YAWNNNNN!!! Is this a real nothingburger? Or is it a decoy/
Even a whiff of plagiarism is bound to put the Biden campaign on edge after the debacle of his 1988 run.
Whiff or no whiff, “plagiarism” is too strong a word for what actually happened.
Â
Former Vice President Joe Biden is far from the only Democratic presidential contender to use statistics and phrases for campaign texts without citation.
Well, I’m sure that in this New Age of Journalistic Precision and Integrity, even Republicans will be subject to The New Scrutiny.
Trump will never again get away with a campaign like the one he ran last time.
It would seem to fit according to the dictionary definition.
According to the Merriam-Webster online dictionary, to “plagiarize” means:
to steal and pass off (the ideas or words of another) as one’s own
to use (another’s production) without crediting the source
to commit literary theft
to present as new and original an idea or product derived from an existing source
“Using stats without citation” is rather different than “copying sections of text verbatim”.
When a person is accused of the latter, it’s not entirely honest to offer up a defense as if he were accused of the former.
The reason why this sticks to Biden is simple — BIden cares more about smokestacks (i.e. the “white working class men” who work in the factories that have smokestacks) than curtailing carbon emissions, and any climate change policy is inevitably a cut and paste job put together in a rush by some staffer.
so while some other candidates might inadvertently forget a citation, because Biden’s proposal is wholly the result of staff work there is no foundation on which policies are built, and you get this hodgepodge of other people’s ideas, and other people’s phrasings.
If you’re referring to Biden’s use of Neil Kinnock’s material, the dictionary definition has little to do with it.
Bear in mind that Biden had correctly credited Kinnock on previous occasions. Faulting him for not acknowledging the source once seemed (and still seems) silly to me.
Bear in mind also that when Dukakis discovered the facts, he fired the aides who had obscured them in order to (unfairly) criticize Biden.
Honestly, even back in 1988 there were better reasons to criticize Biden than this one.
nope. that’s plagiarism. see, for example: http://undergrad.psu.edu/aappm/sanctioning-guidelines.html
You’re missing the point.
Biden has been accused of a certain kind of plagiarism. This article defends him against a different kind of plagiarism, one that is generally considered more palatable. In common discourse, it is common to use stats without providing a careful citation, but lifting entire passages of text verbatim rubs people the wrong way.
It would be nice if people responded to the actual points I make. You have adequately rebutted the non-existent point “citing stats without attribution is not plagiarism.” My actual point way:
“Using stats without citation” is rather different than “copying sections of text verbatim”.
When a person is accused of the latter, it’s not entirely honest to offer up a defense as if he were accused of the former.
Only Gabbard and the new age writer is below Biden on my list of candidates and I have said numerous critical things about him but this accusation is utterly stupid.
It isn’t so much a problem THAT he plagiarized. The problem is WHAT he plagiarized, the talking points of the coal industry. Those talking points claiming that CO2 sequestration is up and ready to go so no problem with burning coal is a blatant, flat out, bald faced, through his teeth lie. He will know this if he is at all acquainted with the climate crisis, so he deliberately is trying to deceive the American public.
I take comfort in knowing the current occupant will never plagiarize anyone’s material. He hasn’t read anyone’s speeches or words, so his stupidity will always be original.
From what I read it was a bit more extensive “lifting” from other sources than I’d like (& this article implies) but just not a big deal, especially at this point. Most of the candidates totally blew their Spanish language sites recently (I think only Booker had one not riddled with errors). I don’t really care right now.
What concerns me more is how Biden makes my skin crawl. Maybe some women are comfortable with it but I’ve always hated it when old men act physically overly familiar with me the way Biden does. Worse than it making me feel sick to my stomach is when they get defensive if/when I’ve shown some signs of disapproval like frowning or jerking away. They act just like Biden who again made a passive aggressive “joke” at a campaign event regarding his “touchiness”. His response reminds me of entitled a$$holes I’ve dealt with all my life. He needs to let it go.
Blah blah blah, if he’s the nominee I’ll vote for him.
But every day I loathe him more just by watching and listening to him. And while I am definitely no fan of Sanders I have already decided that if the current poll numbers hold I’m voting for him in primary.
Apples and oranges. The shit in the 80’s came out of his own mouth and was not only not cited or properly attributed, but he pretended it was his own. This latest stuff is just staffers drafting things and not being careful and it happens ALL THE TIME TO EVERYONE. It’s also worth noting that they cited the sources elsewhere, which shows it was just mistakes and that they weren’t hiding those sources.
Trump running amuck, and we’re somehow worried about this?
SMH…