# Plagiarism expert catches Coulter **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [July 3, 2006, 5:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/plagiarism-expert-catches-coulter/363022 "2006-07-03T05:03:42Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Waenara](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/50afbb/32.png) [@Waenara](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Waenara)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2006, 7:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/plagiarism-expert-catches-coulter/363022/61 "2006-07-04T19:29:57Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2006, 9:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/plagiarism-expert-catches-coulter/363022/62 "2006-07-04T21:22:35Z")
> [@if6was9](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![Contrapuntal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e274bd/32.png) [@Contrapuntal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Contrapuntal)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2006, 9:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/plagiarism-expert-catches-coulter/363022/63 "2006-07-04T21:46:53Z")
> [@iampunha](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2006, 10:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/plagiarism-expert-catches-coulter/363022/64 "2006-07-04T22:00:58Z")
> [@Waenara](#): > > 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?” ---
**Author:** ![iampunha](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/74df32/32.png) [@iampunha](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iampunha)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2006, 10:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/plagiarism-expert-catches-coulter/363022/65 "2006-07-04T22:12:25Z")
> [@Contrapuntal](#): > > 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:) ---
**Author:** ![Contrapuntal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e274bd/32.png) [@Contrapuntal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Contrapuntal)\ **Post date:** [July 5, 2006, 12:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/plagiarism-expert-catches-coulter/363022/66 "2006-07-05T00:13:48Z")
> [@iampunha](#): > > 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. \*\* ---
**Author:** ![Oakminster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/77aa72/32.png) [@Oakminster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Oakminster)\ **Post date:** [July 5, 2006, 12:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/plagiarism-expert-catches-coulter/363022/67 "2006-07-05T00:29:30Z")
> [@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. 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. ---
**Author:** ![treis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bc79bd/32.png) [@treis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/treis)\ **Post date:** [July 5, 2006, 1:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/plagiarism-expert-catches-coulter/363022/68 "2006-07-05T01:04:49Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > 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? ---
**Author:** ![iampunha](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/74df32/32.png) [@iampunha](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iampunha)\ **Post date:** [July 5, 2006, 1:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/plagiarism-expert-catches-coulter/363022/69 "2006-07-05T01:11:40Z")
> [@Contrapuntal](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [July 5, 2006, 1:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/plagiarism-expert-catches-coulter/363022/70 "2006-07-05T01:19:37Z")
> [@treis](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![treis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bc79bd/32.png) [@treis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/treis)\ **Post date:** [July 5, 2006, 1:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/plagiarism-expert-catches-coulter/363022/71 "2006-07-05T01:21:57Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [July 5, 2006, 2:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/plagiarism-expert-catches-coulter/363022/72 "2006-07-05T02:28:58Z")
> [@treis](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![mhendo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mhendo/32/3159_2.png) [@mhendo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mhendo)\ **Post date:** [July 5, 2006, 2:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/plagiarism-expert-catches-coulter/363022/73 "2006-07-05T02:48:24Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > 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. > [@magellan01](#): > > - 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. > [@magellan01](#): > > - 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. > [@magellan01](#): > > – 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. ---
**Author:** ![Wendell\_Wagner](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/8491ac/32.png) [@Wendell\_Wagner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Wendell_Wagner)\ **Post date:** [July 5, 2006, 3:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/plagiarism-expert-catches-coulter/363022/74 "2006-07-05T03:04:04Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![iampunha](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/74df32/32.png) [@iampunha](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iampunha)\ **Post date:** [July 5, 2006, 3:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/plagiarism-expert-catches-coulter/363022/75 "2006-07-05T03:05:09Z")
This wasn’t addressed to me, so feel free to smile and ignore, but: > [@magellan01](#): > > 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? ---
**Author:** ![JRDelirious](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jrdelirious/32/9531_2.png) [@JRDelirious](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JRDelirious)\ **Post date:** [July 5, 2006, 3:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/plagiarism-expert-catches-coulter/363022/76 "2006-07-05T03:18:02Z")
> [@Linty Fresh](#): > > 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_. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [July 5, 2006, 8:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/plagiarism-expert-catches-coulter/363022/77 "2006-07-05T20:35:53Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![Gadarene](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e47c2d/32.png) [@Gadarene](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gadarene)\ **Post date:** [July 5, 2006, 8:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/plagiarism-expert-catches-coulter/363022/78 "2006-07-05T20:49:51Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![Syntropy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/65b543/32.png) [@Syntropy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Syntropy)\ **Post date:** [July 5, 2006, 8:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/plagiarism-expert-catches-coulter/363022/79 "2006-07-05T20:58:11Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > [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… ---
**Author:** ![Contrapuntal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e274bd/32.png) [@Contrapuntal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Contrapuntal)\ **Post date:** [July 6, 2006, 12:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/plagiarism-expert-catches-coulter/363022/80 "2006-07-06T00:25:29Z")
> [@iampunha](#): > > 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! [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/plagiarism-expert-catches-coulter/363022.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/plagiarism-expert-catches-coulter/363022.md?page=5)