ChiefsPlanet

ChiefsPlanet (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/index.php)
-   D.C. (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/forumdisplay.php?f=30)
-   -   Media Rand Paul likes to lift speech material straight from Wikipedia (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=278206)

banyon 11-01-2013 10:42 PM

Rand Paul likes to lift speech material straight from Wikipedia
 
Sort of surprised i dont see this up anywhere.



Rand Paul denies plagiarism charges, blames ‘haters’ ’

By Aaron Blake, Published: OCTOBER 31, 10:59 AM ET

Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) says in a new interview that charges that he has plagiarized Wikipedia in his speeches are an effort by "haters" to bring him down.

MSNBC's Rachel Maddow first accused Paul of lifting passages from Wikipedia's summary of the movie "Gattaca." Other reports suggest he has used Wikipedia's verbiage while describing the movie "Stand and Deliver."

Paul said during an interview with Fusion that he sufficiently credited the movies rather than Wikipedia and that his speeches are not supposed to be meticulously footnoted academic papers.

"We borrowed the plot lines from 'Gattaca,' the movie, and I gave credit to the people who wrote the movie," the potential 2016 presidential candidate said. "Nothing I said was not given attribution to where it came from.

"I didn't claim that I created the movie 'Gattaca'; that's what's absurd about this."

While Paul made no secret he was talking about the movie, the plagiarism charge has more to do with whether he appropriated Wikipedia's description of the film without citing the Web site.

Many politicians have been accused of plagiarism. Vice President Biden's 1988 presidential campaign was derailed amid multiple charges of plagiarism. President Obama was also accused of plagiarizing Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick (D) during the 2008 presidential campaign.

Paul also targeted Maddow and others who have pushed the story.

"The rest of it's making a mountain out of a molehill from people I think basically who are political enemies and have an ax to grind," Paul said. "This is really about information and attacks coming from haters. The person who's leading this attack -- she's been spreading hate on me for about three years now."

http://m.washingtonpost.com/blogs/po...arism-charges/

Ace Gunner 11-01-2013 10:50 PM

"The person who's leading this attack -- she's been spreading hate on me for about three years now."

this is a quote from a sitting US senator.

'Hamas' Jenkins 11-01-2013 10:51 PM

Maddow was actually one of the first people to give Paul a voice in the national media by giving him an interview early in 2009.

cosmo20002 11-01-2013 10:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ace Gunner (Post 10148352)
"The person who's leading this attack -- she's been spreading hate on me for about three years now."

this is a quote from a sitting US senator.

"Spreading hate on me" = Playing video of stuff I said

KILLER_CLOWN 11-01-2013 11:11 PM

Have some Haterade libs.

nstygma 11-01-2013 11:58 PM

It's very common for two different parties to have original ideas that are nearly identical.


Rachel Maddow mocked Rand Paul for plagiarism, but she’s been accused of it too

More accusations of Maddow plagiarism

Taco John 11-02-2013 12:02 AM

It really irks Maddow when conservatives reference pop culture. Her staff of intellectual hipsters don't like it when their favorite shows get referenced by evil people who want to steal bread from babies.

Chocolate Hog 11-02-2013 12:27 AM

Rachel doesnt mind voting for Joe Biden though

cosmo20002 11-02-2013 01:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nstygma (Post 10148404)
It's very common for two different parties to have original ideas that are nearly identical.


Rachel Maddow mocked Rand Paul for plagiarism, but she’s been accused of it too

More accusations of Maddow plagiarism

I'd say nice try, but it really wasn't. That's not plagiarism.

nstygma 11-02-2013 01:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cosmo20002 (Post 10148440)
I'd say nice try, but it really wasn't. That's not plagiarism.

what isn't?

banyon 11-02-2013 07:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Taco John (Post 10148413)
It really irks Maddow when conservatives reference pop culture. Her staff of intellectual hipsters don't like it when their favorite shows get referenced by evil people who want to steal bread from babies.

LOL

She couldn't have possibly been more specific. She specifically stated it had nothing to do with referencing pop culture and was about using the entry from Wikipedia without attributing it (as my thread title indicates).

She suggests Rand Paul (and I guess by extension perhaps you) possibly does not understand what plagarism is.

<embed src='http://player.theplatform.com/p/2E2eJC/EmbeddedOffSite?guid=n_maddow_6paul_131030' height='500' width='635' scrolling='no' border='no' ></embed>

Here is the piece where she goes speech by speech with the Wikipedia text below his speech.

<embed src='http://player.theplatform.com/p/2E2eJC/EmbeddedOffSite?guid=n_maddow_6rand_131029' height='500' width='635' scrolling='no' border='no' ></embed>

As she explained, this is about "using the words of someone else as your own and not attributing them". It's not the worst offense in the world. But it is reminiscent of the battles with tea partiers in this forum who seem allergic to ever admitting they have made a mistake and would rather contort logic and make preposterous claims than admit wrongdoing. He should just admit it and move on.

banyon 11-02-2013 07:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bo's Pelini (Post 10148425)
Rachel doesnt mind voting for Joe Biden though

She references Biden in the piece and mentioned that it politically ruined him for ten years.

stonedstooge 11-02-2013 07:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by banyon (Post 10148538)
LOL

She couldn't have possibly been more specific. She specifically stated it had nothing to do with referencing pop culture and was about using the entry from Wikipedia without attributing it (as my thread title indicates).

She suggests Rand Paul (and I guess by extension perhaps you) possibly does not understand what plagarism is.

<embed src='http://player.theplatform.com/p/2E2eJC/EmbeddedOffSite?guid=n_maddow_6paul_131030' height='500' width='635' scrolling='no' border='no' ></embed>

Here is the piece where she goes speech by speech with the Wikipedia text below his speech.

<embed src='http://player.theplatform.com/p/2E2eJC/EmbeddedOffSite?guid=n_maddow_6rand_131029' height='500' width='635' scrolling='no' border='no' ></embed>

As she explained, this is about "using the words of someone else as your own and not attributing them". It's not the worst offense in the world. But it is reminiscent of the battles with tea partiers in this forum who seem allergic to ever admitting they have made a mistake and would rather contort logic and make preposterous claims than admit wrongdoing. He should just admit it and move on.



Just like O'Bama does. KEWL

banyon 11-02-2013 07:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nstygma (Post 10148444)
what isn't?

She responded to this too:

<embed src='http://player.theplatform.com/p/2E2eJC/EmbeddedOffSite?guid=n_maddow_5paul_131101' height='500' width='635' scrolling='no' border='no' ></embed>

Not to speak for cosmo, but I think the point is that the blog post author's words were not used in the Maddow piece complained of. The just used the same historical reference (which happens all the time, since our country has a shared history, people will regularly point out how current events remind them of historical events, and occasionally people will think of the same historical event because they are logically connected). The point is plagiarism is using someone else's words as your own. Not referencing the same idea. Not referring to a movie. Not using video obtained by someone else.

And more importantly, as she correctly points out,even if she had done it, attack the messenger isn't a valid way to respond to substantive allegations, particularly when many other news sources have covered this now too (attack them all?).

Baby Lee 11-02-2013 07:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by banyon (Post 10148558)
Not to speak for cosmo, but I think the point is that the blog post author's words were not used in the Maddow piece complained of. The just used the same historical reference (which happens all the time, since our country has a shared history, people will regularly point out how current events remind them of historical events, and occasionally people will think of the same historical event because they are logically connected). The point is plagiarism is using someone else's words as your own. Not referencing the same idea. Not referring to a movie. Not using video obtained by someone else.

This isn't a libel slander situation. Plagiarism extends to all intellectual property. You can plagiarize a team playbook, an analogy, an argument, video, computer code, math calculations, etc., etc.

This is quiet different in quality from Biden's past plagiarism, that Maddow tries to use as the foundation for her fury. If he did appropriate the material, he did so from a free encyclopedia to describe the plot of a movie. He didn't change the plot of the movie to fit his narrative. He didn't claim that he'd had some flash of inspiration heretofore unnoticed by others. MoF, if there was any novel intellectual property at play it was in making the connection between the movie plot and current events, which is Paul's property, Paul's observation, not Wikipedia's. Lazy and hammy, yes. Scandalous, not so much.

Biden's plagiarism was taking the details of another politicians LIFE and the stirring stump speech that life led the politician to craft and appropriated it as his OWN life narrative.

And Maddow appropriated some specific and obscure arguments/analogies that others had the wherewithal to craft and presented them as her journalistic efforts.


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 06:33 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.