Rand Paul plagiarizes Wikipedia in at least two public speeches

[whanztastic]

Politico uncovers more such examples of Paul borrowing others' words without attribution:

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/10/rand-paul-pledges-caution-wikipedia-entry-gattaca-99208.html?hp=t1

e.g.,

You must be logged in to read this quote.

They also mention a case in which Paul lifted words from the magazine CitizenLink, when talking about the DC school voucher program in a speech at Howard University.

This is just so lazy.

[Rooney]

I fully expect Joe Biden to firmly chastise Senator Paul concerning this behavior.

[DINGO Joe]

Paul lifted three pages of his book pretty much verbatim from a Heritage Foundation Report. 

http://www.buzzfeed.com/andrewkaczynski/entire-section-of-rand-pauls-book-copied-verbatim-from-case

[Bull Moose Base]

What exactly is the point of having a group like this, obsessed with presidential elections, if when one of the major, strongest-polling 2016 players expresses frustration that he can't challenge Rachel Maddow to a gun duel like he would like to, no one mentions it? Why are you all writing about anything else on the day Rand Paul reveals he is a full-on insane person/gaffe machine with 0% chance of getting elected president? How is this board not interested in that news?

[Mr. Morden]

What exactly is the point of having a group like this, obsessed with presidential elections, if when one of the major, strongest-polling 2016 players expresses frustration that he can't challenge Rachel Maddow to a gun duel like he would like to, no one mentions it? Why are you all writing about anything else on the day Rand Paul reveals he is a full-on insane person/gaffe machine with 0% chance of getting elected president? How is this board not interested in that news?

Hey, I do have to sleep you know.  And there is a huge time difference between the US and here, so Paul said this when I was asleep, and couldn't very well post on the forum. 

In any case, if you think this event is so momentous, there was nothing to stop you from starting a new thread on it as soon as you heard.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

What exactly is the point of having a group like this, obsessed with presidential elections, if when one of the major, strongest-polling 2016 players expresses frustration that he can't challenge Rachel Maddow to a gun duel like he would like to, no one mentions it? Why are you all writing about anything else on the day Rand Paul reveals he is a full-on insane person/gaffe machine with 0% chance of getting elected president? How is this board not interested in that news?

That was a joke. The plagiarism allegations are far, far worse than that comment.

[Lief 🗽]

It's funny that Rand Paul apparently doesn't know what the definition of plagiarism is? His excuse the whole time has been that he forgot to put in footnotes. But there's absolutely no indication in his speeches or his books that these words are anyone else's but his own.

And now he's threatening to shoot Rachel Maddow and Andrew Kaczynski, lol. Republicans better hope Christie is somehow the nominee, because all the other candidates are hilarious gaffe machine extremists apparently.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

It's funny that Rand Paul apparently doesn't know what the definition of plagiarism is? His excuse the whole time has been that he forgot to put in footnotes. But there's absolutely no indication in his speeches or his books that these words are anyone else's but his own.

And now he's threatening to shoot Rachel Maddow and Andrew Kaczynski, lol. Republicans better hope Christie is somehow the nominee, because all the other candidates are hilarious gaffe machine extremists apparently.

Yes; musing about a duel to defend his honor is equal to threatening to shoot somebody in cold blood .

[7,052,770]

It's funny that Rand Paul apparently doesn't know what the definition of plagiarism is? His excuse the whole time has been that he forgot to put in footnotes. But there's absolutely no indication in his speeches or his books that these words are anyone else's but his own.

And now he's threatening to shoot Rachel Maddow and Andrew Kaczynski, lol. Republicans better hope Christie is somehow the nominee, because all the other candidates are hilarious gaffe machine extremists apparently.

Yes; musing about a duel to defend his honor is equal to threatening to shoot somebody in cold blood .

Yes?

[Lief 🗽]

It's funny that Rand Paul apparently doesn't know what the definition of plagiarism is? His excuse the whole time has been that he forgot to put in footnotes. But there's absolutely no indication in his speeches or his books that these words are anyone else's but his own.

And now he's threatening to shoot Rachel Maddow and Andrew Kaczynski, lol. Republicans better hope Christie is somehow the nominee, because all the other candidates are hilarious gaffe machine extremists apparently.

Yes; musing about a duel to defend his honor is equal to threatening to shoot somebody in cold blood .

I guess he could be threatening to stab them with a sword in cold blood as well? I don't know his preferred dueling method bro.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

It's funny that Rand Paul apparently doesn't know what the definition of plagiarism is? His excuse the whole time has been that he forgot to put in footnotes. But there's absolutely no indication in his speeches or his books that these words are anyone else's but his own.

And now he's threatening to shoot Rachel Maddow and Andrew Kaczynski, lol. Republicans better hope Christie is somehow the nominee, because all the other candidates are hilarious gaffe machine extremists apparently.

Yes; musing about a duel to defend his honor is equal to threatening to shoot somebody in cold blood .

Yes?

A duel is a mutual agreement. Technically, Maddow would have to give her consent. You’re implying that Paul just wants to shoot her in the head at random.

[Paul Kemp]

It's funny that Rand Paul apparently doesn't know what the definition of plagiarism is? His excuse the whole time has been that he forgot to put in footnotes. But there's absolutely no indication in his speeches or his books that these words are anyone else's but his own.

And now he's threatening to shoot Rachel Maddow and Andrew Kaczynski, lol. Republicans better hope Christie is somehow the nominee, because all the other candidates are hilarious gaffe machine extremists apparently.

Yes; musing about a duel to defend his honor is equal to threatening to shoot somebody in cold blood .

Yes?

A duel is a mutual agreement. Technically, Maddow would have to give her consent. You’re implying that Paul just wants to shoot her in the head at random.

what the fck dude

[pbrower2a]

If you are plagiarizing Wikipedia, you are not going to get a good speech. Good reference material, though.

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

If you are plagiarizing Wikipedia, you are not going to get a good speech. Good reference material, though.

Wikipedia is not an officially recognized reference source. It's a good start, but you're not supposed to reference it directly in an academic context.

[RogueBeaver]

It continues, this time from another website.

[Maxwell]

Oh wow. This is starting to get serious.

[Citizen (The) Doctor]

I can't believe this might actually be an issue.

[RogueBeaver]

I can't believe this might actually be an issue.

Joe Biden certainly can.

[DINGO Joe]

If Rand does fight Maddow in a duel, he will be disqualified from ever holding political office in the state of Kentucky .

http://cincinnati.com/blogs/ourhistory/2011/11/20/i-solemnly-swear-i-havent-fought-a-duel/

[Badger]

In b4 another joe biden crack.

Seriously people, it was over 25 years ago.

[pbrower2a]

If you are plagiarizing Wikipedia, you are not going to get a good speech. Good reference material, though.

Wikipedia is not an officially recognized reference source. It's a good start, but you're not supposed to reference it directly in an academic context.

As with Encyclopaedia Britannica the material itself is digested to the level of understanding of a layman for most topics and perhaps to someone taking a university undergrad course for scientific matters. Where Wikipedia differs is largely that it has more topics of coverage, including local topics (like descriptions of highways).

If one knows little it is a good start. But it is that -- only a start. A warning -- I have made contributions to it, and not merely grammatical fixes, consolidations of text, and removals of euphemisms (such as "passed away" for "died"), or additions of local lore (such as descriptions of minor state highways).

In political speeches -- quoting Wikipedia articles undeniably shows a lack of imagination . To be sure I can cite this with impunity:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

because I wrote most of it!

I warned you about the reliability of Wikipedia.

[RogueBeaver]

Count is now at 5, this time a Forbes article in his book. He told NYT that he'll have his speeches "footnoted, like college papers." Wasn't that the book co-written by the Southern Avenger?

[barfbag]

It's funny that Rand Paul apparently doesn't know what the definition of plagiarism is? His excuse the whole time has been that he forgot to put in footnotes. But there's absolutely no indication in his speeches or his books that these words are anyone else's but his own.

And now he's threatening to shoot Rachel Maddow and Andrew Kaczynski, lol. Republicans better hope Christie is somehow the nominee, because all the other candidates are hilarious gaffe machine extremists apparently.

This is going to be a 2016 issue? I don't think so. It might be talked about by Democrats venting about Republican ads though. You Democrats are acting like this is the first occurrence of a politician plagiarizing a speech because it's an opportunity to embarrass the other party. Don't you think there's more important issues?

[Likely Voter]

Paul admitted "mistakes" to the NYT today and said he would find ways to fix it in the future but no one would be fired. But the more interesting bits of the article were his attitude...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

He still contends that it was all about not doing enough footnotes and says it isn't plagarism. But the way he has reacted to this shows he is a front-runner for my other thread on most likely to self-destruct. It isn't the plagiarism, it is the poor staff work combined with his thin-skinned and ham-handed reaction to the questions.

[Lief 🗽]

The Washington Times has fired Rand Paul.