DCP's ongoing problem with plagiarism

[_Res Ipsa]

toon, I think that’s a good description of the distinction.

[_fetchface]

DrW,

Fair use is complicated and doesn't just apply to private use. It applies to public use as well such as a newspaper or even an amateur blogger like Dan Peterson reproducing something in part (quoting it) and discussing it in a public forum without the original author's permission.

Others,

The question I had, was is there something in copyright law that clarifies that the work must be quoted with attribution for it to qualify as fair use? In other words, is plagiarism excluded from fair use somewhere in copyright law? What is the intersection of plagiarism and fair use in the law?

I'm wondering if what Dan did would be legally actionable or not.

I wasn't trying to say that fair use and plagiarism are similar issues. They are not.

[_Res Ipsa]

Citation is a factor that can be considered, but is not determinative.

[_Dr Exiled]

It's interesting that Dr. P took so long to remove the post. I wonder if he finally contacted infoplease and patheos, discovered that patheos wasn't happy and that infoplease wanted a hefty sum to use its material? Anyway, on to the next episode of plagiarism from our favorite serial plagiarizer.

[_Physics Guy]

Is it removed? I just found it, in the form with the final acknowledgement of Infoplease.

[_Lemmie]

Is it removed? I just found it, in the form with the final acknowledgement of Infoplease.

I think he is referring to the 2017 one, which DCP reposted in 2019. The content there was never modified, and has now been taken down, although the title remains. See first post of p. 16.

[_DrW]

Is it removed? I just found it, in the form with the final acknowledgement of Infoplease.

I think he is referring to the 2017 one, which DCP reposted in 2019. The content there was never modified, and has now been taken down, although the title remains. See first post of p. 16.

Pretty amazing thread, Lemmie. Just noticed that it is still running on the order of 100 page views per post.

If DCP's main objective in life is public attention (and many here believe it is), it's no wonder that he is posting "Thank You" notes to you, by name, on SeN.

Well done.

[_Lemmie]

Also, according to kiwi, if you notice plagiarism you are an arch-feminist?!!! Is this like Midgley's comment that homosexuality renders one unable to do history?

I may be way off here but I read that initially as a reference to Ms Jack's expose on Schryver. Kiwi probably thinks lumping the two incidents together puts a stain on yours but personally I'd consider you in good company there.

I was wondering why Kiwi was harshing on Lemmie. Ms. Jack would make more sense as his target.

And your suggestion is simply marvelous!

I can provide a bit more context on this.

About a year after l'affaire du Schryver, there was a thread at MADB wherein Pahoran and William kept calling me things like "man-hater" and "feminazi," you know, the kind of things MRA'ers say of women they don't like. I am, of course, rather conservative as feminists go, so the fact that even my pro-life evangelical feminism is enough to elicit such epithets and slurs from them says a lot about their attitude towards women.

Later, on Liz's private forum, Pahoran decided that repeatedly calling me a "man-hater" was a brilliant strategy. I asked him for examples of my loathsome man-hating and the only thing he could pony up was that most of my high-profile conflicts with LDS apologists have been with men (him, Schryver, Dan Peterson, etc.). Because apparently there are binders full of female LDS apologists out there whom I am giving a free pass to on account of their gender, and I've never been critical of Valerie Hudson or Juliann Reynolds or anything like that. (Ironically, I believe this went down on a thread where I had been ever-so-mildly critical of Cassandra Hedelius.)

I can't provide links or exact quotes since I left Liz's forum, but this is all to say, Pahoran (a.k.a. kiwi57) calling women who are critical of LDS apologists "man-haters" and "feminazis" and "arch-feminists" is just par for the course with him. And pretty much a badge of honor for us.

"Because apparently there are binders full of female LDS apologists out there...." .

Wow, interesting. Thank you for the background, MsJack, that makes a lot more sense now.

And thank you, I consider it an honor as well to be considered in MsJack's company. I hereby propose the role of Captain Marvel of MD for the venerable MsJack! (Maybe we can coax Cassius U into a showing of the film in her honor at dusk on the Great Lawn...)

You have paid me a great compliment, Lemmie; it is I who consider it an honor to be in your company. I don't often comment on your threads because I take no joy in Dan's ongoing humiliation (it grieves me that he and I could not remain on friendly terms through the years), but I am always amazed by your diligence and attention to detail.

If I am MDB's Captain Marvel, you must be MDB's Wonder Woman!

Incidentally, my book club will be seeing Captain Marvel this Saturday. Chicago-area Cassius faculty, students, and alumni are of course welcome to attend.

https://www.meetup.com/Northwest-Suburb ... 259547176/

Thank you very much, MsJack, you are too kind. And unfortunately, I am a little too far East to make your get-together, but I would be there in a heart-beat if the mileage was more reasonable.

[_grindael]

Hey Lemmie,

You are helping DCP. That's what is so ironic here. You helped him write a better article, but he still doesn't seem to get that he can't do what he did to write it. (Take it from where he did and jumble it all up, even when he finally gives some kind of credit).

But all this should be second nature to him. You cite, you proof, you have others proof, you edit, you go over and over it to make sure anything that is not original is covered. It's not only the right thing to do, it is reasonable and it is RESPECTFUL.

Maybe he'll learn something from your help. I hope so.

[_Lemmie]

Hey Lemmie,

You are helping DCP. That's what is so ironic here. You helped him write a better article, but he still doesn't seem to get that he can't do what he did to write it. (Take it from where he did and jumble it all up, even when he finally gives some kind of credit).

But all this should be second nature to him. You cite, you proof, you have others proof, you edit, you go over and over it to make sure anything that is not original is covered. It's not only the right thing to do, it is reasonable and it is RESPECTFUL.

Maybe he'll learn something from your help. I hope so.

It should definitely be second nature. That's what is so offensive about it. And his comment about being so afraid of inadvertent plagiarism because he reads so much is nonsense. He has to actively work to exchange synonyms, switch the order of adverbs and adjectives, etc. There is no chance he does this inadvertently. He calls it "close paraphrasing" without realizing that true paraphrasing is NOT "close," by definition. And paraphrasing still requires a citation. Peterson's close paraphrasing without giving a source is the DEFINITION of plagiarism.