DCP's ongoing problem with plagiarism

[Physics Guy]

Posting notes in the way Peterson does is actually a really dangerous way of compiling notes on which to base a book of one's own. He posts slightly reworded quotations without proper attribution. And his own writing projects are evidently extending over years.

I've been writing some things for years, too. That's okay, but it does bring a problem with notes. If I find some old notes of mine from a few years before, and they sound good, I'm going to want to assume that I composed them myself and paste them into my draft. If I made notes the way Peterson does, that would lead to me submitting a substantially plagiarised text to a publisher.

Maybe if I knew that I had often been posting slightly jumbled paragraphs from other people, without noting either the exact original phrasing or the page numbers in the original works, then I would know that I couldn't just do that. Hopefully I would know, in that case, that if I found a nice passage in my notes, I wouldn't just be able to plug it into my draft. Instead I would have to go and check through the books that I had been reading at the time I made the note, to find the not-quite-but-very-close original versions of the paragraphs in my notes, so that I could properly quote them and cite them.

If I kept my writing notes in that way, and then actually did get around to trying to use those notes for my own writing, I would really kick myself hard for keeping my notes in such an inconvenient way. "Why, oh why," I would ask myself, "did I share and store my notes in a way that doesn't seem to be saving me any time now at all, but rather to be making it harder for me to write this book of my own? Not only are my notes insufficient as a compilation of things to quote and cite in my own book, because I haven't quite quoted exactly and haven't recorded the page numbers. Even worse, knowing my habit of inexact and unattributed quotation forces me now to question every single paragraph that I find in my notes, even ones that I did write entirely myself, because I can never be sure that I didn't copy and slightly re-word them, from somewhere.

"Why, oh why, did I not take the slight extra trouble, then, of properly quoting and citing? That would really have helped me to write this thing now. What I did instead was so unhelpful in my own writing project. Why, oh why, did I do it that way?"

[Gadianton]

Instead I would have to go and check through the books that I had been reading at the time I made the note, to find the not-quite-but-very-close original versions of the paragraphs in my notes, so that I could properly quote them and cite them.

These are all good points, and certain people should feel lucky to be getting the feedback they are getting. Imagine if nobody said anything, the book was published (because there is no such thing as peer review in mopologetics) and then the problems get pointed out. What then?

See, this is the reason why you actually want real, critical peer review. One of the reasons anyway.

But getting back to your points, I admire your optimism. My guess is that somebody is playing a game of cat and mouse, switching up their game to outsmart the competition, instead of submitting to peer review with a contrite spirit.

Those who have followed these developments from the beginning could prove me wrong. If the strategy of lifting footnotes was part of the first handful of examples from a few years ago, then maybe this really just is bad note taking. However, if this is a new strategy, my guess is that these aren't old notes from many years ago, but newer notes taken after the first examples of problems appeared. A new strategy to outsmart his reviewers, and it worked. Before I responded in the thread where music got brought up, I searched for a few sentence so as to know *who* I was actually responding to, but nothing came up, so I figured it was clean. But not everyone was outsmarted, apparently.

[malkie]

I tutored a class of adults who had dropped out of school for various reasons, and were now studying for the equivalent of a HS Diploma - GED or similar.

None of them had the slightest likelihood of becoming an academic of any sort - mostly they were aiming for health care aide jobs, or to get in to a trades course. All worthy aspirations.

But every one of them knew how to write an essay that included paraphrasing, quoting, and summarising. They used the built-in features of MS Word to collect reference information, and used mainly APA style for footnotes that indicated the sources of their facts/points. They also understood - usually from painful experience - that they needed to collect the reference information at the same time as the ideas they were going to use, because it's an incredible pain to go back afterwards and try to find and document source material - even for a 5-6-page essay.

Each year we wore out the electrons that maintain the relevant pages on OWL - Purdue University's Online Writing Lab.

These students knew that they could be ejected from a college course for plagiarism, and were pretty motivated to avoid such stupid errors.

This is at best grade 11 and 12 stuff.

[Doctor Scratch]

The Proprietor seemed to take umbrage the other day over my calling him "lazy," and yet, how are we supposed to characterize this behavior? On the one hand, I question the sincerity of the claims about all these posts functioning as "notes" for some book project. *Maybe* that's true, but delusional? Then again, I think the more likely explanation is that he (for whatever reason) thinks that it's necessary to post *some*thing to the blog every single day, regardless of how stupid, repetitive, or substance-free it happens to be, and so a big portion of the blog entries wind up being these "dumps" where he just copy-and-pastes big chunks of other people's texts into his blog entries. It's too much effort to actually write up original material each day (plus it would detract from the free vacation time he's getting), and so he just recycles old posts--including old eulogies or reminiscences he wrote for family members who have passed, and these "notes." All of which is to say: yes, it could be sloppiness, but I personally tend to think that this is more indicative of laziness, for what it's worth.

[Tom]

In March of 1980, an article by Richard L. Jensen and Gordon Irving, titled “The Voyage of the Amazon: A Close View of One Immigrant Company,” was published in the LDS magazine, Ensign.

Peterson has twice plagiarized this article, once as part of a blog entry dated September 16, 2017, titled Charles Dickens on the Mormons, and then again on June 13, 2019, in a blog entry, titled Charles Dickens, on “the pick and flower of England.”

Neither time did he attribute any of the work to Jensen and Irving.

Jensen and Irving begin:

In June of 1863 the Amazon, a passenger ship with 891 Latter-day Saints aboard, set sail from London. Just before the voyage, many Londoners—government officials and clergymen included--came for a firsthand look at the Mormons and their traveling arrangements. Among the visitors was author Charles Dickens,

and Peterson:

In June 1863, the passenger ship Amazon set sail from London for America with nearly 900 Latter-day Saint emigrants aboard.  However, just before she weighed anchor, many Londoners—including both government officials and clergymen—came to take a look at the Mormons, up close and at first hand, as well as at their traveling arrangements  One of these visitors Charles Dickens,

Okay, so far pretty factual, but use and arrangement of the language is cutting it a little close.

To continue with Jensens' and Irving's sentence:

Among the visitors was author Charles Dickens, who spent several hours on board the ship questioning British Mission President George Q. Cannon and quietly observing the Saints.

Peterson breaks up his copying by listing, unnecessarily, FOURTEEN of Dicken's works, with dates, as well as noting he is regarded as a great novelist. It doesn't obviate the plagiarism, however, which continues by adding phrase rearrangements:

Dickens spent several hours on board the Amazon, quietly observing the Saints on the ship and interviewing George Q. Cannon, a member of the Twelve who was serving at the time as the president of the British Mission.

The original authors continue:

A month later Dickens published an account of his visit to the Mormon emigrant ship. He pointed out that these were primarily working-class people, including craftsmen in many trades. Though he remained skeptical about what the Mormons would find when they reached Utah, Dickens was impressed by their thoroughgoing organization, their calmness, and their quiet self-respect:

And after several sentences on Cannon, from Peterson,

A month or so after his visit to the Amazon, Dickens published an account of it in an essay for the periodical All the Year Round (4 July 1863), titled “The Uncommercial Traveller.”  In his essay, he remarked that virtually all of the emigrating Latter-day Saints were tradesmen and craftsmen and their families, people of the working class.  He was worried about what these British converts to Mormonism might encounter when they actually arrived in Utah.  (He was surely familiar with the horror stories going around England at the time – which would continue for the next several generations — about the theocratic “Mormon kingdom” in the remote North American west.)  But he was deeply impressed by what he had actually seen.  The emigration was thoroughly well-organized, calm, orderly.

The original authors quote Dickens, starting with:

“I went on board their ship,” he said, “to bear testimony...

And Peterson follows suit, synonymously:

“I went on board their ship,” he wrote, “to bear testimony...

J & I finished up their quote of Dickens, and ended with this thought:

...have often missed.” Of the people themselves Dickens wrote that had he not known they were Mormons, he would have described them as, “in their degree, the pick and flower of England.”1

Peterson also ended his quote of Dickens in the same place, and also finished with Jensen's and Irving's thought:

have often missed.” Of the Saints themselves, Dickens confessed that, had he not known they were Mormons, he would have described them as, “in their degree, the pick and flower of England.”

Why not just give Jensen and Irving due credit for their intellectual ideas? A few synonyms, phrase rearrangements, and the insertion of some filler to spread out the plagiarism is STILL plagiarism.

Jensen and Irving's citation, missing from Peterson's use of their work:

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/stu ... y?lang=eng

Peterson's plagiarisms:

https://www.patheos.com/blogs/danpeters ... gland.html

https://www.patheos.com/blogs/danpeters ... rmons.html

Another instance: https://www.patheos.com/blogs/danpeters ... rpool.html

Dr. Peterson fails for at least the third time to credit the 1980 Ensign article. His unattributed paraphrasing of Jensen and Irving is still flawed. See here. And he gives the wrong publication date for A Christmas Carol once more. It’s not 1849.

[Everybody Wang Chung]

“As a dog returneth to his vomit, so a fool returneth to his folly.” — Proverbs 26:11

[drumdude]

“As a dog returneth to his vomit, so a fool returneth to his folly.” — Proverbs 26:11

Indeed. Every accusation is a confession.

It should be said again, DCP is profiting from this plagiarism. He gets paid for what he “writes” on patheos.

[Marcus]

Peterson is still plagiarizing, but this time it is a work by his colleague, Grant Hardy.

Peterson starts out with an explanation:

As a small constituent part of a long-term project that I’m working on, I’ll be extracting notes over the next several weeks or (more likely) months from John W. Welch, ed., Reexploring the Book of Mormon: A Decade of New Research (Salt Lake City and Provo: Deseret Book, 1992), and intermittently sharing them here. They represent the state of the questions as of the early 1990s and, in many cases, they will need to be fleshed out with whatever developments may have occurred over the past thirty-three years. (It’s also possible that, in a few cases, subsequent developments will have negated them altogether.) But that is a task for another time (or times). These are notes — sometimes including bibliographical hints for future reading — that I’m compiling for my own use, but I hope that some of you will find them of interest.

https://www.patheos.com/blogs/danpeters ... homes.html

He explains the source for his 'notes':

Tonight, I’m drawing on “Columbus: By Faith or Reason?” by Grant R. Hardy:

Then he begins writing, with his first quote matching Hardy's initial quote, which is fine, but then his penchant for plagiarism takes over.

I will first put quotes out of Hardy's work, followed by Peterson's 'notes.'

(Please note that Hardy's essay is quoted in full and properly documented as his work in multiple places online, I am taking my quotes from bookofmormoncentral's version, here:

https://archive.bookofmormoncentral.org ... _32-36.pdf )

As usual, I will highlight in blue the exact wording Peterson plagiarizes.
Starting with Hardy:

1 Nephi 13:12 "I looked and beheld a man among the Gentiles, . . . and he went forth upon the many waters.”

First Nephi 13:12 tells how the Spirit of God was to come down upon a man who would go "forth upon the many waters" to discover the posterity of Lehi in the promised land. This verse has long been understood as referring to Columbus.
[first para]
Against all of this, the Book of Mormon boldly asserts that whatever else may have been involved, Columbus's primary reasons for sailing were spiritual.
[paragraph 5]

And Peterson's 'notes,' with the exact plagiarism of Hardy in blue:

“I looked and beheld a man among the Gentiles, . . . and he went forth upon the many waters.” (1 Nephi 13:12)

This verse has long been understood by Latter-day Saints as referring to Columbus. And, assuming that identification to be accurate, the Book of Mormon seems to assert that, whatever else may have been involved, Columbus’s primary reasons for sailing were spiritual.

Back to Hardy:

Dominant historical opinion, on the other hand, has seen Columbus led by science, reason, restlessness, and conquest. Recently, historian Pauline Watts has taken a new look at this issue and argues persuasively that Columbus was in fact deeply influenced by prophecy and revelation.1

Ftnote 1:Pauline Watts, "Prophecy and Discovery: On the Spiritual Origins of Christopher Columbus's 'Enterprise of the Indies/ " American Historical Review (February 1985): 73-102.

[Para 1]

And again, Peterson plagiarizes:

When I was growing up, though, Columbus appears to have been generally seen as led by science, reason, and restlessness, and, perhaps most importantly, by greed and a lust for conquest. By the early 1990s, however, historian Pauline Watts had taken a new look at his motivations, arguing persuasively that Columbus was in fact deeply influenced by prophecy and revelation. [See especially Pauline Watts, “Prophecy and Discovery: On the Spiritual Origins of Christopher Columbus’s ‘Enterprise of the Indies,”’ American Historical Review (February 1985): 73-102.]

(It takes a lot of nerve to write "when I was growing up," and then follow it by straight up plagiarism of a colleague's published work. I'd love to see how the BYU honor code office would react to such blatant dishonesty.)

Peterson continues, finally quoting Hardy, but his source at the end is only for the 7th footnote Hardy included, not for Hardy's essay itself:

At least some recent scholarship, it seems, has come to agree with the Book of Mormon’s assessment of Columbus.

“In her article, Watts investigates the spiritual origins of Columbus’s voyages. She discusses the inuences of scripture, theology, astrology, apocalypticism, and medieval prophecy. She particularly focuses on a book that Columbus himself was writing but never completed, called Book of Prophecies (the fragments were first edited by Cesare De Lollis in 1894). In this book Columbus set forth views on himself as the fullfiller of biblical prophecies! Columbus saw himself as fullfilling the “islands of the sea” passages from Isaiah and another group of verses concerning the conversion of the heathen. Watts reports that Columbus was preoccupied with “the final conversion of all races on the eve of the end of the world,” paying particular attention to John 10:16: “And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold” (see also 3 Nephi 16:3). He took his mission of spreading the gospel of Christ seriously. “God made me the messenger of the new heaven and the new earth. . . . He showed me the spot where to find it,” Columbus wrote in 1500. [Watts, “Prophecy and Discovery,” 73]

The reference at the end does not refer to Hardy's work but to one of his footnotes, making it all too easy for Peterson to fold this paragraph into his plagiarism later, as one of his 'oops, I must have forgotten this was a quote' events.

Then, Peterson stops quoting and returns to what are ostensibly his own words--but, no surprise, they are not. He plagiarizes Hardy again:

Watts summarizes her argument by stating that "in the final years of his life,. . . Columbus came increasingly to see himself as a divinely inspired fulfiller of prophecy, the one who inaugurated the age of the unum ovile et unus pastor” ("one fold and one shepherd").8 "He came to believe that he was predestined to fulfill a number of prophecies in preparation for the coming of the Anti-Christ and the end of the world"9 (which also happens to be the context of Nephi's prophecies in 1 Nephi 13-14).

7. Watts, "Prophecy and Discovery," 73.
8. Ibid., 99.
9. Ibid., 74

And Peterson's plagiarism, again including Hardy's footnotes:

Watts summarizes her argument by stating that “in the final years of his life, . . . Columbus came increasingly to see himself as a divinely inspired fulfiller of prophecy, the one who inaugurated the age of the unum ovile et unus pastor” (“one fold and one shepherd”). [Watts, “Prophecy and Discovery,” 73.] “He came to believe that he was predestined to fulfill a number of prophecies in preparation for the coming of the Anti-Christ and the end of the world”9 (which also happens to be the context of Nephi’s prophecies in 1 Nephi 13-14). [Watts, “Prophecy and Discovery,” 74]

You'll notice that Peterson accidently left Hardy's footnote superscript "9" in his plagiarized part, even though he included the content of Hardy's footnote. He remembered to remove the superscript "8" however, but he put in the page number 73 which is from Hardy's footnote 7, not 8. These errors show his clear intent to plagiarize.

In the end this is a disgraceful plagiarism, yet another in a long list of Peterson's plagiarisms.

[Philo Sofee]

Peterson is still plagiarizing, but this time it is a work by his colleague, Grant Hardy.

Peterson starts out with an explanation:

As a small constituent part of a long-term project that I’m working on, I’ll be extracting notes over the next several weeks or (more likely) months from John W. Welch, ed., Reexploring the Book of Mormon: A Decade of New Research (Salt Lake City and Provo: Deseret Book, 1992), and intermittently sharing them here. They represent the state of the questions as of the early 1990s and, in many cases, they will need to be fleshed out with whatever developments may have occurred over the past thirty-three years. (It’s also possible that, in a few cases, subsequent developments will have negated them altogether.) But that is a task for another time (or times). These are notes — sometimes including bibliographical hints for future reading — that I’m compiling for my own use, but I hope that some of you will find them of interest.

https://www.patheos.com/blogs/danpeters ... homes.html

He explains the source for his 'notes':

Tonight, I’m drawing on “Columbus: By Faith or Reason?” by Grant R. Hardy:

Then he begins writing, with his first quote matching Hardy's initial quote, which is fine, but then his penchant for plagiarism takes over.

I will first put quotes out of Hardy's work, followed by Peterson's 'notes.'

(Please note that Hardy's essay is quoted in full and properly documented as his work in multiple places online, I am taking my quotes from bookofmormoncentral's version, here:

https://archive.bookofmormoncentral.org ... _32-36.pdf )

As usual, I will highlight in blue the exact wording Peterson plagiarizes.
Starting with Hardy:

First Nephi 13:12 tells how the Spirit of God was to come down upon a man who would go "forth upon the many waters" to discover the posterity of Lehi in the promised land. This verse has long been understood as referring to Columbus.
[first para]
Against all of this, the Book of Mormon boldly asserts that whatever else may have been involved, Columbus's primary reasons for sailing were spiritual.
[paragraph 5]

And Peterson's 'notes,' with the exact plagiarism of Hardy in blue:

This verse has long been understood by Latter-day Saints as referring to Columbus. And, assuming that identification to be accurate, the Book of Mormon seems to assert that, whatever else may have been involved, Columbus’s primary reasons for sailing were spiritual.

Back to Hardy:

Dominant historical opinion, on the other hand, has seen Columbus led by science, reason, restlessness, and conquest. Recently, historian Pauline Watts has taken a new look at this issue and argues persuasively that Columbus was in fact deeply influenced by prophecy and revelation.1

Ftnote 1:Pauline Watts, "Prophecy and Discovery: On the Spiritual Origins of Christopher Columbus's 'Enterprise of the Indies/ " American Historical Review (February 1985): 73-102.

[Para 1]

And again, Peterson plagiarizes:

When I was growing up, though, Columbus appears to have been generally seen as led by science, reason, and restlessness, and, perhaps most importantly, by greed and a lust for conquest. By the early 1990s, however, historian Pauline Watts had taken a new look at his motivations, arguing persuasively that Columbus was in fact deeply influenced by prophecy and revelation. [See especially Pauline Watts, “Prophecy and Discovery: On the Spiritual Origins of Christopher Columbus’s ‘Enterprise of the Indies,”’ American Historical Review (February 1985): 73-102.]

(It takes a lot of nerve to write "when I was growing up," and then follow it by straight up plagiarism of a colleague's published work. I'd love to see how the BYU honor code office would react to such blatant dishonesty.)

Peterson continues, finally quoting Hardy, but his source at the end is only for the 7th footnote Hardy included, not for Hardy's essay itself:

At least some recent scholarship, it seems, has come to agree with the Book of Mormon’s assessment of Columbus.

The reference at the end does not refer to Hardy's work but to one of his footnotes, making it all too easy for Peterson to fold this paragraph into his plagiarism later, as one of his 'oops, I must have forgotten this was a quote' events.

Then, Peterson stops quoting and returns to what are ostensibly his own words--but, no surprise, they are not. He plagiarizes Hardy again:

Watts summarizes her argument by stating that "in the final years of his life,. . . Columbus came increasingly to see himself as a divinely inspired fulfiller of prophecy, the one who inaugurated the age of the unum ovile et unus pastor” ("one fold and one shepherd").8 "He came to believe that he was predestined to fulfill a number of prophecies in preparation for the coming of the Anti-Christ and the end of the world"9 (which also happens to be the context of Nephi's prophecies in 1 Nephi 13-14).

7. Watts, "Prophecy and Discovery," 73.
8. Ibid., 99.
9. Ibid., 74

And Peterson's plagiarism, again including Hardy's footnotes:

Watts summarizes her argument by stating that “in the final years of his life, . . . Columbus came increasingly to see himself as a divinely inspired fulfiller of prophecy, the one who inaugurated the age of the unum ovile et unus pastor” (“one fold and one shepherd”). [Watts, “Prophecy and Discovery,” 73.] “He came to believe that he was predestined to fulfill a number of prophecies in preparation for the coming of the Anti-Christ and the end of the world”9 (which also happens to be the context of Nephi’s prophecies in 1 Nephi 13-14). [Watts, “Prophecy and Discovery,” 74]

You'll notice that Peterson accidently left Hardy's footnote superscript "9" in his plagiarized part, even though he included the content of Hardy's footnote. He remembered to remove the superscript "8" however, but he put in the page number 73 which is from Hardy's footnote 7, not 8. These errors show his clear intent to plagiarize.

In the end this is a disgraceful plagiarism, yet another in a long list of Peterson's plagiarisms.

I sincerely genuinely have to wonder at this point of the ongoing plagiarism if he is overly trying to NOT appear like a Hugh Nibley with his gatrillions of footnotes and references. No one in Mormonism actually really liked wading through all that, I did though. No, I am not patting myself on the back, but I thought it was so damn impressive how thoroughly Nibley did his homework and showed the incredible sources he used. I LOVED showing off with over 300 footnotes in papers when I could. Maybe the backlash against Nibley's method is why Peterson wants it all to appear as first person off the top of his head to display a supposed vast and intellectual IQ of remembering ALL THIS STUFF, when in fact, it is merely lazy stealing after all. Who knows?

[Everybody Wang Chung]

I sincerely genuinely have to wonder at this point of the ongoing plagiarism if he is overly trying to NOT appear like a Hugh Nibley with his gatrillions of footnotes and references. No one in Mormonism actually really liked wading through all that, I did though. No, I am not patting myself on the back, but I thought it was so damn impressive how thoroughly Nibley did his homework and showed the incredible sources he used. I LOVED showing off with over 300 footnotes in papers when I could. Maybe the backlash against Nibley's method is why Peterson wants it all to appear as first person off the top of his head to display a supposed vast and intellectual IQ of remembering ALL THIS STUFF, when in fact, it is merely lazy stealing after all. Who knows?

It’s a combination of the Afore’s unethical behavior and his laziness. I’ve never met a bigger poser.