DCP's ongoing problem with plagiarism

[_I have a question]

Lemmie,

I'm up to now FIVE Deseret News articles where there is undeniable, irrefutable evidence of plagiarism. I've decided not to post them here because I'm genuinely curious if he'll correct his, uh, mistakes OR if DN editors care enough to conduct a review and correct any, uh, mistakes.

- Doc

Which makes JP’s arguments even more laughable than they already were.

[Guest]

It is telling that Peterson only corrects his plagiarism when it is discovered by someone else. He knows there are many, many more, is he going to wait until each one is discovered to give credit to all of the authors whose intellectual property he has plagiarized?

Yep.

I think you guys may have laid bare, a serial plagiarist who’s been passing others work off as his own for a long, long, time.

[_Philo Sofee]

The main problem with DCP's engagement with science is that he often cites, and sides with, anti-science religionists ranging from pseudoscientific "experts" with Ph.D.s, to out and out crackpots such as those associated with Ken Ham or the Discovery Institute.

This cadre of anti-evolution young earth creationists, intelligent designers, quantum mechanical mis-interpreters, dowsing adherents, cosmological fine tuners, and other assorted denizens of the anti-science / pseudoscience fringe get more play on Sic et Non than Elvis Presley on payola radio.

The fact that DCP searches out and cites these kinds of wingnut sources is a clear indication that he hasn't got a clue what he is talking about, or that he is intentionally misrepresenting science in order to meet his perceived obligations as an apologist. Unlike religion, science is not whatever one happens to believe. Modern science is what remains as reality whether one decides to believe it or not.

What else is fascinating is how all his other readers simply fall at his feet in adulation of it. I mean, seriously, does anyone read anymore?! I have taken him to task on this numerous times here on this board (in fact, it bores the hell out of us, but ought not to, it ought to galvanize us actually) for just that one sided enlightening without actual context (which means the OTHER side - duh!). If a scientist is a Christian, Peterson will be there. No matter how idiotic their reasoning or evidence is, Peterson will be there. He doesn't think through things himself, he finds a way to bolster Mormonism with non-Mormons (the mirage of being objectively credible), and it actually works with the majority of Mormons familiar with him and his writings! When he used Ehrman as a basis of his agnosticism yet believing in a historical Jesus, I threw the book at him! And I think justifiably. Ehrman's Jesus would never correlate to the invention of Mormonism's Jesus, historical, theological, philosophical or otherwise. Ehrman's vast majority of research destroys the Mormon authors' views of Jesus, be they from the BYU Studies group, the FARMS group, or the General Conference group of geriatrics running the show. But hey! Ehrman still supports Mormonism!

It's stupidity like this that makes Peterson fascinating. His own intelligence is his own enemy and he cannot see the forest for the trees. His bias runs rough shod over everything that might make Joseph Smith look like a complete dolt, and there is much! His ignoring the obvious is the other side of the coin of him using only biased materials which might make Mormonism a smidgin more acceptable.

[_Lemmie]

Lemmie,

I'm up to now FIVE Deseret News articles where there is undeniable, irrefutable evidence of plagiarism. I've decided not to post them here because I'm genuinely curious if he'll correct his, uh, mistakes OR if DN editors care enough to conduct a review and correct any, uh, mistakes.

- Doc

I'm curious too, Doc, what the DN policy is these days. Someone referenced when the Eyres were caught plagiarizing in their DesNews column, If I recall correctly, the DesNews reported that in response they went back and reviewed some 200 or so columns for plagiarism.

[_Tator]

Looks like the integrity of DN, BYU, Pasterson's associates are likely to be called into question. They would all be wise to open an investigation and get this mess cleaned up ASAP. Pasterson isn't going to do it, in my not so humble opinion.

[_Maksutov]

The main problem with DCP's engagement with science is that he often cites, and sides with, anti-science religionists ranging from pseudoscientific "experts" with Ph.D.s, to out and out crackpots such as those associated with Ken Ham or the Discovery Institute.

This cadre of anti-evolution young earth creationists, intelligent designers, quantum mechanical mis-interpreters, dowsing adherents, cosmological fine tuners, and other assorted denizens of the anti-science / pseudoscience fringe get more play on Sic et Non than Elvis Presley on payola radio.

The fact that DCP searches out and cites these kinds of wingnut sources is a clear indication that he hasn't got a clue what he is talking about, or that he is intentionally misrepresenting science in order to meet his perceived obligations as an apologist. Unlike religion, science is not whatever one happens to believe. Modern science is what remains as reality whether one decides to believe it or not.

What else is fascinating is how all his other readers simply fall at his feet in adulation of it. I mean, seriously, does anyone read anymore?! I have taken him to task on this numerous times here on this board (in fact, it bores the hell out of us, but ought not to, it ought to galvanize us actually) for just that one sided enlightening without actual context (which means the OTHER side - duh!). If a scientist is a Christian, Peterson will be there. No matter how idiotic their reasoning or evidence is, Peterson will be there. He doesn't think through things himself, he finds a way to bolster Mormonism with non-Mormons (the mirage of being objectively credible), and it actually works with the majority of Mormons familiar with him and his writings! When he used Ehrman as a basis of his agnosticism yet believing in a historical Jesus, I threw the book at him! And I think justifiably. Ehrman's Jesus would never correlate to the invention of Mormonism's Jesus, historical, theological, philosophical or otherwise. Ehrman's vast majority of research destroys the Mormon authors' views of Jesus, be they from the BYU Studies group, the FARMS group, or the General Conference group of geriatrics running the show. But hey! Ehrman still supports Mormonism!

It's stupidity like this that makes Peterson fascinating. His own intelligence is his own enemy and he cannot see the forest for the trees. His bias runs rough shod over everything that might make Joseph Smith look like a complete dolt, and there is much! His ignoring the obvious is the other side of the coin of him using only biased materials which might make Mormonism a smidgin more acceptable.

Nibley offered a security blanket to TBMs. DCP has taken up that role. Never mind that the blanket is threadbare, unraveling and obviously useless. Never mind that the blanket often seems equally a veil for concealing the truths that expose the fraud of the "Lord's Anointed." Never mind it's also a veil between the believer and the frightening necessity of growing up and becoming an adult in the world, responsible for your own thoughts and identity rather than forever remaining an obedient embryo encapsulated in a corporate cult. Never mind.

[_Tom]

Lemmie,

I'm up to now FIVE Deseret News articles where there is undeniable, irrefutable evidence of plagiarism. I've decided not to post them here because I'm genuinely curious if he'll correct his, uh, mistakes OR if DN editors care enough to conduct a review and correct any, uh, mistakes.

- Doc

I'm curious too, Doc, what the DN policy is these days. Someone referenced when the Eyres were caught plagiarizing in their DesNews column, If I recall correctly, the DesNews reported that in response they went back and reviewed some 200 or so columns for plagiarism.

Some relevant links regarding the Eyres:

https://www.deseretnews.com/article/765 ... tml?pg=all

https://www.deseretnews.com/article/765 ... plete.html

[_Lemmie]

from the links Tom gave:

Several paragraphs in that column erroneously failed to use quotation marks to properly attribute their source as an article written for the New York Times by Adam Grant. Grant's article was directly referenced at the opening and close of the Eyres' column.

So, even though the Grant article was referenced at the beginning and end of the column, the Deseret News considers that the lack of quotation marks within the column indicated a failure to properly attribute the source.

The Deseret News demands accuracy in attribution and sourcing. We require our columnists to submit articles that are original and accurate in content and style. The Eyres have acknowledged the seriousness of this error and have assured us this was an inadvertent oversight.

Inadvertent, in that unlike Peterson's approach, after the plagiarism was noticed, the plagiarism didn't happen again and again and again?

Given the seriousness of this mistake we have taken the following steps. We have removed the column from DeseretNews.com. The Deseret News and the Eyres have formally apologized to the New York Times and Mr. Grant. Finally, we are conducting further review of this incident and our processes.

We offer sincere apologies to both The New York Times and Mr. Grant.

So the seriousness of the mistake requires 1) the column being removed, 2) a formal apology to the plagiarized author and their publisher, and 3) further review.

Clearly Peterson doesn't deal with reports of his own plagiarism this professionally, but one would assume that his columns in the DesNews surely must be held to their standard.

[_Philo Sofee]

I would say contacting Deseret News would be in order here concerning the plagiarizing of Peterson in relation to how they handled the Eyres. Maybe they could show they are serious across the board about the infractions of plagiarizing over and over again.....

[_Everybody Wang Chung]

I would say contacting Deseret News would be in order here concerning the plagiarizing of Peterson in relation to how they handled the Eyres. Maybe they could show they are serious across the board about the infractions of plagiarizing over and over again.....

Agreed. It has been shown over and over again that Daniel C. Peterson is incapable of not plagarizing. It's like plagarizing is heroin and DCP is the addict.

Someone needs to step in and help save him from himself. It's time for an intervention.