If you conclude that Claudine Gay is the victim of the right, rather than a serial plagiarist, then you haven't read the materials you can obtain from the Boston Globe, hardly a right wing outlet.
Go read the 40 examples of outright cribbing from other authors. Claudine Gay created the problem for herself, but there is apparently a large group of pro-plagiarism folks ready to defend her.
I hate to say it, but anyone who still reads the NYT deserves their ulcers. I stopped years ago after cracking my phone screen by throwing it against the wall
“But not from these people,” should be the title of a 500 page book about how “conservatism” gradually merged with pure hatred and bigotry and attempted to destroy American democracy when they found the perfect pied piper in Donald Trump. Ugly times.
Good grief, that example. When you're writing a fact dense sentence, there's only so many ways to put the words together. THAT'S the best they could come up with for "plagiarism"? Pathetic.
It truly is remarkable how the msm always and I do mean always lets the bad faith get their fake attack in.
I’m still bitter about Acorn. Even John Stuart bought into that lie. And then when it was shown to be a lie, we never restored them. The asymmetry is awful
Yeah that wasn’t some amazing sentence. Seems like many people would end up writing the exact same sentence using the same fact. One sentence isn’t plagiarism anyhow.
Imagine if the grand daddy of these Nazi jihads, the hunting of President Willian J. Clinton, had been reported on objectively, noting the dubious characters of the lynch mob and their far-from honest machinations, the disingenuousness of the whole witch hunt, and how the whole thing was rat fucking on a far grander scale than ever before seen. Nope, instead the whole "Liberal Media" handed control over to a stinking band of barely-disguised Fascists with no more honesty or integrity than you could expect in a troop of medieval bandits or Franco's secret police.
Speaking of the CRT moral panic, what happened to that? Last year, it was the greatest threat to all of public education and was taught in K-12 classrooms all over the country. Now we almost never hear anything about it and it’s all about Diversity and Inclusion programs.
The media always lets them have their attack because it’s good entertainment. Unfortunately we never get to restore what gets lost. We never get to control the media to get back what they took
Dr. Swain had written, “Since the 1950s the re-election rate for House members has rarely dipped below 90%.”
Is she saying she was the first person to make this observation? This fact is so well documented it’s common knowledge. It’s in textbooks. If Swain is claiming credit for this, then *she* is the godddam plagiarist
So, if I were to publish and academic piece related to my field of study, I guess I would have to research every other word of every other similar writing on any even vaguely related issue, just to make sure that sentences I may have constructed from the many words of the English language don't just happen to match other similarly constructed sentences from other writers. In that way, I would protect myself from any accusations of plagiarism. Is that the process brilliant academics like Carol Swaim followed in whatever writings she published? I would certainly think so, especially in light of Pigfuck Rufo's accusations of Dr. Gay.
Right? You cite the source of a new or uncommon fact or finding. You cite and actually quote the source when it's a new or uncommon (i.e. profound or eloquent) *expression* of a fact or finding, irrespective of the properties of the fact or finding itself.
“Since the 1950s, the re-election rate for incumbent House members has rarely dipped below 90%.”
With or without the comma after the opening clause, the above is not particularly profound in content or expression. One might say it is "elegant" insofar as it is compact, without an extraneous word that I could find. Given the essential facts and almost any sentence that states them, a writer or editor could quickly reduce the latter to this exact construction independent of its putative existence elsewhere. There are only so many other ways to express this concept with so few words.
“Rarely since the 1950s has the re-election rate for incumbent House members dipped below 90%.”
“The re-election rate for incumbent House members has mostly surpassed 90% since the 1950s.”
Colleges have begun using plagiarism detecting services like TurnItIn. The problem is, given that there are only limited number of ways to write one can express the same point in the English language, just about any paper you run through it will have sentences that are similar to ones that are published somewhere.
It requires some discretion and judgment on the part of grader. You have to decide if it’s likely that a freshman really steal this one phrase from an obscure academic journal or is it just a coincidence?
when describing events past, you are bound to cite many of the same facts unless you are just writing fan fiction. You may draw your own conclusions from the historical record, but wholly original invention is frowned upon.
Elections have consequences. You elect conservative meatheads to the governorship and they appoint more conservative meatballs to the boards of trustees of public universities, who in turn, higher conservative meatheads as presidents.
Academia has long been a target of the right. Not because they really believe that universities are indoctrinating the youth into becoming Marxists. But because they want to indoctrinate the youth into rightwing extremism. The Koch network has been giving money to universities for the expressed purpose of hiring more professors who will promote their particular brand of libertarian twaddle for decades now.
They're going to adhere to both sides if it kills them. And it might if trump is reelected, but he'll probably just turn it into a tool of the state. If one side is an incoherent raging asshole, they're still going to stick their microphone in their face. The NYT's would have presented the Nazi party as an alternative to liberal tendencies that want to coddle the Jews.
"But several reliable, well-informed sources confirmed the idea that Hitler's anti-Semitism was not so genuine or violent as it sounded, and that he was merely using anti-Semitic propaganda as a bait to catch masses of followers and keep them aroused, enthusiastic, and in line for the time when his organization is perfected and sufficiently powerful to be employed effectively for political purposes."
- New York Times, November 21, 1922, in its first article about Adolf Hitler
holy fucking shit, you could swap in "Trump" instead of "Hitler" in that paragraph and it would be the same as what they wrote 100 fucking years ago. The NYT isn't the paper of record, it is trash and they deserve all the scorn we can muster. Fuck that shit.
A humble request: please don't refer to it as "university." Call it by its name: PragerU. Using the word "university" implies a sort of credibility that its founder wants it to have but clearly does not. Calling it by its given name also provides a convenient and entirely appropriate linguistic shorthand: any time you hear someone extolling the skills-enhancing value of slavery, you can reply "Hmmm...sounds like you've been PragerU-ed."
The Swain example just happens to be short. Why not quote some of the long passages instead of rewriting history?
If you conclude that Claudine Gay is the victim of the right, rather than a serial plagiarist, then you haven't read the materials you can obtain from the Boston Globe, hardly a right wing outlet.
Go read the 40 examples of outright cribbing from other authors. Claudine Gay created the problem for herself, but there is apparently a large group of pro-plagiarism folks ready to defend her.
Not Wonkette-quality work. Very disappointing.
I hate to say it, but anyone who still reads the NYT deserves their ulcers. I stopped years ago after cracking my phone screen by throwing it against the wall
Yep, they are the paper of kowtowing to the status quo.
I read the NYT. It's a mixed bag for sure, but not this time.
“But not from these people,” should be the title of a 500 page book about how “conservatism” gradually merged with pure hatred and bigotry and attempted to destroy American democracy when they found the perfect pied piper in Donald Trump. Ugly times.
Good grief, that example. When you're writing a fact dense sentence, there's only so many ways to put the words together. THAT'S the best they could come up with for "plagiarism"? Pathetic.
It's not plagiarism.
It's "sampling".
It truly is remarkable how the msm always and I do mean always lets the bad faith get their fake attack in.
I’m still bitter about Acorn. Even John Stuart bought into that lie. And then when it was shown to be a lie, we never restored them. The asymmetry is awful
I'm still bitter too, about Acorn and also Shirley Sherrod.
The first one is just a fact. Could Gay simply have calculated it herself?
Yeah that wasn’t some amazing sentence. Seems like many people would end up writing the exact same sentence using the same fact. One sentence isn’t plagiarism anyhow.
Imagine if the grand daddy of these Nazi jihads, the hunting of President Willian J. Clinton, had been reported on objectively, noting the dubious characters of the lynch mob and their far-from honest machinations, the disingenuousness of the whole witch hunt, and how the whole thing was rat fucking on a far grander scale than ever before seen. Nope, instead the whole "Liberal Media" handed control over to a stinking band of barely-disguised Fascists with no more honesty or integrity than you could expect in a troop of medieval bandits or Franco's secret police.
Speaking of the CRT moral panic, what happened to that? Last year, it was the greatest threat to all of public education and was taught in K-12 classrooms all over the country. Now we almost never hear anything about it and it’s all about Diversity and Inclusion programs.
The media always lets them have their attack because it’s good entertainment. Unfortunately we never get to restore what gets lost. We never get to control the media to get back what they took
Dr. Swain had written, “Since the 1950s the re-election rate for House members has rarely dipped below 90%.”
Is she saying she was the first person to make this observation? This fact is so well documented it’s common knowledge. It’s in textbooks. If Swain is claiming credit for this, then *she* is the godddam plagiarist
The question, what’s her source? Did she survey election results over the past 70 years herself or did she get it from somewhere else?
I’ve heard there there are more damming examples of plagiarism in her writing, but this is not one of them
So why not go with the damning examples? Why flash this nonsense around if they have better?
Carol Swain is clutching her pearls. If she clutches them hard enough, she might strangle herself.
and I for one am prepared to face her loss with unruffled countenance and stoic mien.
That would be nice times.
So, if I were to publish and academic piece related to my field of study, I guess I would have to research every other word of every other similar writing on any even vaguely related issue, just to make sure that sentences I may have constructed from the many words of the English language don't just happen to match other similarly constructed sentences from other writers. In that way, I would protect myself from any accusations of plagiarism. Is that the process brilliant academics like Carol Swaim followed in whatever writings she published? I would certainly think so, especially in light of Pigfuck Rufo's accusations of Dr. Gay.
Right? You cite the source of a new or uncommon fact or finding. You cite and actually quote the source when it's a new or uncommon (i.e. profound or eloquent) *expression* of a fact or finding, irrespective of the properties of the fact or finding itself.
“Since the 1950s, the re-election rate for incumbent House members has rarely dipped below 90%.”
With or without the comma after the opening clause, the above is not particularly profound in content or expression. One might say it is "elegant" insofar as it is compact, without an extraneous word that I could find. Given the essential facts and almost any sentence that states them, a writer or editor could quickly reduce the latter to this exact construction independent of its putative existence elsewhere. There are only so many other ways to express this concept with so few words.
“Rarely since the 1950s has the re-election rate for incumbent House members dipped below 90%.”
“The re-election rate for incumbent House members has mostly surpassed 90% since the 1950s.”
Colleges have begun using plagiarism detecting services like TurnItIn. The problem is, given that there are only limited number of ways to write one can express the same point in the English language, just about any paper you run through it will have sentences that are similar to ones that are published somewhere.
It requires some discretion and judgment on the part of grader. You have to decide if it’s likely that a freshman really steal this one phrase from an obscure academic journal or is it just a coincidence?
when describing events past, you are bound to cite many of the same facts unless you are just writing fan fiction. You may draw your own conclusions from the historical record, but wholly original invention is frowned upon.
This sucks. It really does. But what is happening at our country’s public universities is also scary and maybe even more dangerous: https://www.inquirer.com/columnists/attytood/gop-college-unc-chapel-hill-harvard-penn-dave-mccormick-20231219.html
Elections have consequences. You elect conservative meatheads to the governorship and they appoint more conservative meatballs to the boards of trustees of public universities, who in turn, higher conservative meatheads as presidents.
Academia has long been a target of the right. Not because they really believe that universities are indoctrinating the youth into becoming Marxists. But because they want to indoctrinate the youth into rightwing extremism. The Koch network has been giving money to universities for the expressed purpose of hiring more professors who will promote their particular brand of libertarian twaddle for decades now.
They're going to adhere to both sides if it kills them. And it might if trump is reelected, but he'll probably just turn it into a tool of the state. If one side is an incoherent raging asshole, they're still going to stick their microphone in their face. The NYT's would have presented the Nazi party as an alternative to liberal tendencies that want to coddle the Jews.
I think they did.
Yes that "Hitler isn't really antisemitic." editorial was so typical of them.
On-brand for the rag that "both-side"s Hitler
"But several reliable, well-informed sources confirmed the idea that Hitler's anti-Semitism was not so genuine or violent as it sounded, and that he was merely using anti-Semitic propaganda as a bait to catch masses of followers and keep them aroused, enthusiastic, and in line for the time when his organization is perfected and sufficiently powerful to be employed effectively for political purposes."
- New York Times, November 21, 1922, in its first article about Adolf Hitler
holy fucking shit, you could swap in "Trump" instead of "Hitler" in that paragraph and it would be the same as what they wrote 100 fucking years ago. The NYT isn't the paper of record, it is trash and they deserve all the scorn we can muster. Fuck that shit.
wow.
A humble request: please don't refer to it as "university." Call it by its name: PragerU. Using the word "university" implies a sort of credibility that its founder wants it to have but clearly does not. Calling it by its given name also provides a convenient and entirely appropriate linguistic shorthand: any time you hear someone extolling the skills-enhancing value of slavery, you can reply "Hmmm...sounds like you've been PragerU-ed."
PropagandaU.
Thank you. Calling that YouTube channel a “university” is galling to me.