Plagiarism expert catches Coulter

[Waenara]

A previous thread (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=327920) from 2005 accused Ann Coulter of plaigiarizing a column, but it was locked after a few posts. The consensus seemed to be that the accusation was pretty weak.

However, this recent article (http://www.nypost.com/news/nationalnews/copycatty_coulter_pilfers_prose__pro_nationalnews_philip_recchia.htm) makes many more accusations, that she's plaigiarized in her recent book, Godless: the Church of Liberalism, and also in various newspaper columns from the last year. John Barrie, the creator of a leading plagiarism-recognition system, claimed he found at least three instances of what he calls "textbook plagiarism" in the leggy blond pundit's "Godless: the Church of Liberalism" after he ran the book's text through the company's digital iThenticate program.

He also says he discovered verbatim lifts in Coulter's weekly column, which is syndicated to more than 100 newspapers, including the Fort Lauderdale (Fla.) Sun-Sentinel and Augusta (Ga.) Chronicle. "Just as Coulter plays free and loose with her citations in 'Godless,' she obviously does the same in her columns," Barrie said.

Coulter did not respond to requests for comment.

[Rhubarb]

The sobering implication is that this means there are other people out there like Ann, and they're being published!

[Waenara]

I just realized that my original link requires (free) to view the entire article.

Here are a few more articles on the some subject (not sure if any require registration):

Link 1 (http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1002765299)
Link 2 (http://wizbangblog.com/2006/06/12/plagiarism-alleged-in-ann-coulters-godless-book.php)
Link 3 (http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/For_new_book_Coulter_cribs_adult_0613.html)
Link 4 (http://rudepundit.blogspot.com/2006/06/more-ann-coulter-plagiarism-updated.html)
Link 5 (http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/More_examples_of_Coulter_borrowing_liberally_0614.html)

[Voyager]

The sobering implication is that this means there are other people out there like Ann, and they're being published!
It seems like she's stealing from her buddies.

But, I can understand. With so many babies hearts to cut out, how do you expect her to digest her sources and actually write original stuff? Give the bimbo a break, guys.

[Oakminster]

Give the bimbo a break, guys.

Well, she does have a nice rack, but that giraffe neck, the horse face, and the way-too-skinny body cancel the boobs out. Add in the personality and ideology, and I wouldn't hit it on a dare.

[Pullet]

What Oakminster said. (http://www.ramdac.org/images/anncoulter1.jpg)

[Slithy Tove]

"leggy blonde pundit." Say it quickly three times without saying "plundit."

[astorian]

I'm not surprised- fact is, you could nail dozens of authors doing exactly the same thing.

Political columnists of all stripes are constantly reprinting large chunks of other people's work. It's the lazy columnist's way out.

A few equally lazy writers (Gary Wills on the Left and George Will on the right are the worst offenders) have an annoying habit of starting off a columns by saying:

****

As Professor Joseph Schmeaux says in his brilliant new book Brilliant New Book, "Yada yadda yadda...

(Continue quoting for 7 paragraphs)

... yadda yadda yadda"

I couldn't have said it better myself.

***

I haven't read Coulter's book, but I suspected it was a cut-and-paste job, like any of Michael Moore's. Apparently, skinny blondes are just as prone to laziness as fat nerds.

[you with the face]

Well, she does have a nice rack, but that giraffe neck, the horse face...

You mean, whippet face (http://www.goldenwonders.com/pictures/ms-nc-whippet.jpg).

[Squink]

Well, she does have a nice rack,...Plaigiarized from Britney Spears.

[Wendell Wagner]

astorian writes:

> A few equally lazy writers (Gary Wills on the Left and George Will on the right
> are the worst offenders) have an annoying habit of starting off a columns by
> saying:
>
> ****
>
> As Professor Joseph Schmeaux says in his brilliant new book Brilliant New
> Book, "Yada yadda yadda...
>
> (Continue quoting for 7 paragraphs)
>
> ... yadda yadda yadda"
>
> I couldn't have said it better myself.
>
> ***

Does Garry Wills really do this that much? I know his work pretty well. I'm currently working through the twenty-first book that I've read by him. I've read all his articles in _The New York Review of Books_ for over a decade now. I've just checked some online columns by him to refresh my memory, and he doesn't do seven-paragraph quotations that I've noticed. Yes, often he starts a column by quoting one sentence from an author, particularly a classical Greek or Roman author or an early Christian writer. His columns often start out by sounding like meditations on single sentences from older authors, but they usually drop that format and become fairly standard comment and discussion of an issue. Garry Wills tends to have read everything on a subject he's discussing, so it's not surprising that he feels has to mention that some other author has distilled the issue to one sentence already.

This isn't at all comparable to an author who plagiarizes material from other authors. I haven't looked at the evidence of whether Coulter has done any plagiarism and can't speak to it, but plagiarism doesn't include acknowledged quoting of other authors. You may have some case to make that some lazy columnists stretch out their columns with acknowledged quotations from other authors, but you'd have to make that a separate accusation, since it's quite a different thing from plagiarizing the other author.

[ddgryphon]

You mean, whippet face (http://www.goldenwonders.com/pictures/ms-nc-whippet.jpg).


Oh, my goodness, she does look like a Whippet with long blonde hair and oversized boobs.

Well, I always thought she was a dog anyway.

[ddgryphon]

I'm not particularly interested in defending Coulter as, in general, I don't think much of her as a person, or as a political anylist. However, this "plagerism" seems to me to be more a restatement of news facts than plagerizing other peoples' thoughts and claiming them as their own. Restating news facts is entirely different than claiming an analysis as your own. I will say that it is sloppy not to have cited the news sources, but this is hardly a smoking gun of plagerism.

Just like the Republicans trying to take down Clinton, find something real to charge the woman with, surely she's actually done something. Half-baked accusations aren't worth your time and she stands for a lot of onerous things, so talk about what she's really doing -- it's far worse than this.

[Bricker]

A previous thread (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=327920) from 2005 accused Ann Coulter of plaigiarizing a column, but it was locked after a few posts. The consensus seemed to be that the accusation was pretty weak.

However, this recent article (http://www.nypost.com/news/nationalnews/copycatty_coulter_pilfers_prose__pro_nationalnews_philip_recchia.htm) makes many more accusations, that she's plaigiarized in her recent book, Godless: the Church of Liberalism, and also in various newspaper columns from the last year.

I would sure like to see the offending passages and their counterparts myself before reaching a judgement here.

The article doesn't quote any specifics -- it says, for example, ...that one 25-word passage from the "Godless" chapter titled "The Holiest Sacrament: Abortion" appears to have been lifted nearly word for word from Planned Parenthood literature published at least 18 months before Coulter's 281-page book was released.


But it doesn't give us the passage, or the specific Planned Parenthood literature in question. How am I supposed to verify this?

[Malacandra]

I'm not surprised- fact is, you could nail dozens of authors doing exactly the same thing.

Political columnists of all stripes are constantly reprinting large chunks of other people's work. It's the lazy columnist's way out.

A few equally lazy writers (Gary Wills on the Left and George Will on the right are the worst offenders) have an annoying habit of starting off a columns by saying:

****

As Professor Joseph Schmeaux says in his brilliant new book Brilliant New Book, "Yada yadda yadda...

(Continue quoting for 7 paragraphs)

... yadda yadda yadda"

I couldn't have said it better myself.

***


This is exactly right.

[Bricker]

One of the additional links above offers the following as evidence of plagiarism:

Coulter: A few years after oil drilling began in Prudhoe Bay, Alaska, a saboteur set off an explosion blowing a hole in the pipeline and releasing an estimated 550,000 gallons of oil.

The History Channel: The only major oil spill on land occurred when an unknown saboteur blew a hole in the pipe near Fairbanks, and 550,000 gallons of oil spilled onto the ground.


In my view, those two passages do not constitute any evidence of plagiarism. The link claims the use of the word 'saboteur' in both is "a bit too forced in this particular instance to be mere coincidence."

What?!?

[WhyNot]

What?!?
Indeed. If all of the examples are like that, then I'm afraid this case shows the flaws in the software, not the plagiarism of The Beast.

[Waenara]

Indeed. If all of the examples are like that, then I'm afraid this case shows the flaws in the software, not the plagiarism of The Beast.
I think that was one of the weaker examples. Some other ones from the linked articles above:

Coulter: The massive Dickey-Lincoln Dam, a $227 million hydroelectric project proposed on upper St. John River in Maine, was halted by the discovery of the Furbish lousewort, a plant previously believed to be extinct.

Portland Press Herald: The massive Dickey-Lincoln Dam, a $227 million hydroelectric project proposed on upper St. John River, is halted by the discovery of the Furbish lousewort, a plant believed to be extinct.


From this link (http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/More_examples_of_Coulter_borrowing_liberally_0614.html):This time, Coulter is accused of borrowing liberally from a 1988 press conference led by at-the-time Republican Senate candidate Alan Keyes, helping to demonize furloughed murderer Willie Horton to help the senior President Bush beat off former Massachussetts Governor Michael Dukakis.

"Other murderers furloughed by Dukakis included Donald Robertson and Bradford Boyd. Robertson raped a ninety-three-year-old woman and her seventy-two-year-old daughter and then stamped on their chests so hard that he crushed their internal organs," Coulter wrote.

Excerpt from Keyes' October 27, 1988 press conference: "Donald Robertson raped a 93-year-old woman and her 72-year-old daughter. Okay? After he raped them, he kicked them and beat them so bad, he crushed their chests and the internal organs in their chests."

After presenting more examples from both texts, The Rude Pundit continues: "Not only does Coulter blatantly cut and paste the first part, she also presents the exact same information in the exact same order as Barnes did back in 1988, including many directly quoted phrases, without citing anywhere the source for the information. As if it just appeared out of thin air."

The blogger then shows how Coulter quotes Keyes on Horton, but without revealing to her readers that the press conference may have been the source for that entire section of the chapter.

"It would have been simple for Coulter to avoid even seeming like she plagiarized: a couple of quotation marks, one of those footnotes she's always bragging about," The Rude Pundit writes. "But she didn't."
It seems like Coulter's problem is a lack of attribution of sources and "restatement of news facts" (as one previous poster put it). However, it seems like she barely (if it all) restates the, and just quotes without attribution.

At this site (http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/For_new_book_Coulter_cribs_adult_0613.html) it states that Coulter claims she made a list of diseases that have been treated with adult stem cells, but failed to attribute the list to an article by Planned Parenthood (that link includes the complete side-by-side comparison of their lists:"In the August 24, 2004, New York Times, science writer Gina Kolata claimed that no one had succeeded in using adult stem cells 'to treat diseases,'" writes Coulter.

To prove the Times science writer wrong, Coulter then provides a "short list" of sixteen "successful treatments achieved by adult stem cell research."

But fifteen of Coulter's examples are nearly identical to a longer list of seventeen compiled by the Illinois Right To Life website, which has been available since at least September of 2003 (current link, archived 9/03 link).
Maybe not deliberate plaigiarism, but definitely sloppy work. From the articles in the OPMeanwhile, many of the 344 citations Coulter includes in "Godless" "are very misleading," said Barrie, who holds a Ph.D. from the University of California at Berkeley, where he specialized in pattern recognition.

"They're used purely to try and give the book a higher level of credibility - as if it's an academic work. But her sloppiness in failing to properly attribute many other passages strips it of nearly all its academic merits," he told The Post. So I think you can tell he probably isn't fond of Coulter and her work in general. Some people might try to attack his accusation that way (He just doesn't like Coulter!), but he does make a good point.I'm not surprised- fact is, you could nail dozens of authors doing exactly the same thing.

Political columnists of all stripes are constantly reprinting large chunks of other people's work. It's the lazy columnist's way out.
That definitely does happen, but if they're lazy enough to borrow a chunk of another writer's work, they should at least acknowledge that writer in the text, or a footnote/endnote.

[Otto]

Coulter did not respond to requests for comment.
She's waiting for someone to finish writing it.

[astorian]

astorian writes:

> A few equally lazy writers (Gary Wills on the Left and George Will on the right
> are the worst offenders) have an annoying habit of starting off a columns by
> saying:
>
> ****
>
> As Professor Joseph Schmeaux says in his brilliant new book Brilliant New
> Book, "Yada yadda yadda...
>
> (Continue quoting for 7 paragraphs)
>
> ... yadda yadda yadda"
>
> I couldn't have said it better myself.
>
> ***

Does Garry Wills really do this that much? I know his work pretty well. I'm currently working through the twenty-first book that I've read by him. I've read all his articles in _The New York Review of Books_ for over a decade now. I've just checked some online columns by him to refresh my memory, and he doesn't do seven-paragraph quotations that I've noticed. Yes, often he starts a column by quoting one sentence from an author, particularly a classical Greek or Roman author or an early Christian writer. His columns often start out by sounding like meditations on single sentences from older authors, but they usually drop that format and become fairly standard comment and discussion of an issue. Garry Wills tends to have read everything on a subject he's discussing, so it's not surprising that he feels has to mention that some other author has distilled the issue to one sentence already.

This isn't at all comparable to an author who plagiarizes material from other authors. I haven't looked at the evidence of whether Coulter has done any plagiarism and can't speak to it, but plagiarism doesn't include acknowledged quoting of other authors. You may have some case to make that some lazy columnists stretch out their columns with acknowledged quotations from other authors, but you'd have to make that a separate accusation, since it's quite a different thing from plagiarizing the other author.


Cripes, Wills and Will both do this all the time!

Once, Garry was trying (or THOUGHT he was trying) to write about racism, and he used up the entire column quoting from a Nero Wolfe mystery.

As for Will... he'll rehash some old, pointless, lengthy baseball anecdote and then slap a postcript at the end, as if his story had some sort of deep political implications.

[Larry Borgia]

After all the vile, indefensible shit that troll has said, plagarism seems pretty small beer.

[Squink]

After all the vile, indefensible shit that troll has said, plagarism seems pretty small beer. Whatever works is good enough. Still, I would like to see her nailed in that voting fraud thingy (http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1002612877).

[Marley23]

Restating news facts is entirely different than claiming an analysis as your own. I will say that it is sloppy not to have cited the news sources, but this is hardly a smoking gun of plagerism.
We're no doubt approaching the time when someone will post to this thread and say "plagiarism is just failure to re-word someone else's work," but as somebody who actually deals in news facts, I have to say you're wrong. Restating facts does not extend to quoting somebody else while failing to use quotation marks or mention that you didn't write the sentence. If I discover a fact, other people can use it, but that doesn't mean they can copy and paste paragraphs of my work into their own without mentioning me. It doesn't really matter if it's analysis or fact when you're talking about large chunks of recycled work. Did you see the hundreds of words they mentioned about David Souter, which Coulter used in the same order as someone else did 15 years earlier? That doesn't fit into any definition of "restating" that I can think of.
In my view, those two passages do not constitute any evidence of plagiarism. The link claims the use of the word 'saboteur' in both is "a bit too forced in this particular instance to be mere coincidence."

What?!?
What the original blog says, I think, is that it's ridiculous to think that Coulter would ever call somebody in that situation a saboteur instead of a terrorist. It's not the strongest part of the accusation, but he has a point.

[Wendell Wagner]

astorian writes:

> Once, Garry was trying (or THOUGHT he was trying) to write about racism, and
> he used up the entire column quoting from a Nero Wolfe mystery.

Cite? He certainly doesn't do this all the time. I've read a lot of Wills, and I don't recall him ever doing it.

[drachillix]

Well, she does have a nice rack, but that giraffe neck, the horse face, and the way-too-skinny body cancel the boobs out. Add in the personality and ideology, and I wouldn't hit it on a dare.

I would but only to go to the national enquirer with "Coulter to have love child by liberal athiest" story....

That would have to be worth millions..

[EddyTeddyFreddy]

I would but only to go to the national enquirer with "Coulter to have love child by liberal athiest" story....

That would have to be worth millions..Especially considering how unlikely it is that there's a womb and ovaries inside that person. :dubious:

[if6was9]

I would sure like to see the offending passages and their counterparts myself before reaching a judgement here.

The article doesn't quote any specifics -- it says, for example,

But it doesn't give us the passage, or the specific Planned Parenthood literature in question. How am I supposed to verify this?
Oh good! Bricker's here! To tell us how she has a constitutionally protected right to say what she says... :rolleyes:


Without ever once admitting what a worthless f**kwad she is. :dubious:




Defending the scum of the Earth, even on strictly legal grounds, is NOT a noble profession. Sometimes you have to step back. See the forest for the trees.

:spit:

[Little Nemo]

It says a lot about the contents of Coulter's books that a valid charge of plagiarism would enhance her reputation and hurt the reputations of the original authors.

[iampunha]

Without ever once admitting what a worthless f**kwad she is. :dubious:

By that measure, your scorn is hereby also conferred on:

Waenara
Rhubarb
Voyager
Oakminster
Pullet
Slithy Tove
astorian
EddyTeddyFreddy
drachillix
Marley23
Squink
Larry Borgia
Otto
WhyNot
Malacandra
ddgryphon
Squink
you with the face
Wendell Wagner

[SkipMagic]

An Ann Coulter thread not in the Pit? Well, almost all of 'em tend to end up there, anyway, so off this one goes.

[if6was9]

By that measure, your scorn is hereby also conferred on:

Waenara
Rhubarb
Voyager
Oakminster
Pullet
Slithy Tove
astorian
EddyTeddyFreddy
drachillix
Marley23
Squink
Larry Borgia
Otto
WhyNot
Malacandra
ddgryphon
Squink
you with the face
Wendell Wagner

You'd defend her too?

or are you just defending Mr. Technically He/She/They are legally within their rights, all morality aside...

[Marley23]

By that measure, your scorn is hereby also conferred on:
I beg your pardon, but I think I've once admitted that she's a worthless fuckwad.

[if6was9]

An Ann Coulter thread not in the Pit? Well, almost all of 'em tend to end up there, anyway, so off this one goes.
Why thank you, Skip!

I am just fucking sick of Bricker's trolling, morally-bereft posts! Yeah, he might come in here and debate this, and make me look like an ass. It doesn't change my opinion of his.... morally-neutered.... view of right and wrong. Somewhere, between law school, and his "career", he LOST SIGHT of anything that was once important.

Fuck Bricker, and fuck you too, puhna!

[Zebra]

After all the vile, indefensible shit that troll has said, plagarism seems pretty small beer.



The put Capone away for tax evasion.

[Lute Skywatcher]

It seems like Coulter's problem is a lack of attribution of sources and "restatement of news facts" (as one previous poster put it). However, it seems like she barely (if it all) restates the, and just quotes without attribution.

Maybe not deliberate plaigiarism, but definitely sloppy work.ISTR a thread about an organization (magazine?) that's declared not quoting without attribution and sloppy work to be plagiarism but I have no idea how to find it.

[if6was9]

Nm. I've been informed I'm WAY out of line. I apologize to Bricker. That was way out of line. Way above my comprehension even. Sorry and I'm out of here.

[iampunha]

You'd defend her too?

or are you just defending Mr. Technically He/She/They are legally within their rights, all morality aside...

Your display in this thread hasn't given me a sufficiently high opinion of you to say one way or the other. Furthermore, your inability to restrain yourself outside The Pit, especially given such a relatively trivial topic (assuming for the moment that you are not one of the women specifically targeted by Coulter in her recent publication) as Ann Coulter, speaks ill of your ability to remain rational.

I will, however, note this about your view of Bricker: I was a member of this board back in 2000, and have been reading Bricker's posts off and on for the better part of a decade now. He and I have certainly had stern and occasionally terse disagreements (as is the case with a number of other people, both for his part and for mine), but I don't recall ever having formed the opinion that his was a trolling or morally bereft position on any issue.

What does strike me right now, though, is that you are attacking him here for something I'm betting he said elsewhere. He has two posts in this thread, and neither make any mention of his vocation or the people he defends, let alone anything else. If you have an issue with Bricker specifically, perhaps you should put all your eggs in one basket, adage be damned, and leave this thread for those of us not wishing to discuss the merits and/or demerits of Bricket.

(Marley: I did a textsearch in this thread for fuckwad. Nothing turned up. Sorry for the oversight;))

[iampunha]

Well fuck. My post is now sort of entirely pointless, I suppose. (Almost 15,000 of them, you'd think I'd get used to that sort of feeling.) If a mod figures it's worth deleting it, no skin off my nose. If not, no skin off anything else:)

[if6was9]

Your display in this thread hasn't given me a sufficiently high opinion of you to say one way or the other. Furthermore, your inability to restrain yourself outside The Pit, especially given such a relatively trivial topic (assuming for the moment that you are not one of the women specifically targeted by Coulter in her recent publication) as Ann Coulter, speaks ill of your ability to remain rational.

I will, however, note this about your view of Bricker: I was a member of this board back in 2000, and have been reading Bricker's posts off and on for the better part of a decade now. He and I have certainly had stern and occasionally terse disagreements (as is the case with a number of other people, both for his part and for mine), but I don't recall ever having formed the opinion that his was a trolling or morally bereft position on any issue.

What does strike me right now, though, is that you are attacking him here for something I'm betting he said elsewhere. He has two posts in this thread, and neither make any mention of his vocation or the people he defends, let alone anything else. If you have an issue with Bricker specifically, perhaps you should put all your eggs in one basket, adage be damned, and leave this thread for those of us not wishing to discuss the merits and/or demerits of Bricket.

(Marley: I did a textsearch in this thread for fuckwad. Nothing turned up. Sorry for the oversight;))

Your cherry-picking a list of posters (strawman), junior modding, and calling me out as a n00b gives me a high opinion of you too. :)

[iampunha]

Your cherry-picking a list of posters (strawman), junior modding, and calling me out as a n00b gives me a high opinion of you too. :)

Cherry-picking? ... You wanna know how I assembled that list? I took down the names of each poster who had contributed to the thread before your post. If that's cherry-picking, I'd sure love someone pointing me to a dictionary showing the change the term has undergone since I last checked.

(Not even gonna dignify the rest of that.)

[if6was9]

Cherry-picking? ... You wanna know how I assembled that list? I took down the names of each poster who had contributed to the thread before your post. If that's cherry-picking, I'd sure love someone pointing me to a dictionary showing the change the term has undergone since I last checked.

(Not even gonna dignify the rest of that.)
Ok. Wrong term. And DUH! It was fucking obvious you went down the damn list! As if every one who posted in that thread is the DEFINITIVE list of Ann Coulter bashers on the Straight Dope. Again.... strawman! Is everyone who didn't call Miss Bitch MY EXACT WORDS ( fuckwad.) PROOF that I am picking on Bricker???? MY rant was (mis)directed at him. Why don't YOU fuck off? He can defend himself just fine thankyouverydamnmuchandfuckoff.

[Contrapuntal]

Cherry-picking? ... You wanna know how I assembled that list? I took down the names of each poster who had contributed to the thread before your post. If that's cherry-picking, I'd sure love someone pointing me to a dictionary showing the change the term has undergone since I last checked.

(Not even gonna dignify the rest of that.)Well, you were cherry-picking the quotation. Who on your list was defending her constitutionally protected rights?

[Oakminster]

By that measure, your scorn is hereby also conferred on:

Waenara
Rhubarb
Voyager
Oakminster
Pullet
Slithy Tove
astorian
EddyTeddyFreddy
drachillix
Marley23
Squink
Larry Borgia
Otto
WhyNot
Malacandra
ddgryphon
Squink
you with the face
Wendell Wagner

Yay! I got named in a list of Dopers! Not sure if that's a good thing or a bad thing.... :confused: :D

Do we get pie?

[Contrapuntal]

Yay! I got named in a list of Dopers! Not sure if that's a good thing or a bad thing.... :confused: :D

Do we get pie?Das right. Cherry pie.

[Oakminster]

Yay for pie! (Chair boogie ensues)

[Malacandra]

Cherry pie is fine in its place.

In my completely original and unplagiarised opinion, that is just after a piece of chocolate cake, an ice-cream cone, a pickle, a slice of Swiss cheese, a slice of salami, and a lollipop; and just before a sausage, a cupcake and a slice of watermelon.

Mercifully I find myself in no need of an opinion about Ann Coulter

[Polycarp]

I would sure like to see the offending passages and their counterparts myself before reaching a judgement here.

The article doesn't quote any specifics -- it says, for example,

But it doesn't give us the passage, or the specific Planned Parenthood literature in question. How am I supposed to verify this?

No, Rick. My apologies, but it will not fly. And remember, I will defend the right of anybody to say anything.

This ... entity ... is on record in her book entitled Treason as saying: "All liberals and Democrats are guilty of actions tantamount to treason." (Close paraphrase; they didn't have a copy of Treason in the 10c bin at the rummage sale, and I would pay no more than that for it.)

Now, until and unless she produces clearcut proof, the sort that will stand up in a court of law under serious efforts to impugn it, that I and other Democrats and liberals have committed the constitutional definition of treason, she is a slanderous, libelous bitch who does not deserve your good offices. I will stand up for the right of a KKK member, a NAMBLA member, even Fred Phelps, to exercise their rights to freedom of speech, no matter how repulsive the content. With that accusation, though, la Coulter has just crossed the line for me.

(Her laudation of Tail Gunner Joe is either complete insanity or an effort to sell all the traffic will buy, too, but at least it's redeemed for me by leading me to discover America's most unlikely hero, Joseph Walsh.)

[ElvisL1ves]

I would but only to go to the national enquirer with "Coulter to have love child by liberal athiest" story....

That would have to be worth millions..She dates Bill Maher. (http://www.nndb.com/people/474/000022408/) Could happen.

[Bricker]

No, Rick. My apologies, but it will not fly. And remember, I will defend the right of anybody to say anything.

Um... Polycarp, I'm just talking about the accusation of plagiarism here. My post was not intended to be a general defense of her, merely a request for details on her supposed plagiarism.

[Steve MB]

At this site it states that Coulter claims she made a list of diseases that have been treated with adult stem cells, but failed to attribute the list to an article by Planned Parenthood
Plaigarism and concealment of the other side's honesty all in one sentence. How very efficient of her.

[Scylla]

Nasty old bitch? Super genius? I'm never sure about Coulter. She reminds me a little bit of Andy kauffman these days. I'm not really sure who the joke is on.

Take her at face value and she's just a bitch. More though is revealed by those that support her and those that seek to bring her down, than about her.

I am pretty sure that she is over the top to bring out the froth-at-the-mouth detractors who will stoop to just about any level to get her.

I got to beleive these accusations of plagiarism, as spurious as they are, play right into her hands.

Liberals aren't all she says, but she sure does make a few of them act that way.

[Bricker]

Plaigarism and concealment of the other side's honesty all in one sentence. How very efficient of her.

If it's true.

Unfortunately, we are not given the specific Planned Parenthood cite to check. So how can we tell if it's true?

[Apos]

The accusations against Ben Domemneoncish or whatever played out. And frankly, it certainly fits her writing style: she just grabs a bunch of glurge, plops it into a word processor, and changes a few words here and there. It certainly seems perfectly plausible. Heck, she basically parades the idea that William Dembski ghost-wrote her excreble section on evolution.

But of course, pointing out that someone is a plagarist is, apparently, "stooping to a level" to get her.

[iampunha]

Is everyone who didn't call Miss Bitch MY EXACT WORDS ( fuckwad.) PROOF that I am picking on Bricker???? MY rant was (mis)directed at him. Why don't YOU fuck off? He can defend himself just fine thankyouverydamnmuchandfuckoff.

I am well aware of his ability to defend himself. I was aware of this ability of his before you came to us.

I am also aware of your embarrasment at being caught with your pants down.

I don't fuck off because I have your bright, cheery self to entertain.

Well, you were cherry-picking the quotation. Who on your list was defending her constitutionally protected rights?

Who on my list needed to be? Who in this thread is (or has been) seriously saying she should be censored?

I responded to the parts of if6was9's post that had any bearing on this thread. Given that if6was9 has since removed himself from his irrelevant comments, this seems more'n slightly appropriate.

[JRDelirious]

I'm never sure about Coulter. She reminds me a little bit of Andy kauffman these days. I'm not really sure who the joke is on. Right. It's like there's some sort of existential performance art piece, and a whole lot of us, more than anything, are pissed off that we're being denied the privilege of even the slightest hint of a " ;) " ; deep down, too many of us resent the possibility we may be getting "punk'd".

Part of the issue as I see it is that she is, no, HAS to be, really, fearless about taking the risk that (to continue the stand-up allegory) she may cross over from Andy Kauffman "waitaminnit, what's the *&^%$ joke?" territory to the Andrew Dice Clay "we don't care if it's a joke, that was *&^%$# rude" category. (And IMNSHO she has.)

Now, of course, while Andy stayed within the sphere of entertainment, Ann runs loose in the yard of political commentary, where at some point in the past there seems to have been developed an unwritten consensus that (A) any future work along the line of "A Modest Proposal" be heavily smiley-punctuated, and (B) even the most partisan commentator should make at least a token gesture of taking an ocassional shot at their own side. But those are just that -- complacent conventions that developed among the media and public; for someone like Coulter, it makes for fertile soil in which to sow disruption of those expectations and till publicity.

Even this will work for her in this sense: being accused of pulling a small-scale Opal Mehta will just give her openings for replyingg that everyone in her field is continuously quoting and referencing w/o having to add a bibliography to every column, and for questioning how come she was the one "targeted".

[Linty Fresh]

Part of the issue as I see it is that she is, no, HAS to be, really, fearless about taking the risk . . .

I would say "shameless", but that's just me.

While she is still not half as bad as Phred Phelps, Ann kind of reminds me of him, because neither of them seems to give a flying fuck about what decent society thinks of them or their antics. Voter fraud? Who cares? Defending The Bell Curve? Hey, if it sells books. Sucking up to Joe McCarthy? No problem.

At first, I wanted to understand why. I mean, I know why she does it. She wants to capture Angry America. I mean, I wanted to understand why she wanted to capture Angry America. Have you seen Angry America? I grew up around Angry America, and it wasn't pretty back then. I can only imagine it getting worse now. Could it have been for the money? There are easier ways for an intelligent lawyer in Washington to make money, especially if she could conceivably be attractive if she would just make the effort. Also, she wouldn't be hated by decent society.

I think JRDelirious nailed it for me when he compared her to Andy Kaufman. There is no "why". She does it because she likes the attention, and because she's a bit of a nutcase.

[mhendo]

Well, as others have suggested, Coulter's raving idiocy completely discredited her in my eyes long before now. In fact, stealing other people's text might actually improve her work.

Still if the accusations turn out to be true, it certainly wouldn't make her the Lone Ranger.

Stephen Ambrose (http://hnn.us/articles/504.html)
Brian Van De Mark (http://hnn.us/articles/1477.html)
Doris Kearns Goodwin (http://hnn.us/articles/590.html)
Louis W. Roberts (http://chronicle.com/free/2002/02/2002022103n.htm)
Roger Shepherd (http://www.skidmore.edu/~rscarce/Writing_Tips/Art_Professor's_Plagiarism.html)
Laurence Tribe (http://www.hlrecord.org/media/storage/paper609/news/2004/10/07/News/Dean-Of.Mass.Law.School.Central.Figure.In.Discovery.Of.Tribe.Plagiarism-748270.shtml?norewrite200607041305&sourcedomain=www.hlrecord.org)
Charles Ogletree (http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=503341)

[Revtim]

There are easier ways for an intelligent lawyer in Washington to make money, especially if she could conceivably be attractive if she would just make the effort. Also, she wouldn't be hated by decent society.Yes, but she likely wouldn't be famous.

[Linty Fresh]

Yes, but she likely wouldn't be famous.

Like I said, she does it because she likes the attention.

[Waenara]

If it's true.

Unfortunately, we are not given the specific Planned Parenthood cite to check. So how can we tell if it's true?From my post #18 in this thread, this article (http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/For_new_book_Coulter_cribs_adult_0613.html) details the (possibly) plaigiarized list:But fifteen of Coulter's examples are nearly identical to a longer list of seventeen compiled by the Illinois Right To Life website, which has been available since at least September of 2003 (current link (http://www.illinoisrighttolife.org/stemcellsummary.htm)) (archived 9/03 link (http://web.archive.org/web/20030917043912/http://www.illinoisrighttolife.org/stemcellsummary.htm))Following are the fifteen items from Coulter's list side-by-side with those that appear at the Illinois Right To Life Committee's website:

Illinois Right To Life: Spinal cord injury repair (using stem cells from nasal and sinus regions)

Coulter: Repairing spinal cord injuries by using stem cells from nasal and sinus regions.

Illinois Right To Life: Complete reversal of juvenile diabetes in mice using adult spleen cells

Coulter: Completely reversing Type 1 diabetes in mice using adult spleen cells

Illinois Right To Life: Crohn’s Disease put into remission (using patient’s blood stem cells)

Coulter: Putting Crohn's disease into remission with the patient's own blood stem cells

Illinois Right To Life: Lupus put into remission (using stem cells from patient’s bloodstream)

Coulter: Putting lupus into remission using stem cells from the patient's bloodstream

Illinois Right To Life: Repair heart muscle in cases of congestive heart failure (using stem cells from bone marrow)

Coulter: Repairing the heart muscles in patients with congestive heart failure using adult stem cells from bone marrow.

Illinois Right To Life: Repair heart attack damage (using the patient’s own blood stem cells)

Coulter: Repairing heart attack damage with the patient’s own blood stem cells

Illinois Right To Life: Restore bone marrow in cancer patients (using stem cells from umbilical cord blood)

Coulter: Restoring bone marrow in cancer patients using stem cells from umbilical cord blood.

Illinois Right To Life: Restore weak heart muscles (using immature skeletal muscle cells)

Coulter: Restoring weak heart muscles using immature skeletal muscle cells

Illinois Right To Life: Put leukemia into remission (using umbilical cord blood)

Coulter: Putting leukemia into remission using umbilical cord blood

Illinois Right To Life: Heal bone fractures (using bone marrow cells)

Coulter: Healing bone fractures with bone marrow cells.

Illinois Right To Life: Restore a blind man’s sight (using an ocular surface stem-cell transplant & a cornea transplant)

Coulter: Restoring sight in blind people using an ocular surface stem-cell transplant and a cornea transplant

Illinois Right To Life: Treat urinary incontinence (using under arm muscle stem cells)

Coulter: Treating urinary incontinence using stem cells from underarm muscle

Illinois Right To Life: Reverse severe combined immunodeficiency (SCID) (using genetically modified adult stem cells)

Coulter: Reversing severe combined immunodeficiency (SCID) with genetically modified adult cells.

Illinois Right To Life: Restore blood circulation in legs (using bone marrow stem cells)

Coulter: Restoring blood circulation in legs with bone marrow stem cells.

Illinois Right To Life: Treat sickle-cell anemia (using stem cells from unbilical cord blood)

Coulter: Treating sickle-cell anemia using stem cells from umbilical cord blood.

[Waenara]

Sorry, I hit Submit too soon. I also meant to add that I got confused about the various sources she plaigiarized from.

That list above re: stem cell research was plaigiarized from a right-to-life website.

The allegation that she plaigiarized from Planned Parenthood was a separate allegation, from this article in my OP (http://www.nypost.com/news/nationalnews/copycatty_coulter_pilfers_prose__pro_nationalnews_philip_recchia.htm) which states:Barrie, CEO of iParadigms, told The Post that one 25-word passage from the "Godless" chapter titled "The Holiest Sacrament: Abortion" appears to have been lifted nearly word for word from Planned Parenthood literature published at least 18 months before Coulter's 281-page book was released. I'm going to see if I can find the exact section that was plaigiarized from there.

[Bricker]

Ok. Wrong term. And DUH! It was fucking obvious you went down the damn list! As if every one who posted in that thread is the DEFINITIVE list of Ann Coulter bashers on the Straight Dope. Again.... strawman! Is everyone who didn't call Miss Bitch MY EXACT WORDS ( fuckwad.) PROOF that I am picking on Bricker???? MY rant was (mis)directed at him. Why don't YOU fuck off? He can defend himself just fine thankyouverydamnmuchandfuckoff.

I would have, if I had even the slightest clue what prompted the attack. But since it was apparently a misfire....no harm done.

[Contrapuntal]

Who on my list needed to be?well, uh, everyone, if you are interested in an accurate reflection of what he said. If it's cherries you are after, how about baking us that pie?

Here is the whole quote--Oh good! Bricker's here! To tell us how she has a constitutionally protected right to say what she says...


Without ever once admitting what a worthless f**kwad she is.That "without" makes it problematic for you to only use half of the statement to qualify your set.

[Bricker]

From my post #18 in this thread, this article (http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/For_new_book_Coulter_cribs_adult_0613.html) details the (possibly) plaigiarized list:

That list certainly appears to establish a presumption of plaigiarism. I think for one or two items, there are only a few ways you can say something, and it could be entirely coincidental that your phrasing is similar to another report. For example, if I were reporting the repair to spinal cords using stem cells from nasal and sinus areas... I might say something very close to what Coulter or the RTL site said, substituting 'areas' for 'regions' and making other minor changes.

But the more items on the list, the less it looks like a case of "how many ways can you say X?"

[iampunha]

Here is the whole quote--[...]That "without" makes it problematic for you to only use half of the statement to qualify your set.

I took the capital letter in Without to indicate a new sentence. As such, two statements.

However, if you note the list of people who have said anything about constitutionality in her defense, I believe you'll find it intact even with both the first and the second statement in mind.

If you're in the mood for pie, please do bring some with you in your next post:)

[Contrapuntal]

I took the capital letter in Without to indicate a new sentence. As such, two statements.The ellipse connects them into one thought. "Without" is a connecting word. Two statements often have the same topic. Were it not so, we would not have paragraphs.

However, if you note the list of people who have said anything about constitutionality in her defense, I believe you'll find it intact even with both the first and the second statement in mind.

If you're in the mood for pie, please do bring some with you in your next post:)The list of those who the poster claims has referred to her rights ancd have also not condemned her as vile is restricted to Bricker.

[Oakminster]

Nasty old bitch? Super genius? I'm never sure about Coulter. She reminds me a little bit of Andy kauffman these days. I'm not really sure who the joke is on.



Nah. Andy was much better at working a crowd, and he was willing to take a bump. He had most of the country thinking the deal with Lawler on the Letterman show was a shoot, and he kept kayfabe on it all the way to the grave.

I will agree that Coulter is clearly milking her heel gimmick for all it's worth, and she's making serious bank.

I still wouldn't hit it on a dare.

[treis]

That list certainly appears to establish a presumption of plaigiarism. I think for one or two items, there are only a few ways you can say something, and it could be entirely coincidental that your phrasing is similar to another report. For example, if I were reporting the repair to spinal cords using stem cells from nasal and sinus areas... I might say something very close to what Coulter or the RTL site said, substituting 'areas' for 'regions' and making other minor changes.

But the more items on the list, the less it looks like a case of "how many ways can you say X?"

So is it plagarism or not?

[iampunha]

The ellipse connects them into one thought. "Without" is a connecting word. Two statements often have the same topic. Were it not so, we would not have paragraphs.

The ellipse indicates a thought trailing off. That trail-off need not necessitate any duty on the reader's part to connect the thoughts.

Without does indeed function as a conjunction. Great for it. Two statements often have the same topic. Goody for them. The relevance of all of this to paragraph formation seems to me to be actually utterly opposite your conclusion; when you are switching topics, you make a new paragraph. Having a new topic is actually a much better reason to start a new paragraph (though admittedly, you're talking to a guy who's had paragraphs go on for about a half-screen).

I disagree that the two statements are one, basically.

The list of those who the poster claims has referred to her rights ancd have also not condemned her as vile is restricted to Bricker.

Given that the poster in question has already indicated that he went off half-cocked, and given that he was fundamentally wrong about what he said, I'm unimpressed by any argument based off the idea that we should take if6was9's words as being based in reality, even his own representation of his version of it.

[magellan01]

So is it plagarism or not?

I'd say no. I've been on the victim-side of plagiaristic activities (in court), so I'm pretty sensitive to it, but something like a factual list, where the items are listed in just a few words and lacks any point of view or stlye, is hard to get riled over.

As far as I recall, the test is if the writing is recognizable as being lifted. But I think there was an element of uniqueness or something like that that has to be present as well. Tho oppsition were of the mind that if they just changed one word they were off the hook. Not so.

[treis]

I'd say no. I've been on the victim-side of plagiaristic activities (in court), so I'm pretty sensitive to it, but something like a factual list, where the items are listed in just a few words and lacks any point of view or stlye, is hard to get riled over.

As far as I recall, the test is if the writing is recognizable as being lifted. But I think there was an element of uniqueness or something like that that has to be present as well. Tho oppsition were of the mind that if they just changed one word they were off the hook. Not so.

And you think she just happened to pick 15 of the same things that were on this website?


All I know is that if I turned in that for an assignment my professor would nail my ass to the wall.

[magellan01]

And you think she just happened to pick 15 of the same things that were on this website?

All I know is that if I turned in that for an assignment my professor would nail my ass to the wall.

I see your point. A few comments:

- the threshold is not the same for school. It is often higher. Hopefully so.

- it depend on how you view Ann Coulter. The more you view her as a researcher/journalist the more you would be right to hold her to a higher standard. I view her as a writer/provacateur, with a little commedienne thrown in, which lowers the standard. If Al Franken or Dave Barry used the same list, I wouldn't give it a second thought. Although it is always nice to attribute if you can, not doing so does not automatically equal plagiarism.

- a factual list is a grey area, and gets greyer as time goes on. If I list the ten most affluent cities, need I cite Forbes or wherever I got it from? It might be nice, and give people comfort that I didn't just make things up, but if my point is merely tangential to the fact that these are the ten most affluent cities, it's not that big deal.

– I don't think that anyone is going to think she is trying to take credit for doing the primary research that generated the list. I thionk most people assume that she got it from some organization. It could very well be that the site you cite is not even the original source odf the information.

[mhendo]

I see your point. A few comments:

- the threshold is not the same for school. It is often higher. Hopefully so.Why?

I think we should hold our public intellectuals (i know, i know, not really the right word to describe Coulter) up to the same standards we require of our undergraduates.- it depend on how you view Ann Coulter. The more you view her as a researcher/journalist the more you would be right to hold her to a higher standard. I view her as a writer/provacateur, with a little commedienne thrown in, which lowers the standard. If Al Franken or Dave Barry used the same list, I wouldn't give it a second thought. Although it is always nice to attribute if you can, not doing so does not automatically equal plagiarism.For you it might depend on how you view Coulter; for me it doesn't. If Al Franken did exactly the same thing, i'd be disappointed.

And lifting directly from another source, passing off someone else's words as your own, is plagiarism. Period.- a factual list is a grey area, and gets greyer as time goes on. If I list the ten most affluent cities, need I cite Forbes or wherever I got it from? It might be nice, and give people comfort that I didn't just make things up, but if my point is merely tangential to the fact that these are the ten most affluent cities, it's not that big deal.Damn right you should provide a citation.

Is it ten most affluent by net wealth? Is it ten most affluent by family income? Is it ten most affluent by average income or by median income? There are many ways to measure affluence, and if you're going to offer statistics about the issue you need to say where you got them so your readers can work out exactly what you're talking about.– I don't think that anyone is going to think she is trying to take credit for doing the primary research that generated the list. I thionk most people assume that she got it from some organization. It could very well be that the site you cite is not even the original source odf the information.Irrelevant.

If the place she got the information from is honest about where it comes from, it doesn't matter if it is the "original source." The standard for plagiarism is not whether you are relying on original information, but how you attribute the information you use.

[Wendell Wagner]

mhendo writes:

> If Al Franken did exactly the same thing, i'd be disappointed.

Indeed, Franken boasts (in a rather joking way) that he hires a research team fof each of his books. Good authors always use such people and thank their researchers/fact-checkers in their acknowledgement pages. Washington, D.C. is full of people who make their living checking the facts in books (full-time or part-time), and they represent a range of political opinions. If Ann Coulter doesn't know any, I have a friend who does fact-checking for mostly conservative writers that I can introduce her to.

[iampunha]

This wasn't addressed to me, so feel free to smile and ignore, but:

Although it is always nice to attribute if you can, not doing so does not automatically equal plagiarism.

I'm not seeing this. How is knowingly using someone else's material and failing to provide attribution not plagiarism?

If I list the ten most affluent cities, need I cite Forbes or wherever I got it from?

I'm under the impression that one cites sources, yes.

I don't think that anyone is going to think she is trying to take credit for doing the primary research that generated the list. I thionk most people assume that she got it from some organization. It could very well be that the site you cite is not even the original source odf the information.

And if that is true, that organization is also guilty of questionable practices, no?

[JRDelirious]

I think JRDelirious nailed it for me when he compared her to Andy Kaufman. There is no "why". She does it because she likes the attention, and because she's a bit of a nutcase.
Fairness compells me to credit Scylla with first use of that comparison in this thread, leading to my further commentary.


As to why would anyone want to capture "Angry America"... well, their money is as green (or, lately, peach and teal) as ours. Besides, there is also, for Ann and her type, the satisfaction of seeing how they can drive the other side to become themselves angered. She wants the liberals to become angry and offended and riled and pissed off... because from her POV, she "knows" they'll feel bad about themselves for hating her.

[magellan01]

Late yesterday afternoon I composed an email in response to multiple posters and it went POOF. I gather something ws wrong with the boards. I don't have the time or desire to recreate that postso I'll just say:

People should attribute whenever they can. If there's a question, it behooves them to err on the site of attribution.

I think that this particular instance is much ado about very little. Two reason: 1) the sentence fragments are short and ovver no point of view or style to the writing. I wouldn't expect an attribution if someone said smoking is bad because: Point 1, Point 2, etc.

I do not recommend doing this because it both may confuse the reader and allow him to discount your arguement thinking that you made it up. My guess is that she didn't think she needed to give credit stylistically and that there was very little fear of the latter. Say what you'd like about Coulter's politics and inflammatory language, she is a very good writer with a very honed style. My guess is that if someone had truned a phrase toher liking and she used it, that she would attribute that.

[Gadarene]

Um. That list isn't the only instance of plaigiarism of which Coulter is accused, is it? No? Then why is so much hay being made of it?

Bricker, look at the other examples mentioned in this thread. They're far more conclusive.

[Syntropy]

She dates Bill Maher. (http://www.nndb.com/people/474/000022408/) Could happen.
Oh, ick. Really? Ick. I just threw up in my mouth a little bit...

[Contrapuntal]

I disagree that the two statements are one, basically.I find myself unable to agree with you ... but you seem like a stand-up sort of bloke, so I am going to put some home-made lemon-ginger ice cream on top of that cherry pie. Enjoy!

[iampunha]

I find myself unable to agree with you ... but you seem like a stand-up sort of bloke, so I am going to put some home-made lemon-ginger ice cream on top of that cherry pie. Enjoy!

Works for me:) Far better to recognize an impasse than start with "You're so dumb that you can't see this that I'm going to insult you and assume superiority."

[Zoe]

mhendo, I was annoyed with Coulter until I read your list. Now I am just destroyed. Doris Kearns Goodwin?

[Scylla]

From my post #18 in this thread, this article (http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/For_new_book_Coulter_cribs_adult_0613.html) details the (possibly) plaigiarized list:

I don't really think that list demonstrates plagiarism.

If I say "Clinton accused of sexual relations," I'm sure that exact phrase has been written many times before either verbatim or with mild variations.

Same goes for "Bush lied about WMDs"

Or, a medical one (like many on the list)

"Heart attacks treated by defibrillation" I just made that up. Let me google it:

http://books.google.com/books?q=Heart+attacks+treated+by+defibrillation&as_brr=0

Did I just plagiarize?

[mhendo]

mhendo, I was annoyed with Coulter until I read your list. Now I am just destroyed. Doris Kearns Goodwin?Actually, in Kearns Goodwin's case, the plagiarism itself is not actually the worst of the story.

While her plagiarism only really came to light in 2002, it had actually been discovered much earlier, way back in 1987, by one of the authors from whom she lifted passages. Goodwin plagiarised from Lynne McTaggarts book Kathleen Kennedy: Her Life and Times, and the plagiarized passages appeared in Goodwin's The Fitzgeralds and the Kennedys. When Goodwin's book came out, McTaggart was asked to review it, and in doing so she recognized many of her own passages in Goodwin's work.

Now, despite recognizing that her own words had been stolen, McTaggart said nothing. She gave the book what she herself describes (http://www.acadweb.wwu.edu/senate/ACC/ACCTimesPlagiarArt2002.htm) as "a kind review," and then proceeded to hire a lawyer and go after Goodwin and her publisher.

Here's where the story gets really nefarious. McTaggart reached and agreement with Goodwin and the publisher, whereby she received a "satisfactory settlement," on condition that she did not reveal the plagiarism to the general public. Because McTaggart said nothing, Goodwin's book survived the next 15 years without being outed.

As Timothy Noah points out in Slate (http://www.slate.com/id/2063299/), this effectively made McTaggart "a party to [the] fraud." As Noah says, McTaggart effectively chose to "Hide the book's flaws in public, squeeze the book's author for cash in private." And by agreeing to pay what was little more than hush money, Goodwin and her publisher compounded Goodwin's own ethical breach, adding a cover-up to the plagiarism itself.

The Kearns Goodwin story, and other cases of academic fraud and controversy, are detailed in Jon Wiener's excellent book Historians in Trouble: Plagiarism, Fraud, and Politics in the Ivory Tower (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1565848845/ref=sr_11_1/002-4460282-9236840?ie=UTF8).

[Marley23]

I don't really think that list demonstrates plagiarism.

If I say "Clinton accused of sexual relations," I'm sure that exact phrase has been written many times before either verbatim or with mild variations.
"Clinton accused of sexual relations" is a phrase. We're talking about a list of 15 phrases, order unchanged. Wouldn't you say that's harder to accept as a coincidence? Coulter doesn't do lab work last I checked, so she had to get her information from someplace. What do you think are the chances that she came up with her own list of 15 items and it happened to match the list from that site not only in word order and phrasing, but item order?

[Squink]

What do you think are the chances that she came up with her own list of 15 items and it happened to match the list from that site not only in word order and phrasing, but item order?Well, 15! = 1,307,674,368,000, so on item order alone it'd be about 1 in 1.3 trillion. The word usage probably increases that by a factor of a gadzillion or three.

[cuauhtemoc]

Coulter doesn't do lab work last I checked, so she had to get her information from someplace. What do you think are the chances that she came up with her own list of 15 items and it happened to match the list from that site not only in word order and phrasing, but item order?
Now, now. We don't know for certain that Ann Coulter doesn't have a laboratory in her basement where she personally uses adult stem cells to cure patients of all kinds of deadly diseases.

[ElvisL1ves]

Oh, ick. Really? Ick. I just threw up in my mouth a little bit...
:shrug: So a couple of media whores let a shared profession build into a relationship. It's no worse than James Carville and Mary Matalin marrying.

[Bricker]

"Clinton accused of sexual relations" is a phrase. We're talking about a list of 15 phrases, order unchanged. Wouldn't you say that's harder to accept as a coincidence? Coulter doesn't do lab work last I checked, so she had to get her information from someplace. What do you think are the chances that she came up with her own list of 15 items and it happened to match the list from that site not only in word order and phrasing, but item order?

It wasn't clear to me that the list was in the same order in both places. Every discussion I've read has never directly made that claim. Can you confirm?

[Syntropy]

:shrug: So a couple of media whores let a shared profession build into a relationship. It's no worse than James Carville and Mary Matalin marrying.
Aside from the poor hatchet faced children they'd produce (were they to have any), that'd pretty much be my reaction to the mental image of Ann Coulter having sex with anyone.

I very much doubt the woman would consider it wrong even if it's proved inconclusively that she plagiarized. Obviously; she keeps doing it. And as long as people keep buying her books and paying her to show up and speak with little flecks of foam at the corners of her mouth, she won't be disabused of that notion.

[Waenara]

It wasn't clear to me that the list was in the same order in both places. Every discussion I've read has never directly made that claim. Can you confirm? The article I quoted earlier said:The seventh chapter of "Godless: The Church of Liberalism" is devoted to "the left's war on science," which - according to Coulter - includes attacking and lying about "the science that is working" so as "to elevate the science that has produced nothing."Does anyone here have a copy of Coulter's book? It should be pretty easy to check the seventh chapter and compare it against the website in question [here (http://www.illinoisrighttolife.org/stemcellsummary.htm), archived 9/03 link here (http://web.archive.org/web/20030917043912/http://www.illinoisrighttolife.org/stemcellsummary.htm)]

[mhendo]

Does anyone here have a copy of Coulter's book? It should be pretty easy to check the seventh chapter and compare it against the website in question [here (http://www.illinoisrighttolife.org/stemcellsummary.htm), archived 9/03 link here (http://web.archive.org/web/20030917043912/http://www.illinoisrighttolife.org/stemcellsummary.htm)]
I was going to do the comparison myself, but my university library catalog lists Coulter's book as a "Newly acquired" book that is currently in cataloging, so i can't get access to it yet. If it becomes available soon, i'll check it out.

The publisher's blurb for the book, available on the Library of Congress website (http://www.loc.gov/catdir/enhancements/fy0659/2006276850-d.html), is interesting, given the current controversy:GODLESS is the most explosive book yet from #1 New York Times bestselling author Ann Coulter. In this completely original and thoroughly controversial work, Coulter writes, “Liberals love to boast that they are not ‘religious,’ which is what one would expect to hear from the state-sanctioned religion.Bolding mine.

[BJMoose]

Coulter has boobs? I thought that was impossible for reptiles.


Anyway. Forget the lists. The obvious plagarism is those passages where she clearly cut-and-pasted, changing a word here, adding a word there, presumably to "paraphrase" the original. That's hardly enought to make them valid paraphrases. And even if they were, she is still obligated to credit the source of the original idea. At least, that's what they taught us at Wossamatta U.

And of course, it is simply frivolous to point out that others have been guilty of plagarism, as if that somehow justifies the act. To use what must be by now a trite ripost, that is like saying we should give X a walk on that murder rap because others have committed murder.

[rjung]

The sobering implication is that this means there are other people out there like Ann, and they're being published!
You've never heard of Regan Books? (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Regan_Books)

[kaylasdad99]

From my post #18 in this thread, this article (http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/For_new_book_Coulter_cribs_adult_0613.html) details the (possibly) plaigiarized list:I went to Costco during my lunch hour, and checked the text. Following is the list just posted by Waenara. I have added the position of each item in the lists posted by Illinois RtL and Coulter, in boldFollowing are the fifteen items from Coulter's list side-by-side with those that appear at the Illinois Right To Life Committee's website:

Illinois Right To Life: Spinal cord injury repair (using stem cells from nasal and sinus regions) (1)

Coulter: Repairing spinal cord injuries by using stem cells from nasal and sinus regions. (2)

Illinois Right To Life: Complete reversal of juvenile diabetes in mice using adult spleen cells (2)

Coulter: Completely reversing Type 1 diabetes in mice using adult spleen cells (3)

Illinois Right To Life: Crohn’s Disease put into remission (using patient’s blood stem cells) (3)

Coulter: Putting Crohn's disease into remission with the patient's own blood stem cells (4)

Illinois Right To Life: Lupus put into remission (using stem cells from patient’s bloodstream) (4)

Coulter: Putting lupus into remission using stem cells from the patient's bloodstream (5)

Illinois Right To Life: Repair heart muscle in cases of congestive heart failure (using stem cells from bone marrow) (6)

Coulter: Repairing the heart muscles in patients with congestive heart failure using adult stem cells from bone marrow. (7)

Illinois Right To Life: Repair heart attack damage (using the patient’s own blood stem cells) (7)

Coulter: Repairing heart attack damage with the patient’s own blood stem cells (8)

Illinois Right To Life: Restore bone marrow in cancer patients (using stem cells from umbilical cord blood) (8)

Coulter: Restoring bone marrow in cancer patients using stem cells from umbilical cord blood. (9)

Illinois Right To Life: Restore weak heart muscles (using immature skeletal muscle cells) (9)

Coulter: Restoring weak heart muscles using immature skeletal muscle cells (10)

Illinois Right To Life: Put leukemia into remission (using umbilical cord blood) (10)

Coulter: Putting leukemia into remission using umbilical cord blood (11)

Illinois Right To Life: Heal bone fractures (using bone marrow cells) (11)

Coulter: Healing bone fractures with bone marrow cells. (12)

Illinois Right To Life: Restore a blind man’s sight (using an ocular surface stem-cell transplant & a cornea transplant) (12)

Coulter: Restoring sight in blind people using an ocular surface stem-cell transplant and a cornea transplant (13)

Illinois Right To Life: Treat urinary incontinence (using under arm muscle stem cells) (14)

Coulter: Treating urinary incontinence using stem cells from underarm muscle (14)

Illinois Right To Life: Reverse severe combined immunodeficiency (SCID) (using genetically modified adult stem cells) (15)

Coulter: Reversing severe combined immunodeficiency (SCID) with genetically modified adult cells. (15)

Illinois Right To Life: Restore blood circulation in legs (using bone marrow stem cells) (16)

Coulter: Restoring blood circulation in legs with bone marrow stem cells. (16)

Illinois Right To Life: Treat sickle-cell anemia (using stem cells from unbilical cord blood) (17)

Coulter: Treating sickle-cell anemia using stem cells from umbilical cord blood. (6)It appears that there is quite a bit of similarity in the sequence of the line items. I can't even speculate why she moved the sickle-cell anemia item up the list.

Coulter's list was headed by an item about healing liver tissue, damaged by cirrhosis (IIRC). Her list also did not make use of IRtL's line item's 5 and 13, dealing with Parkinson's Disease, and recovery from stroke, respectively.

She did put a footnote (#59) at the end of her list. The footnote refers the reader to an article in the May, 2005 issue of Citizen Magazine (apparently an organ of Focus on the Family). The title of the article cited is Why the Media Miss the Stem-Cell Story (http://www.fumento.com/biotech/stem-cell-story.html). The web page cited in the footnote is Understanding Stem Cells (http://www.fumento.com/sustemcell.html). An October, 2005 addition to the http://www.fumento.com/sustemcell.html page is an article (http://www.fumento.com/biotech/livers.html) about stem cells being used to heal liver damage, and MAY BE her source for line item #1 in her list.

I find it odd that her footnote implies that the page on Michael Fumento's site is a major source for the catalog of achievements that she presents in her list, whereas the article she references by title is silent on every item in the list; and that the reader is left to infer that ONE single item is sourced by a different article accessible from the page.

Coulter does mention Right to Life in the acknowledgements, but I cannot remember if it was specifically Illinois RtL. I am certain that her acknowledgement did not direct anyone to the URL for their website.

Pretty sloppy work, it looks like to me. I can't come to any conclusions about the issue, but I would be interested in knowing what kind of sanctions could be appiled against her, given that she tends to crib from people who are grinding the same axe she is anyway, and are (ISTM) hardly likely to press claims for damages.

[Gadarene]

Again, I'm with BJMoose: why in the world are people focusing on the list?

[kaylasdad99]

Beats me. I had a few minutes on my lunch hour, so I collected the information. Seemed a shame to not post what I found.

We don't travel in the same circles (obviously) but if I have any Ann Coulter-related fantasy, it is to be on a public forum with her, and to ask her, in front of everybody, why I'm supposed to have heard of her.

[Biggirl]

Well, she doesn't exactly deny the charge. (http://mediamatters.org/items/200607060002)

Wow, she's as funny as shit in on pie. (http://www.anncoulter.com/cgi-local/welcome.cgi)

She did say there was "more to come. . .". That was a threat, wasn't it?




Hold me!

[Scylla]

Well, with Kaylasdad's research it looks to me like she plagiarized. I was not aware of the sequence issue. I can beleive the lists would be similar, but basically identical and in sequence is difficult to discredit.

So, as one of the resident conservatives on this board, I hereby invoke my powers to declare a fatwa on Anne Coulter as a result of this egregious offense. As far as I'm concerned she is persona au gratin, and no longer entitled to reap any benefits from the Right Wing Knee-jerk Defense League on this issue.

Additionally I declare hyperbolous claims, gratuitous slams based on her looks, or purely fabricated lies used against her as fair and justifiable for the duration of this thread.

Ann Coulter:

By the power invested in me by whomsoever feels willing to vest such power, and assuming that such power is so invested in me to use at my own discretion and athority by any such granting agency, I do hereby cast you out into the darkness of left wing rhetoric so that the lefties may gorge themselves on the gristly meat of your pale bony plagiarizing ass until such time as they are sated.

May God have mercy on you.


-Scylla

[BJMoose]

Ahem. By the powers vested in me by Jay Ward I hereby declare Scylla fatwadist pro tempore extraordinaire and deem him worthy of the honors, awards and emolients incumbant of such lofty position, title and rankness. Huzzah, huzzah.


(What meat?? She's all gizzard. Or lizard. Or whatever.)

[BJMoose]

Huh. For some reason my previous post prompted a bunch of gooooooglads for trash cans. Make of it what you will.