plagiarism - Political Forum

dogmaphobe · #1 (**permalink**) 08-31-2007, 11:26 AM

I had a question for the site administration in regards to plagiarism. I see no specific rule regarding the use of such, (I might have missed it) but as I have been on boards that reverted to little more than propaganda wars of cut and pastes instead of original thought, I'm concerned abou the practice. Having noticed it here, I would like to enquire as to your opinions on it.

I think plagiarized articles from propaganda sites run counter to the desired objectives of fostering discourse. Are they allowed here?

thanks

Ygorl · #2 (**permalink**) 08-31-2007, 11:59 AM

I know we can post writings FROM other places as long as we SITE them.

Site them AND comment on them.

Izzibeth · #3 (**permalink**) 08-31-2007, 12:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ygorl

I know we can post writings FROM other places as long as we SITE them.

Site them AND comment on them.

Yeah, that is supposed to be allowed. I would assume that anyone passing anyone else's work off as their own would be banned if not severely warned. I haven't seen this.

Dogmaphobe, do you have any specific threads you are talking about?

Bradgriff · #4 (**permalink**) 08-31-2007, 12:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ygorl

I know we can post writings FROM other places as long as we SITE them.

Site them AND comment on them.

I suggest......uhhh hmmm hmmm (clearing throat)...that for every word of text presented by a poster that someone else wrote, they write, give or take, an equal number of words commenting on the article. I mean this is supposed to be us, the posters interacting, and this would also ensure that the poster actually read the whole article they are citing, instead of just having read the headline, and dumped it out for us straight away. What do you think?

Sebelius for VP, not Hillary · #5 (**permalink**) 08-31-2007, 02:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bradgriff

I suggest......uhhh hmmm hmmm (clearing throat)...that for every word of text presented by a poster that someone else wrote, they write, give or take, an equal number of words commenting on the article. I mean this is supposed to be us, the posters interacting, and this would also ensure that the poster actually read the whole article they are citing, instead of just having read the headline, and dumped it out for us straight away. What do you think?

So, if I want to post this article:

Quote:

A Preemptive Attack on Iran's Nuclear Facilities: Possible Consequences
By Sammy Salama and Karen Ruster

At a time when Iraq and the war on terrorism tend to dominate the debate on international affairs, the possibility of an attack on Iran's nuclear facilities has not been a major topic of discussion in the United States. There are reports, however, that the Bush administration has seriously considered this option but opted to put it on the back burner for the time being.[1] Further, on May 6, 2004, the U.S. House of Representatives passed Resolution 398 in a 376-3 vote, calling on the U.S. government "to use all appropriate means to deter, dissuade, and prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons."[2] If a similar resolution passes the Senate, it will give President Bush or any future administration the ability to launch a preemptive strike on Iran's nuclear facilities whenever this is deemed necessary.

In Israel, planning and rhetoric appear to have progressed quite a bit further[3]; it appears that some in Israel are seriously considering a preemptive attack similar to the June 1981 attack on Osirak that destroyed Iraq's nuclear reactor.[4] Meir Dagan, the Chief of Mossad, told parliament members in his inaugural appearance before the Israeli Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee that Iran was close to the "point of no return" and that the specter of Iranian possession of nuclear weapons was the greatest threat to Israel since its inception.[5] On November 11, 2003, Israeli Foreign Minister Silvan Shalom said that Israel had "no plans to attack nuclear facilities in Iran."[6] Less than two weeks later however, during a visit to the United States, Israel's Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz stated that "under no circumstances would Israel be able to tolerate nuclear weapons in Iranian possession"[7] and just six weeks earlier, Mossad had revealed plans for preemptive attacks by F-16 bombers on Iranian nuclear sites.[8] This report will examine the following: The Iranian nuclear facilities most likely to be targeted and their proliferation risk potential; the likely preemptive scenarios involving Israel or the United States; and the possible consequences of any preemptive action.

Current Status of Iran Vis-à-Vis the IAEA

On December 18, 2003, Iran signed the NPT (nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty) Additional Protocol on Nuclear Safeguards, according greater access and the possibility of intrusive inspections to Iran's nuclear facilities by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).[9] Since then, IAEA inspectors have carried out various inspections all throughout Iran that revealed a lot of new information about the scale and history of the Iranian nuclear program. While Iran has in general been forthcoming and helpful to the IAEA, some issues remain outstanding. Some IAEA board members, primarily the United States, have accused Iran of pursuing an underground nuclear weapons program that has yet to be substantiated by IAEA inspectors. The United States argues that this constitutes a violation of the NPT and necessitates the referral of Iran's nuclear file to the United Nations Security Council (UNSC). In its last resolution on Iran on June 18, 2004, the board reprimanded Iran for not providing the agency with fuller, more timely, and more proactive cooperation; specifically Iran postponed mid-March visits to a number of locations involved in Iran's P-2 centrifuge enrichment program.[10] In addition, while Iran claims that it has furnished the IAEA with relevant information in a timely and responsible manner, the IAEA deplored Iran's omission of any reference in its October 21, 2003 declaration of it possession of P-2 design drawings, research, manufacturing, and mechanical testing activities.[11] The IAEA also called on Iran to "be proactive in taking all necessary steps on an urgent basis to resolve all outstanding issues" including issues related to LEU and highly enriched uranium (HEU) contamination and the limited production of polonium-210 and plutonium.[12]

IAEA director Mohamed El-Baradei is all too aware of the current dilemma with regard to Iran, and is wary of referring Iran's file to the Security Council. He fears that exerting too much pressure might well push Iran into choosing to opt out of the NPT, in which case, as he mentioned recently to a gathering of academics in Israel, "you have another North Korea."[13] To the barrage of critics who insist that, despite the lack of proof, Iran's intentions are obvious, El-Baradei has decried the lack of a "smoking gun" providing evidence of Iran's engagement in a nuclear weapons program. As he stated, "We are not God. We cannot read intentions."[14] Iran continues to assert that its nuclear program envisages peaceful applications only, and El-Baradei continues to support a diplomatic solution to the situation.[15] In addition, Russia, which is currently building the Iranian Bushehr reactor, has been unequivocal in its opposition to UN sanctions on Iran, especially in the absence of concrete evidence of a weapons application. Russia has asserted complete Iranian disclosure, despite Putin's recent charge of bad faith on the part of Iran in its failure to comply with IAEA inspections.[16]

I would also have to write a page-long post?

That's not really a good idea. That's just forcing someone to write just for the sake of writing. It's extremely agitating and pointless.

Sebelius for VP, not Hillary · #6 (**permalink**) 08-31-2007, 02:02 PM

I think the current policy is fine. There are no simple copy and pastes allowed. All copy-pastes must be accompanied by a comment. If people are not allowed to bring in essays then that is going to mean lower quality discussions with no context and little grounding in reality.

Xotica · #7 (**permalink**) 08-31-2007, 02:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by W.E.B. Du Bois

I think the current policy is fine. There are no simple copy and pastes allowed. All copy-pastes must be accompanied by a comment. If people are not allowed to bring in essays then that is going to mean lower quality discussions with no context and little grounding in reality.

IMO... Copy & Paste material should always include a link-back to the original source and commentary. Withholding author credit is plagiarism.

Another question. May one Copy & Paste material in its entirety? I would hope not. A useful content rule...
-----
Please do not post entire articles. Proper format is to paraphrase the contents of an article and/or post relevant excerpts and then link to the rest. Best bet is to always reference the original source.
Title 17, Chapter 1, Section 107 US CODE: Title 17,107. Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use

-----

superdude17* · #8 (**permalink**) 08-31-2007, 03:37 PM

how is cutting and pasting an article plagiarism? as long as you cite it, theoretically it isn't. it also gives you factual proof to back up the other side's claims.

i don't find anything wrong w/ it, though most of the articles are ridiculous.

Bradgriff · #9 (**permalink**) 08-31-2007, 03:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by W.E.B. Du Bois

So, if I want to post this article:
I would also have to write a page-long post?
That's not really a good idea. That's just forcing someone to write just for the sake of writing. It's extremely agitating and pointless.

You never post articles like that Du Bois....besides, what's agitating? You might have to think more, and that's a good thing. Pointless, how could adding equally your own thinking to your sourcing be pointless? Time consuming yes!, but not pointless

Xotica · #10 (**permalink**) 08-31-2007, 03:57 PM

I think dogmaphobe was referring to the below scenario in his OP. Drirlake did not cite/credit this material at all nor offer any personal commentary. This is an example of plagiarism.

Thread: Perhaps Zionist made shame for Jews!
Post# 36

Quote:

Originally Posted by Drirlake

Israel is often portrayed as weak and besieged, a Jewish David surrounded by a hostile Arab Goliath. This image has been carefully nurtured by Israeli leaders and sympathetic writers, but the opposite image is closer to the truth. Contrary to popular belief, the Zionists had larger, better‐equipped, and better‐led forces during the 1947‐49 War of Independence and the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) won quick and easy victories against Egypt in 1956 and against Egypt, Jordan, and Syria in 1967—before large‐scale U.S. aid began flowing to Israel. These victories offer eloquent evidence of Israeli patriotism, organizational ability, and military prowess, but they also reveal that Israel was far from helpless even in its earliest years.

Today, Israel is the strongest military power in the Middle East. Its conventional forces are far superior to its neighbors and it is the only state in the region with nuclear weapons. Egypt and Jordan signed peace treaties with Israel and Saudi Arabia has offered to do so as well. Syria has lost its Soviet patron, Iraq has been decimated by three disastrous wars, and Iran is hundreds of miles away. The Palestinians barely have effective police, let alone a military that could threaten Israel.

The mainstream Zionist leadership was not interested in establishing a bi‐national state or accepting a permanent partition of Palestine. The Zionist leadership was sometimes willing to accept partition as a first step, but this was a tactical maneuver and not their real objective. As David Ben‐Gurion put it in the late 1930s, “After the formation of a large army in the wake of the establishment of the state, we shall abolish partition and expand to the whole of Palestine.”

To achieve this goal, the Zionists had to expel large numbers of Arabs from the territory that would eventually become Israel. There was simply no other way to accomplish their objective. Ben‐Gurion saw the problem clearly, writing in 1941 that “it is impossible to imagine general evacuation [of the Arab population] without compulsion, and brutal compulsion.” Or as Israeli historian Benny Morris puts it, “the idea of transfer is as old as modern Zionism and has accompanied its evolution and praxis during the past century.”

This opportunity came in 1947‐48, when Jewish forces drove up to 700,000 Palestinians into exile. Israeli officials have long claimed that the Arabs fled because their leaders told them to, but careful scholarship (much of it by Israeli historians like Morris) have demolished this myth. In fact, most Arab leaders urged the Palestinian population to stay home, but fear of violent death at the hands of Zionist forces led most of them to flee. After the war, Israel barred the return of the Palestinian exiles.

The fact that the creation of Israel entailed a moral crime against the Palestinian people was well understood by Israel’s leadrs. As Ben‐Gurion told Nahum Goldmann, president of the World Jewish Congress, “If I were an Arab leader I would never make terms with Israel. That is natural: we have taken their country. . . . We come from Israel, but two thousand years ago, and what is that to them? There has been anti‐Semitism, the Nazis, Hitler, Auschwitz, but was that their fault? They only see one thing: we have come here and stolen their country. Why should they accept that?”

Since then, Israeli leaders have repeatedly sought to deny the Palestinians’ national ambitions.Prime Minister Golda Meir famously remarked that “there was no such thing as a Palestinian,” and even Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin, who signed the 1993 Oslo Accords, nonetheless opposed creating a full‐fledged Palestinian state. Pressure from extremist violence and the growing Palestinian population has forced subsequent Israeli leaders to disengage rom some of the occupied territories and to explore territorial compromise, but no Israeli government has been willing to offer the Palestinians a viable state of their own. Even Prime Minister Ehud Barak’s purportedly generous offer at Camp David in July 2000 would only have given the Palestiniansa disarmed and dismembered set of “Bantustans” under de facto Israeli control.

Europe’s crimes against the Jews provide a clear moral justification for Israel’s right to exist. But Israel’s survival is not in doubt—even if some Islamic extremists make outrageous and unrealistic references to “wiping it off the map”—and the tragic history of the Jewish people does not obligate the United States to help Israel no matter what it does today.

Perhaps Zionist made shame for Jews!

Thread: Perhaps Zionist made shame for Jews!
Post# 37

Quote:

Originally Posted by dogmaphobe

This is a plagiarized article, and was actually written by John J Mearsheimer and Stephen J Walt.

The Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy - by John J. Mearsheimer and Stephen M. Walt

Perhaps Zionist made shame for Jews!