prominent liberal/progressive/democrat.

SummerMadness said:
More accusations... wow, Rand Paul really must plagiarize a lot to get you to claim someone supports prostitution and sexual abuse of children.

More dishonesty. See above.

JCSr · Nov 6, 2013

Sistrin said:
Ah, the Johnny Bravo defense.

In context of my actual comment, the evidence to support my claim is vast and indisputable. All of the examples I listed are directly attributable to various liberal Democrats, actions these icons of the left were either guilty or accused of. Yet in each case the left at large dismissed these actions as irrelevant, displayed only contemptuous derision for those pursuing any form of accountability from those guilty of these actions, and elevated those responsible to rock-star status.

My point is simple. A leading liberal Democrat can be guilty of anything, from issuing false statements under oath to negligent homicide to pedophilia, and their supporters will demand retribution from only those who brought the charge. Yet any questionable action on the part of a Conservative and/or Republican is grounds for the immediate banishment of that Conservative from public life.

It is called selective outrage, or manufactured outrage. Take your pick.

You could at least attempt to be honest in your response. I did not say you, nor any specific member here, supports pedophilia. I said the left at large is only too willing to ignore pedophilia if the person guilty of it is a prominent liberal/progressive/democrat.

More dishonesty. See above.

I agree your point is simple -

your point is to deflect the seriousness of plagiarism off of Rand Paul and onto democrats you believe have done it in the past.

Well done.

MachZer0 · Nov 6, 2013

USincognito said:
I quoted that review in post #185. How did I "quote the wrong section"?

Your quote was different than the one I posted. The one I posted was strikingly similar to the wikipedia quote which is strikingly similar to the Rand Paul quote.

MachZer0 · Nov 6, 2013

SummerMadness said:
Actually, it is easy to show which one was first, there is an edit history on both pages. This is also true for Stand and Deliver. In all cases, charges that Wikipedia plagiarized IMDb are unfounded. Unless Mach can show that Wikipedia plagiarized in both cases, he is making a false accusation in an attempt to derail the thread. If Mach wants to accuse Wikipedia of plagiarism, he has the edit history from both sites. If you are going to accuse Wikipedia of plagiarism, please provide the evidence.

So where is the attribution from wikipedia?

SummerMadness · Nov 6, 2013

Sistrin said:
In context of my actual comment, the evidence to support my claim is vast and indisputable. All of the examples I listed are directly attributable to various liberal Democrats, actions these icons of the left were either guilty or accused of. Yet in each case the left at large dismissed these actions as irrelevant, displayed only contemptuous derision for those pursuing any form of accountability from those guilty of these actions, and elevated those responsible to rock-star status.

My point is simple. A leading liberal Democrat can be guilty of anything, from issuing false statements under oath to negligent homicide to pedophilia, and their supporters will demand retribution from only those who brought the charge. Yet any questionable action on the part of a Conservative and/or Republican is grounds for the immediate banishment of that Conservative from public life.

It is called selective outrage, or manufactured outrage. Take your pick.

You could at least attempt to be honest in your response. I did not say you, nor any specific member here, supports pedophilia. I said the left at large is only too willing to ignore pedophilia if the person guilty of it is a prominent liberal/progressive/democrat.

More dishonesty. See above.

If you're going to levy such accusations, it's best that you don't just label people broadly. Are you calling me the left? Are you calling other posters on this forum the left? Who is the left? Because if it's not me, if it's not anyone contributing to this topic, then your accusation is misplaced because by your own admission, it does not apply to anyone here. There are right-wing conservatives that will defend a politician regardless of his misdeeds or crimes, the thing is, I don't call that the right, I single out those people. And unlike your claim against the left, there are people on this topic insistent that Rand Paul did nothing wrong, even when it is shown he has done something that is clearly unethical.

SummerMadness · Nov 6, 2013

MachZer0 said:
So where is the attribution from wikipedia?

It does not work that way, you made the accusation. Go look through the edit history of Gattaca and Stand and Deliver to support your claim that the text was written without attribution.

AirPo · Nov 6, 2013

SummerMadness said:
It does not work that way, you made the accusation. Go look through the edit history of Gattaca and Stand and Deliver to support your claim that the text was written without attribution.

Are you not familiar with the M0 of some of our conservative friends here a CF?

Sistrin · Nov 6, 2013

JCSr said:
...your point is to deflect the seriousness of plagiarism off of Rand Paul and onto democrats you believe have done it in the past.

Try actually reading my post before you comment on them.

And I could say the same to...

SummerMadness said:
If...

Senator Rand Paul Plagiarized from Wikipedia

a post by Alan Smithee

Senior Veteran

a post by Alan Smithee

a post by Alan Smithee

Caught Between Barack and a Hard Place

a post by Alan Smithee

a post by Alan Smithee

a post by Alan Smithee

Senior Veteran

a post by Alan Smithee

Contributor

I Did Nothing Wrong!! ~~Team Deep State

We are such stuff as dreams are made on...

Gunshine State

Caught Between Barack and a Hard Place

Caught Between Barack and a Hard Place

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

with a Touch of Grey

We are such stuff as dreams are made on...

Similar threads