Rand Paul Plagiarized Wikipedia in Speech

[martybegan]

I think you've got the wrong definition of plagiarize here.

You PLAGIARIZE the UNIQUE work and ideas of INDIVIDUALS. You don't plagiarize when you quote the Newtonian Laws of Motion or any other "COMMON KNOWLEDGE" topics..

Kinda sketchy since the olde Wiki is written FOR FREE by a MASS of anonymous people.. And no one page is neccessarily attributed to one individual or even really ATTRIBUTED --- is it?

I guess everything I learned as a teen reading the encyclopedia is plagiarism.. Who knew?
...

In school, if you were asked to sum up Newton's laws and you started:

Newton's laws are applied to objects which are idealized as single point masses,in the sense that the size and shape of the object's body are neglected in order to focus on its motion more easily. This can be done when the object is small compared to the distances involved in its analysis, or the deformation and rotation of the body are of no importance. In this way, even a planet can be idealized as a particle for analysis of its orbital motion around a star.
​

You think your teacher would let it pass? No. That's word for word from Wiki. Those are not your words. That's plagiarized.
=========================

Paul said: “Due to frequent screenings, Vincent faces genetic discrimination and prejudice. The only way to achieve his dream of being an astronaut, is he has to become what’s called a ‘borrowed ladder.’”

Wikipedia says: “Due to frequent screening, Vincent faces genetic discrimination and prejudice. The only way he can achieve his dream of becoming an astronaut is to become a ‘borrowed ladder.’”

Paul said: “He assumes the identity of a Jerome Morrow, a world class swimming star with a genetic profile said to be ‘secondary to none,’ but he’s been paralyzed in a car accident.”

Wikipedia says: “He assumes the identity of Jerome Eugene Morrow, a former swimming star with a genetic profile “second to none”, who had been injured in a car accident, leaving him paralyzed from the waist down.”

Paul said: “Jerome buys his identity, uses his DNA — his blood, his hair, his tissue his urine — to pass the screenings.”

Wikipedia says: “Vincent ‘buys’ Jerome’s identity and uses his ‘valid’ DNA in blood, hair, tissue, and urine samples to pass screening.”

this is all based on a description of a movie being considered plagerism???

From an open source online encyclopidia with no credits to anyone given???

If this is what passes for "gotcha!" journalism nowadays, I am saddened.

 

[paperview]

Everyone knows or those with a brain knows that Wiki can manipulated

Wiki cans!

 

[Stephanie]

Maddcow, the Rhodes scholar(lol ) who reports on all the NON important crap she can dig up

but it keeps her rabid fans all riled up....she plays them like fiddle

 

[Quantum Windbag]

This will prove to be an expensive mistake by Rand. <my comment

The Rachel Maddow Show on msnbc

Where'd you get your speech, Rand?

Does she just blather through the whole video, or does she actually present evidence?

 

[The2ndAmendment]

If you believe that a claim that Rand Paul plagiarized Wikipedia is going to be some sort of smoking gun against him, please hang your hat on that.

This.

There's nothing wrong with a paragraph or two of plagarizism unless you are marketing the authors work. Why rewrite an entire idea that that else has worded better?

In fact, a radio host recently told us to go to his website and copy and paste one of his blogs everywhere we could (What is the difference between modern liberalism and communism).

Of course [MENTION=41527]Pogo[/MENTION] realized that he and his minions were being crushed, so he decided to do a plagiarism check in order to shut down the thread. LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

Liberals, they'll do anything to avoid intellectual discourse.

 

[hjmick]

This will prove to be an expensive mistake by Rand. <my comment

The Rachel Maddow Show on msnbc

Where'd you get your speech, Rand?

Why is it an issue? Biden is well known for his plagiarism and look where he is...

Does that bother you?

Didn't think so.

You have to love the double standard...

 

[paperview]

"Here are my thoughts that I stole from someone else. I'm a leader"
--Rand Paul

BTW, I didn't write the above, I stole it. lol

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I think you've got the wrong definition of plagiarize here.

You PLAGIARIZE the UNIQUE work and ideas of INDIVIDUALS. You don't plagiarize when you quote the Newtonian Laws of Motion or any other "COMMON KNOWLEDGE" topics..

Kinda sketchy since the olde Wiki is written FOR FREE by a MASS of anonymous people.. And no one page is neccessarily attributed to one individual or even really ATTRIBUTED --- is it?

I guess everything I learned as a teen reading the encyclopedia is plagiarism.. Who knew?
...

In school, if you were asked to sum up Newton's laws and you started:

Newton's laws are applied to objects which are idealized as single point masses,in the sense that the size and shape of the object's body are neglected in order to focus on its motion more easily. This can be done when the object is small compared to the distances involved in its analysis, or the deformation and rotation of the body are of no importance. In this way, even a planet can be idealized as a particle for analysis of its orbital motion around a star.
​

You think your teacher would let it pass? No. That's word for word from Wiki. Those are not your words. That's plagiarized.
=========================

Paul said: “Due to frequent screenings, Vincent faces genetic discrimination and prejudice. The only way to achieve his dream of being an astronaut, is he has to become what’s called a ‘borrowed ladder.’”

Wikipedia says: “Due to frequent screening, Vincent faces genetic discrimination and prejudice. The only way he can achieve his dream of becoming an astronaut is to become a ‘borrowed ladder.’”

Paul said: “He assumes the identity of a Jerome Morrow, a world class swimming star with a genetic profile said to be ‘secondary to none,’ but he’s been paralyzed in a car accident.”

Wikipedia says: “He assumes the identity of Jerome Eugene Morrow, a former swimming star with a genetic profile “second to none”, who had been injured in a car accident, leaving him paralyzed from the waist down.”

Paul said: “Jerome buys his identity, uses his DNA — his blood, his hair, his tissue his urine — to pass the screenings.”

Wikipedia says: “Vincent ‘buys’ Jerome’s identity and uses his ‘valid’ DNA in blood, hair, tissue, and urine samples to pass screening.”

That is also a textbook definition of Newton's Laws. If I popped that out, from memory, in front of a teacher I would have gotten an A+ for being able to remember the definition word for word.

 

[martybegan]

"Here are my thoughts that I stole from someone else. I'm a leader"
--Rand Paul

BTW, I didn't write the above, I stole it. lol

Actually what you are doing is making up a quote about someone, which is far different then reading a wiki review of a movie as a reference, and using said reference in a speech. He made no claim to the movie being his idea, which would be far closer to ACTUAL plagerism than what Maddow is trying to foist onto him.

 

[Zander]

 

[flacaltenn]

The dude is saying a teacher would be thrilled if you were asked to sum up Newtons law and you copied word for word from Wiki.

That's just insane.

You believing that's "insane" is why we have such low expectations for the victims of public schooling.. If a child can VERBALLY present that material and show COMMAND of the content of that quote --- they are in the top 1% of science students K-12..

Was I homeschooled? No.. I've spent enough years in academia to know that if you took 10 College Physics books and compared their description of Newton's law to the Wiki --- that you could make the case that they ALL plagiarized the Wiki and each other.

This is a petty time-filler for the Social Revolutionaries.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Given the fact that Wiki stole that line from a review in a Detroit paper, how do you know Rand did not have permission to use it from the original author?

 

[flacaltenn]

Given the fact that Wiki stole that line from a review in a Detroit paper, how do you know Rand did not have permission to use it from the original author?

Truly? Did you trace that back? How interesting is that?

Why don't we compare ALL the newspaper reviews and see if all that qualifies as
"consensus opinion" ?

 

[g5000]

The way you tell the difference between hypocrisy and a tu quoque fallacy ("two wrongs make a right") is by observing all of the actions of one side.

For example, if one side made fair game out of Joe Biden/Obama for plagiarizing, but the same side then blew off Rand Paul plagiarizing, that's hypocrisy.

If one side distracts from Rand Paul plagiarizing by pointing out Joe Biden/Obama plagiarized, that's a tu quoque fallacy.

 

[paperview]

I think you've got the wrong definition of plagiarize here.

You PLAGIARIZE the UNIQUE work and ideas of INDIVIDUALS. You don't plagiarize when you quote the Newtonian Laws of Motion or any other "COMMON KNOWLEDGE" topics..

Kinda sketchy since the olde Wiki is written FOR FREE by a MASS of anonymous people.. And no one page is neccessarily attributed to one individual or even really ATTRIBUTED --- is it?

I guess everything I learned as a teen reading the encyclopedia is plagiarism.. Who knew?
...

In school, if you were asked to sum up Newton's laws and you started:

Newton's laws are applied to objects which are idealized as single point masses,in the sense that the size and shape of the object's body are neglected in order to focus on its motion more easily. This can be done when the object is small compared to the distances involved in its analysis, or the deformation and rotation of the body are of no importance. In this way, even a planet can be idealized as a particle for analysis of its orbital motion around a star.
​

You think your teacher would let it pass? No. That's word for word from Wiki. Those are not your words. That's plagiarized.
=========================

Paul said: &#8220;Due to frequent screenings, Vincent faces genetic discrimination and prejudice. The only way to achieve his dream of being an astronaut, is he has to become what&#8217;s called a &#8216;borrowed ladder.&#8217;&#8221;

Wikipedia says: &#8220;Due to frequent screening, Vincent faces genetic discrimination and prejudice. The only way he can achieve his dream of becoming an astronaut is to become a &#8216;borrowed ladder.&#8217;&#8221;

Paul said: &#8220;He assumes the identity of a Jerome Morrow, a world class swimming star with a genetic profile said to be &#8216;secondary to none,&#8217; but he&#8217;s been paralyzed in a car accident.&#8221;

Wikipedia says: &#8220;He assumes the identity of Jerome Eugene Morrow, a former swimming star with a genetic profile &#8220;second to none&#8221;, who had been injured in a car accident, leaving him paralyzed from the waist down.&#8221;

Paul said: &#8220;Jerome buys his identity, uses his DNA &#8212; his blood, his hair, his tissue his urine &#8212; to pass the screenings.&#8221;

Wikipedia says: &#8220;Vincent &#8216;buys&#8217; Jerome&#8217;s identity and uses his &#8216;valid&#8217; DNA in blood, hair, tissue, and urine samples to pass screening.&#8221;

That is also a textbook definition of Newton's Laws. If I popped that out, from memory, in front of a teacher I would have gotten an A+ for being able to remember the definition word for word.

Oh, so now you are going with if a textbook memory was cited orally.

Word for word. OOookay.

You guys know what the hell plagiarism is. Rand wasn't citing that from memory, and the school example used would be on a written assignment.

You know damn well a teacher would give you an F for lifting it whole from an encyclopedia.

This hang up some of you all have with wiki "being open source" or "consensus opinion" -- woo hoo, is just stoopid.

Wiki is a modern encyclopedia, and the older encyclopedias were from consensus opinions as well. Yes, Wiki has the added novelty of allowing others to edit, but those edits are viewable, and are corrected for errors.

It makes no difference. Someone else wrote them. Not you.

When you use someone else's work like that and do not cite it as such, it's stealing.

It's not that hard to rephrase in your own words. For gawds sake. I can't believe I even have to say this.

 

[paperview]

The way you tell the difference between hypocrisy and a tu quoque fallacy ("two wrongs make a right") is by observing all of the actions of one side.

For example, if one side made fair game out of Joe Biden/Obama for plagiarizing, but the same side then blew off Rand Paul plagiarizing, that's hypocrisy.

If one side distracts from Rand Paul plagiarizing by pointing out Joe Biden/Obama plagiarized, that's a tu quoque fallacy.

I was thinking about voting for Joe Biden in 1988. He was an up and comer after that Gary Hart "Monkey Business" stuff.

That plagiarism charge was part of what made Biden drop out of the race. I thought it was good he did. That was wrong.

He paid for it. As he should have.

 

[hjmick]

The way you tell the difference between hypocrisy and a tu quoque fallacy ("two wrongs make a right") is by observing all of the actions of one side.

For example, if one side made fair game out of Joe Biden/Obama for plagiarizing, but the same side then blew off Rand Paul plagiarizing, that's hypocrisy.

If one side distracts from Rand Paul plagiarizing by pointing out Joe Biden/Obama plagiarized, that's a tu quoque fallacy.

I was thinking about voting for Joe Biden in 1988. He was an up and comer after that Gary Hart "Monkey Business" stuff.

That plagiarism charge was part of what made Biden drop out of the race. I thought it was good he did. That was wrong.

He paid for it. As he should have.

Problem is, he never stopped. And 1988 wasn't the first time for Joe...

 

[martybegan]

The way you tell the difference between hypocrisy and a tu quoque fallacy ("two wrongs make a right") is by observing all of the actions of one side.

For example, if one side made fair game out of Joe Biden/Obama for plagiarizing, but the same side then blew off Rand Paul plagiarizing, that's hypocrisy.

If one side distracts from Rand Paul plagiarizing by pointing out Joe Biden/Obama plagiarized, that's a tu quoque fallacy.

I'm of the position that repeating a wiki description of a movie isn't even plagerism at all. Its not like we all thought that was Paul's review of the movie, it was a description of the movies plot. Did anyone think that Paul watched the movie, made copious notes, then wrote a review, thus making it his own? If he claimed he did that, then used the wiki description, THAT would be plagerism because he is claiming someone "elses" work as his own.

 

[BDBoop]

Yeah, somebody get back to me when you have Obama plagiarizing. Because I didn't vote for Joe. I voted for Barack.

Also, Rand needs to think instead of channel.

You all defending him should be embarrassed. I mean, same situation. It was horrible when Joe did it, but not Rand? Yeah?

Embarrassed.

 

[Sallow]

Not a chance.
Now Obama's BS, that's a long list.

Did you at least check out the Material before commenting?

Rand Paul, in a speech, recites, verbatim the Gattaca wikipage.

Rand Paul Plagiarized Speech From Wikipedia, Rachel Maddow Says

When Joe Biden used ONE LINE that he did not accurately source in ONE SPEECH (He had sourced the line in prior speeches)..he was laughed out of politics for several years.