Political Insider

What do you expect from an REALY old guy. He can not wirte by himself, not even his staff. They are also too old.

It doesn't surprise me at all. This man doesn't have orginal thought in his little brain. My God what are we going to do if this unlearned man becomes the President of the USA. America will continue to be the joke of other nations as we go down further and further. To allow racism to be the determining factor as we elect a president is pretty sad, and we can only blame the racists of America that voted based on race to thank them(both rich and poor)for the continued mess and shame that is on our country today. This is really a joke to the republicans, for they are certain that the racists "Will Prevail" and they will elect another idiot to represent us to the world! What a shame! Obama 08!

It certainly looks like his speech writer used Wiki, but I don't think it warrants a plagiarism charge since it contains facts that are generally available elsewhere.

Plagiarism isn't using the same facts, but expressing them in the same words. The examples given make it obvious that someone on McCain's staff is going to resign soon (or be fired).

Amy wrote: "What do you expect from an REALY old guy. He can not wirte by himself, not even his staff. They are also too old."

Evidently REALY young people have problems with same...

Yes! After spending an hour on Wikipedia this weekend trying to figure out for myself what the heck is going on over there, I recognized those words immediately while CNN was broadcasting his "speech". Thank you for the verification.

Unlikely. First, plagiarized text is almost always longer than original text because the plagiarizer is trying to hide the origin -- but the McCain speech text is shorter.

Second, can you really plagiarize facts? Contra Albert Lewis above, the words are very much different. Even sentence structures are quite different. The third McCain section even contains information not in the Wikipedia version.

I think that about covers it.

Crucify him!!! No, just kidding... But, if this were Obama, they would be all over it!!!

I'm just amazed that JOHN McCAIN can find Wikipedia! Or that he has guys working for him that can. Whoodathunkit????

I'm not for Obama, but this material is clearly plagerized. Someone's head needs to roll. As for blaming McCain... PUHLEZE... name a single person running for the presidency that write's his own material or knows where his staff got the material... Sheesh and I don't even like the guy!

The good news is that plagiarism must be something new for the candidate, since he finished 894 out of 899 in his class at the Naval Academy. Let's hope he didn't cheat to achieve that result!

If a student had handed in this text, I would report it as plagiarism. The speech uses more than just facts, but verbal patterns. I suspect the wording in the third paragraph that's not from Wikipedia is from some other unattributed source. It sounds very much like an encyclopedia, too.

Good news and bad news here.

Bad news: sure, he copied it. Think of it like this. You're a teacher and this is a history quiz. A student turns in McCain's version, but you remember the Wiki-version from a student last year. Does McCain fail the test?

Good news: He's learned how to use wikipedia. Give him some credit here. This is a step up from The Food Channel.

You know, I just spent quite a bit of effort trying to find where a politician stating facts not in dispute had listed a reference source. Oddly enough, I have yet to find one. Not Hillary, Not Bill, Not Barry, not even George 1 or 2. Nobody, apparently, does this, unless there is a political point in play. Often the 'facts' cited by politicians are unsupportable, in any event. Apparently not so in this case.

Next, I did some research on the basic facts, not trusting my memory. Again, not in dispute, but I was just curious. The facts appear to be correct, and are stated in several established (read: older) references in a way quite similar to Wiki, which leads one to question- how in the world can "a Wiki editor" (yeah, I bet- like they have a lot of those on their hyperspace payroll; we are ALL potential Wiki editors) claim plagiarism for a plagiarized piece?

This has got to be the most underhanded and knuckle-headed story this year. The question is- and beyond the standard set by politicians of both parties- did he get the facts right?

This was not a policy statement, Taegan, meaning McCain's people are better with the facts than you are. But then, we knew you were a partisan and not a real journalist.

Consider another possibility: that McCain's spech was written by the same lobbyist(s) responsible for the content of the Wikipedia entry.

This is ridiculous, just as the accusations of Obama plagiarizing were pretty silly. I'm not sure I can think of another way to succintly state the first instance. THe second and third instances "seem" the same because they simply list accepted historical events in chronological order. Would you rather he use a narrative flashback strategy in his discussion to avoid this "plagiarism" of simply stating an historical timeline??

McCain is stupid AND a fool

What an old thieving fool! All he had to say was, "According to Wikipedia, 'yadda yadda yadda'" and there wouldn't have been anything wrong with his stupid speech. Why do Republicans always just STEAL stuff, instead of ethically giving credit where it is do. They certainly are an entitled bunch, huh?

do = due (of course)

as in "Why do Republicans always just STEAL stuff, instead of giving credit where it is DUE?"

OK kiddies, time to get back on the meds. In the first instance, exactly how would you state that fact in some way that didn't come out something like the Wikipedia statement? The second one isn't even close to being plagiarism, and as a college professor, I look for and find it for a living. As for the third one, oh please. If this is the caliber of Obama supporters out there, he doesn't stand a chance of getting any more support than he already has.

This is the silliest story of the campaign so far. I think I will skip this blog from now on.

The third comment was less of a direct lift because it had too many more foreign names for McCain to pronounce. His lack of authentic knowledge of the World is frightening - and a recipe for disaster. Recipes are not the McCain family's strength area.

The historical details seem to have been written with Wikipedia fresh in the author's mind, at least, if not outright copied. That said, the important elements of the speech are the policies put forth by McCain, which were not "[based] on material from Wikipedia", as the article so snarkily asserted. The speechwriter added some potentially plagiarized fluff, and will likely be disciplined accordingly.

The actual ideas in the speech were sufficiently poignant and original to be making international news, and have drawn a fairly clear distinction between the readiness of the two candidates to tackle this sort of crisis, I think.

Well, they've got to get they're information somewhere in a fast manner. Although referencing Wikipedia will sound dumb. Either way I'm sure this won't cause a rise in many people except for the ones that already hate McCain.

Check out my blog and comment please

www.pmond.blogspot.com

If we grant the argument that this is not plagiarism, then what are we to think of McCain using Wikipedia as a primary source to comment on world events?

Can't he call on one of his staffers with primary experience in that area of the world? At least one who has lobbied for those countries?

Considering that this guy has never used the Internet and is sooo out of touch with the American way of life, do you really want to elect him? Seriously, it's like bringing back old Abe who was actually for slavery. Don't be stupid. Barack is your only vote unless you want to see more dead Americans in Iraq.

Good thing he didn't plagiarize from Conservapedia, which can't even seem to spell Saakashvili's name right in the first paragraph!

http://www.conservapedia.com/Georgia_%28country%29

"Good thing he didn't plagiarize from Conservapedia, which can't even seem to spell Saakashvili's name right in the first paragraph!"

Are you not aware that the Georgians use the Cyrillic alphabet and that all Roman alphabetical spellings are, therefore, merely transliterations of the original?

Note, Tchaikovsky and Chaikovsky (and others) are considered suitable spellings of the composer's name, as one example of countless available examples.

Yeah, I'm sure the editors at Conservapedia just transliterated it directly from Georgian on their own, ignoring all standard transliterations (cause that's what you want to do with a resource like that) and hence the mixup! LMAO!

I work in education and I unfortunately deal with issues of plagiarism. As a teacher, I would call it's plagiarism. McCain lacks academic honesty, and more importantly ideas of his own.

9s, if you work in education, I hope you don't teach English. Grammar and spelling are not your strong suits.

Why isn't Wikipedia making the plagiarism argument?

"McCain lacks academic honesty, and more importantly ideas of his own."

Again, the "ideas" in this statement are not those snippets ostensibly modeled after the Wikipedia text. The ideas are those other things in the statement--how the world should handle the crisis--and quite effectively illuminate his superiority over Obama foregin affairs issues.

I suspect that is the motivation behind this petty, immature, and feckless whining about this.

armadillo, reading message boards seems not to be your strong suit as it wasn't me who said I worked in education.

Anyway, I'm glad so many McCain supporters are comfortable with him plagiarizing wikipedia. It was painful watching him plagiarize Bush all the time, and, you know, get so many things wrong.

As for his "ideas" being the true substance of McCain's response, does he really think that deploying NATO peacekeepers to S. Ossetia is the way to go, since it was Georgia's angling for NATO membership that was part of the problem for Russia here? Does that make any sense?

You can't wikipedia ideas like that!

yeah i relly wouldnt be surprised if it was plagerized no one can relly come up with original ideas for a speech and if someone did id be very surprised

Why is everyone on McSame's case...he promised to use the internet more often and now that he has, he's getting villified...give the old Codger a break for heaven's sake...After all, he was able to find the right reference...it could have been a piece on Sherman's march through the Deep South...

cowboyNEok:

Also as a college professor, you should be ashamed of your critical comments about someone. A professor should never demean another person, we are to guide and enhance others educational abilities. If I were a student of yours I would walk out of your class and withdraw. Your job is to nuture, not to demean. I would also like to know where your definition lies in the words of plagarism? Seen a Funk & Wagnal Lately!!

This is a pretty weak argument against McCain, but just so he covers his bases in the future, he should definitely start using the first person narrative to avoid all accusations of plagiarism. The speech would have been better written as:

"After the Russian Revolution of 1917, I remember, as a young man, watching Georgia go through a brief period of independence as a Democratic Republic (1918-1921). Much to my chagrin, this fledgling Democratic Republic was terminated by the Red Army invasion of Georgia. Ever since then, I have been hoping for a chance to right this great wrong."

cowboyNEOK is lying about being a college professor. I am a REAL college professor. I would never accept this from a student. At any legitimate university, all three of those examples would be considered plagiarism and would be grounds for dismissal from the university. Transposing clauses is not the same as writing original text. If cowboyNEOK considers this acceptable; he is not the kind of professor that should be teaching your children.

This is actually quite serious. Plagiarism is not just a sign of intellectual laziness; it is a moral violation, a form of stealing. This is a huge problem for a presidential candidate.

Professor cowboyNEOK is a fraud, and it was simple to detect that. The lack of intelectual content in a statement is a sure way of knowing .Eigth grade stuff, sorry no offense meant to eigth graders.

All one needs to do to check for plagiarism is to use something like copyscape or some other text checker.

It won't have been McCain who wrote his speech - he's hardly au fait with foreign affairs is he. What would worry me is a potential President having advisers who have so little knowledge of the area that they have to research it - where are the experts who can dash off a few paragraphs because they know it back to front.

Very sloppy, if it is hacked together. Time (and plagiarism checks) will tell.

Why wouldn't he read Wiki on South Ossetia and come up to a better conclusion ... or thinking is tough when you that old!?

"In the early 2000s, it was reported that 95% of the population in South Ossetia were Russian citizens"
"Separatists claim that Georgians killed at least 1000 South Ossetian people before the Russians intervened."

Russia try to defend its citizens ... USA, as always, thinks about OIL pipeline.

First off, those who've commented on my comment by responding to 'CowboyNEOK' undermine their own supposed professorships by uniformly being unable to read: the name of the commenter is UNDER the comment.

Apart from the idiotic, '[Y]our job is to nuture (sic), not to demean' (NO, my job is to teach. Maybe at your daycare center that's the mission, but it's not mine), the comments humorous. The entire case for plagiarism comes down to the repitition of three clauses embedded in larger passages in the second two statements: "brief period of independence", "regained its independence", and, believe it or not, "marked by". There is not a serious person on this planet who would count repeated short phrases of 3 or 4 words as plagiarism. A charge of plagiarism, to be taken seriously, needs, at the least, whole sentences (note the plural) or significant chunks of sentences repeated verbatim.

My point about the cognitive capacities of Obama's supporters online is, if anything, strengthened.

I am appalled that the Mc Cain supporters are so keen to excuse this obvious plagarism. They are twisting themselves in knots to justify it. If he were a Democrat, they would be all over him. Such hypocrisy!

This is just a continuing pattern from Conservatives. If a Dem does it, its wrong (no matter what what was done). If a Republican does it, its ok (no matter what was done). How do you guys sleep at night?

Mc Cain cheated on his wife, married the whore who is half his age and was a drug addict who stole from charity to support her habit. But hey, they are Republican, so its ok. McCain made propaganda films for the Viet Cong, but that's ok too.

I am not as disgusted with McCain as I am his supporters. Don't any of you vote for the best candidate and vote for the good of the country? Nope. Just Republican. He can be Idi Amin and you'd vote for him. Shame.

Incidently, I've voted Republican as much Democrat. My family began the Republican Party in Kansas. I am not a knee-jerk liberal.

I try to put America first, no matter what party to which the candidate belongs.

Be Americans, not Republicans, for a change.

Liadan

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k7Fez0oZbMI

Seriously, talk about missing the point.

The most troubling thing about McCain "borrowing" language/facts from Wikipedia has nothing to do with plagiarism. It has to do with the fact that (1) a Presidential Candidate is using WIKIPEDIA for his foreign-policy research (or, at least, using people who use WIKIPEDIA for foreign policy research), and (2) that he is relying on this information for a major policy speech.

It shows a serious lack of judgment, and a concerning level if incompetence on foreign policy. And, that's before you look at the completly insane content on policy positions that are actually IN the speech.

What are the chances that, if I had a chance to edit the entry before his "foreign policy advisor" got to it, that I could have pushed McCain into trying to get Atlanta (the city) admitted to NATO?

To smitty1276
Where did you get news that Georgians use Cyrillic alphabet? On Wikipedia? I am sure that they do not have such a stupid thing. Georgian Alphabet is among 14 alphabets in the world and is maybe 1000 years older than the Cyrillic alphabet. Georgians never used the Cyrillic alphabet. As for the plagiarism, I clearly see that Americans have really nothing to talk about. The facts in the McCain speech are well-known and they are written (almost) everywhere (Wiki authors are not coming from the other universe and they are writing from the well-known facts, at least in this case). Two wordings of the same fact can be quite the same. At least, the facts are true. And Wiki Editor has to overcome his political sympathies. That's all.

Hardly conclusive evidence. All are easily accessible facts from a variety of sources. Who's to say that the Wikipedia article isn't plagiarized?

Anyway, it's hardly an item that will have any effect on the election.

Political Republican

The issues surrounding plagiarism are often overlooked or completely misunderstood. The problem of plagiarism isn't that someone said something in a similar or same fashion (though that is the symptom). The problem is in fact that someone writing the speech didn't have any personal knowledge of the facts. A person who has in fact 'learned' something will take all the knowledge at hand and write their own material whereas a person who is just copying something will tend to change minor sentence structure but get the order of the facts in the same way because they are copying facts in the order they see them.

End result, yes if you copy the facts they may be similar but if you KNOW the facts you'll write your own material. So if you have a lobbyist for Georgia on your staff and decent speech writers, or if you yourself have an understanding of a country or situation, then you shouldn't need to copy facts like a third grade history report.

Have you seen this analysis about McCain's speech yet?
http://www.samefacts.com/archives/john_mccain_/2008/08/leading_by_example.php

McCain and his advisers HAD to get into Wikipedia since they were desperate to find out where the hell Georgia or Ossetia is so they could make a statement. Once there they thought "Hey, this is good enough." so they just took it and used it. This is the level of education and knowledge that should be expected from old neocon warmongers. Ignorance is a major symptom of disorder we will come to know as "Authoritarianism".

"War is God's way of teaching Americans geography."
- Ambrose Bierce

Use of what is considered "common knowledge" does not require citation of a source. As a Doctoral Candidate I would file this into the common knowledge category. To attempt to imply that some level of academic dishonesty has occurred in a speech that references historical information is a far stretch indeed. I read the referenced speech in it's entirety and find no evidence of plagiarism of anothers research, work or other efforts.

*** As a Doctoral Candidate I would file this into the common knowledge category ***

Wow, a doctoral candidate who's so stupid he thinks there's a reason to capitalize "doctoral candidate." Did you even graduate from high school?

Oh, and as to "common knowledge" (snort), I'm sure if you walk down the street and asked 100 people to name one of the first countries to make Christianity its official religion,, at least 85 or 90 would say "Georgia." And those famous fraudulent parliamentary elections of 2003 and the subsquent successful reforms of President Saakashvili -- why even bother mentioning them. My six-year-old could go on and on about them.

The real reason they went to Wikipedia.by the way, was to find out of Georgia bordered Iran or Czechoslovakia.

I find it interesting that for all the criticisim of original thought and implications of ineptitude the only attacks levied against Mccain are in reference to his sourcing of common knowledge.

As to the act of plagiarism: Random House defines it as "the unauthorized use or close imitation of the language and thoughts of another author and the representation of them as one's own original work. " To the first part of the definition: only the first instance actually uses similar structure and wording to the Wikipedia example. The other two are structured differently and only utilize the same common facts (dates, names, etc.). As for the second part of the definition, thoughts, only example two comes close to possessing an opinion or thought, that of the early post-Soviet years being defined by civil unrest. However, I believe that commentary to be generic and applicable to almost all former Soviet satellites during this period.

Without a doubt there are similaries between the Wikipedia article and Mccain's speech. Likely, the Mccain speech writer used the Wikipedia article as a reference point as I'm sure did the Obama speech writer. The point is, however, that both candidates reached opposing opinions on the event, suggesting that whatever bias, opinions, or "thoughts" that were laden in the Wikipedia article were not abused by either person.

That said it is pretty funny.

As a teacher, and Wiki editor I'm constantly warning my students about sourcing Wikipedia. Despite the success of the Wikipedia program - it is still fraught with errors. I would be hesitant over using it to develop my political speeches. In my editing, much of the time is reverting vandalism and correcting errors. The issue is not over plagiarism; but of the wisdom of using it as a reference in an important political speech in the first place. Imagine going to your physician with a medical concern and having him check for symptoms on Wikipedia or your lawyer using it to research legal cases. God help us all if presidential candidates are using it as a primary source; much less quoting without attribution. Unfortunately for John McCain - he gets the credit for such a bad decision; irregardless of the level of ignorance of his staff member.

FLASH -- LATE-BREAKING NEWS

In a press conference this morning, John McCain just announced that the population of African elephants had tripled in the past six months. Wildlife officials were unable to immediately confirm his statement.