Senator Rand Paul Plagiarized from Wikipedia

NightHawkeye said:

Hi, DaisyDay.

Good of you to provide that information about how team Rand Paul is correcting some minor errors they've made with regard to attribution. Good to get that cleared up.

Click to expand...

Yeah, but do you now admit that Rand did plagiarize several times, not only in speeches but in articles he had supposedly written?

MachZer0 said:

What I've denied is that he did anything of negative consequence. Rand Paul quoted a movie review. Big whoop, as they say

Click to expand...

My question is: do you now admit that Rand did plagiarize? His plagiarizing went beyond "a" movie review. Are you denying this?

SummerMadness said:

What does the page say?

When I click on the page, I don't get the editing policies.

Click to expand...

Are you registered at IMDB? They may be sending registered people to a different page than unregistered.

MachZer0 said:

What I've denied is that he did anything of negative consequence. Rand Paul quoted a movie review. Big whoop, as they say

Click to expand...

Now we are minimizing the action based on the severity of the intent? Boy, I wonder what you said about Bill Clinton lying over a personal matter which was nobody's business? I wonder if we could make an accusation of a double standard stick?

JCSr said:

Now we are minimizing the action based on the severity of the intent?

Click to expand...

As has been repeated ad nauseum, Rand Paul provided attribution.

JCSr said:

Boy, I wonder what you said about Bill Clinton lying over a personal matter which was nobody's business?

Click to expand...

Bill Clinton failed to provide attribution to Monica Lewinsky.

I never thought about it quite that way before, JC, but you make a good point. If Clinton had provided attribution as Rand Paul has then he would have likely avoided impeachment.

JCSr said:

I wonder if we could make an accusation of a double standard stick?

Click to expand...

Looking like the same standard is being suitably applied.

SummerMadness said:

I am a registered user. Mach are you a registered user? If so, have you completed the authentication?

If you are not registered, saying the link does not work is inaccurate, you have just refused to become a registered user. Unlike Wikipedia, IMDb only allows edits from registered and authenticated users. If you authenticate your account, then you will have no problem seeing the history. If you refuse to do this and continue to claim assertions have not been substantiated, then you are lying.

Click to expand...

It's not my job to register at a website to complete your research. By the way, I'm open to all apologies regarding implications that I was lying or being dishonest.

morningstar2651 said:

That's not a quote. That's a copy. There's a difference. One you are too blinded by your worship of Rand Paul to see.

Click to expand...

How do you copy something in a speech? Paul quoted the review with a couple of minor changes of his on. Oh my, the sky is falling

USincognito said:

I did not do that.

Click to expand...

Then let's count them

But no more of your red herring. Here's the important part in bold and increased in font size:

If by "info" you mean a description of a movie, then you would almost have a point. What we actually have are to nearly verbatim summaries of Gattaca, (IMDB and Metacritic) and one very different except for two phrases summary (Wikipedia), a synopsis from which a few verbatim sections appear in the Wikipedia (that's one)summary (IMDB and Metacritic) (that's two and three), and one direct, dishonest example of plagiarism (Paul's speech)(that's four).

Click to expand...

All red notations added by me for emphasis

Feel free to continue to ignore that Rand Paul is the only one guilty of direct, dishonest plagiarism here and try to change the subject. We'll just keep hammering with what hurts - the facts.

Click to expand...

So yes, you noted four sources for the same synopsis yet only one is accused of plagiarism.

JCSr said:

Now we are minimizing the action based on the severity of the intent? Boy, I wonder what you said about Bill Clinton lying over a personal matter which was nobody's business?

Click to expand...

So we come to it at last. Whether JCSr meant to or not this comment perfectly illustrates some of the points I made pages ago.

To characterize Clinton's activities in this manner illustrates the group-think mindset of the left in general and liberals in particular, and it is the argument which has been made ever since the Lewinsky scandal broke. It was a personal matter, it was nobody's business, it was only a little sex which wasn't even sex. Everyone should have simply ignored the entire affair and let Clinton get back to the job of working for the American people.

Only in January of 1998 Clinton shook his finger at the American people and lied concerning his affair with a White House intern young enough to be his daughter. Subsequently he was forced to go on television and admit he lied. In February 1999 he was impeached in the House for perjury and obstruction of justice.

Yet liberals then and to this day dismiss the entire affair as a simple breach of etiquette. Now however liberals are actually attempting to take the high ground, wailing and moaning over this incident as if they care about an act of dishonesty all while having the audacity to toss around words such as "character" where Paul is concerned.

This is laughable, and it is nothing more than manufactured outrage driven by partisan politics and a desperate desire to get a Conservative.

JCSr said:

I wonder if we could make an accusation of a double standard stick?

Click to expand...

You have done that brilliantly.

SummerMadness said:

It just shows that he cannot synthesize original ideas and instead appropriates other people's ideas as his own.

Click to expand...

It doesn't show this at all. But now can toss in righteous indignation along with the manufactured outrage.

USincognito said:

The part in bold is mendacious prevarication. He plagiarized two movie summaries in speeches, 3 whole pages and numerous whole paragraphs for his book, and a large section of an editorial in The Week for an editorial of his own a mere week later in the Washington Times.

Why don't you address all those examples? Do they not fit your narrative/tactics?

Click to expand...

The section of the book you reference was attributed to the author in his notes section

SummerMadness said:

There is no such thing as good plagiarism. It just shows that he cannot synthesize original ideas and instead appropriates other people's ideas as his own. If you consider this okay, then you have a poor understanding of academic integrity and writing integrity.

Minor point, he did not plagiarize a movie review, he plagiarized two movie synopses and other people's published material.

Click to expand...

That's simply not true noting that Paul makes untold number of comments.

JCSr said:

Now we are minimizing the action based on the severity of the intent? Boy, I wonder what you said about Bill Clinton lying over a personal matter which was nobody's business? I wonder if we could make an accusation of a double standard stick?

Click to expand...

Now we're comparing quoting a movie review to lying under oath?

MachZer0 said:

Now we're comparing quoting a movie review to lying under oath?

Click to expand...

As noted earlier ... it's a double standard.

NightHawkeye said:

As noted earlier ... it's a double standard.

Click to expand...

It would be interesting to find out how many of the people railing against Paul for something of negligible consequence joined in to circle the wagons to defend Clinton for committing a crime as a sitting President becoming the only American elected president ever to be impeached.

MachZer0 said:

It would be interesting to find out how many of the people railing against Paul for something of negligible consequence joined in to circle the wagons to defend Clinton for committing a crime as a sitting President becoming the only American elected president ever to be impeached.

Click to expand...

History lesson -->

You're welcome.

AirPo said:

History lesson -->

You're welcome.

Click to expand...

Speaking of history lessons, when was Andrew Johnson elected as President, just so we're all on the same page?

MachZer0 said:

Speaking of history lessons, when was Andrew Johnson elected as President, just so we're all on the same page?

Click to expand...

Oh I see. That makes all the difference in the world.

MachZer0 said:

You have to admit though that it is heartwarming to see so many liberal suddenly finding an absolute for morality and ethics,

Click to expand...

You have to admit though that it is heartwarming to see so many conservatives suddenly throwing morality and ethics out the window.

AirPo said:

Oh I see. That makes all the difference in the world.

Click to expand...

You're welcome. I'm always willing to provide historical records when I can