The Curious Case of Claudine Gay
-
@George-K said in The Curious Case of Claudine Gay:
Well....
Look at the actual paragraph. She directly cites the sources. She doesn’t follow every technical requirement they require in their code, and that’s worthy of discussion, but it’s not like she was trying to pass off their work and summaries as her own.
-
Yes, she cites the sources. However, her language is almost the same as the source, without quoting it. She presents the language as her own.
What the source said:
the results show that empowerment influences black participation by contributing to a more trusting and efficacious orientation to politics and by greatly increasing black attentiveness to political affairs.
What she said:
Empowerment, they conclude, influences black participation by contributing to a more trusting and efficacious orientation towards politics and by greatly increasing black attentiveness to political affairs.
What she should have said:
Empowerment they conclude, "influences black participation by contributing to a more trusting and efficacious orientation towards politics and by greatly increasing black attentiveness to political affairs."
What she said was, word-for-word, exactly the same as the source. It should be in quotation marks.
The second example was at least a bit squishy.
Another one:
Original.
Since the 1950s the reelection rate for House members has rarely dipped below 90 percent.
Hers:
Since the 1950s, the reelection rate for incumbent House members has rarely dipped below 90%.
Does the addition of the word "incumbent" make it different? Besides, that word is superfluous and redundant. Not only that it's repetitive and unnecessary.
Nitpicky?
Sure.
I'll let people who know more about adademic publishing than I
used to knowto chime in."Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... " - Mik, 6/14/08
The saying, "Lite is just one damn thing after another," is a gross understatement. The damn things overlap.
-
Yes, she cites the sources. However, her language is almost the same as the source, without quoting it. She presents the language as her own.
What the source said:
the results show that empowerment influences black participation by contributing to a more trusting and efficacious orientation to politics and by greatly increasing black attentiveness to political affairs.
What she said:
Empowerment, they conclude, influences black participation by contributing to a more trusting and efficacious orientation towards politics and by greatly increasing black attentiveness to political affairs.
What she should have said:
Empowerment they conclude, "influences black participation by contributing to a more trusting and efficacious orientation towards politics and by greatly increasing black attentiveness to political affairs."
What she said was, word-for-word, exactly the same as the source. It should be in quotation marks.
The second example was at least a bit squishy.
Another one:
Original.
Since the 1950s the reelection rate for House members has rarely dipped below 90 percent.
Hers:
Since the 1950s, the reelection rate for incumbent House members has rarely dipped below 90%.
Does the addition of the word "incumbent" make it different? Besides, that word is superfluous and redundant. Not only that it's repetitive and unnecessary.
Nitpicky?
Sure.
I'll let people who know more about adademic publishing than I
used to knowto chime in.@George-K said in The Curious Case of Claudine Gay:
Nitpicky?
Sure.
I noticed that.
If it was her original words and "incumbent " was in there I wouldn't like it, but I would shrug it off.
When she sticks "incumbent" in the middle of someone else's words I don't like it at all. Was she trying to make it her words by adding the redundant incumbent ? Even Horace could judge that.
-
What is considered plagiarism at Harvard?
https://usingsources.fas.harvard.edu/what-constitutes-plagiarism-0
If you copy language word for word from another source and use that language in your paper, you are plagiarizing verbatim. Even if you write down your own ideas in your own words and place them around text that you've drawn directly from a source, you must give credit to the author of the source material, either by placing the source material in quotation marks and providing a clear citation, or by paraphrasing the source material and providing a clear citation.
Example:
Source material
Why did urban Black populations in the North increase so dramatically between 1940 and 1970? After a period of reduced mobility during the Great Depression, Black out-migration from the South resumed at an accelerated pace after 1940. Wartime jobs in the defense industry and in naval shipyards led to substantial Black migration to California and other Pacific states for the first time since the Migration began. Migration continued apace to midwestern cities in the 1950s and1960s, as the booming automobile industry attracted millions more Black southerners to the North, particularly to cities like Detroit or Cleveland. Of the six million Black migrants who left the South during the Great Migration, four million of them migrated between 1940 and 1970 alone.
Plagiarized version
While this student has written her own sentence introducing the topic, she has copied the italicized sentences directly from the source material. She has left out two sentences from Derenoncourt’s paragraph, but has reproduced the rest verbatim:
But things changed mid-century. After a period of reduced mobility during the Great Depression, Black out-migration from the South resumed at an accelerated pace after 1940. Wartime jobs in the defense industry and in naval shipyards led to substantial Black migration to California and other Pacific states for the first time since the Migration began. Migration continued apace to midwestern cities in the 1950s and1960s, as the booming automobile industry attracted millions more Black southerners to the North, particularly to cities like Detroit or Cleveland.
Or this:
If you copy bits and pieces from a source (or several sources), changing a few words here and there without either adequately paraphrasing or quoting directly, the result is mosaic plagiarism. Even if you don't intend to copy the source, you may end up with this type of plagiarism as a result of careless note-taking and confusion over where your source's ideas end and your own ideas begin. You may think that you've paraphrased sufficiently or quoted relevant passages, but if you haven't taken careful notes along the way, or if you've cut and pasted from your sources, you can lose track of the boundaries between your own ideas and those of your sources.
-
I don’t think it was nit-picky at all.
A stunt like that in poli-sci or history without a citation when I was in grad school would warrant a big red circle with the word “SOURCE!!!”. If a similar error occured again in the paper a big red circle with multiple exclamation marks and the words “We MUST discuss for revisions before I am to forced to refuse to assess the remainder of your paper and give you a failing grade”.
Not nit-picking at all.
-
I don’t think it was nit-picky at all.
A stunt like that in poli-sci or history without a citation when I was in grad school would warrant a big red circle with the word “SOURCE!!!”. If a similar error occured again in the paper a big red circle with multiple exclamation marks and the words “We MUST discuss for revisions before I am to forced to refuse to assess the remainder of your paper and give you a failing grade”.
Not nit-picking at all.
@Renauda said in The Curious Case of Claudine Gay:
I don’t think it was nit-picky at all.
A stunt like that in poli-sci or history without a citation when I was in grad school would warrant a big red circle with the word “SOURCE!!!”. If it a similar error occured again in the paper a big red circle with multiple exclamation marks and the words “We MUST discuss for revisions before I am to forced to refuse to assess the remainder of your paper and give you a failing grade”.
Not nit-picking at all.
This.
It's a big fucking deal.
-
I would certainly insist on correcting such things if one of my PhD students did this, but in the hierarchy of plagiarism sins, this is pretty low. I guess that you can find similar issues in 50% of all dissertations, especially in the arts and humanities.
-
I’ve only gotta few years of skoolin’ in, so can’t speak with the authority that the rest of you do, but to me, this is a more serious indictment of her ability and her lack of knowledge about the process than it does about the content of her character or her intentions.
Still, that may be even more damning for somebody applying for tenure at one of the country’s most prestigious universities…
-
I am sure the dissertation is useless garbage either way, but I doubt it would have been less impressive as a dissertation if the corrections were made and the ideas in it properly assigned.
@Horace said in The Curious Case of Claudine Gay:
I am sure the dissertation is useless garbage either way, but I doubt it would have been less impressive as a dissertation if the corrections were made and the ideas in it properly assigned.
One of my zoo profs inserted a Penthouse Forum letter halfway through his dissertation. Nobody saw it...
-
@Horace said in The Curious Case of Claudine Gay:
I am sure the dissertation is useless garbage either way, but I doubt it would have been less impressive as a dissertation if the corrections were made and the ideas in it properly assigned.
One of my zoo profs inserted a Penthouse Forum letter halfway through his dissertation. Nobody saw it...
-
i dont know much about humanities doctoral dissertations, but most medical journals that i have published in run the text through programs looking for matching texts from previous medical publications, and if it catches too many similarities of phrase, you will get called out on it, even if they are referenced. there is a certain amount of leeway, but if you have too much material lifted without quotes, they wont review it until you change the wording sufficiently.
when i write papers, i usually always just write freehand from my head, and then look for references to support what i wrote, and so invariably i have nevever been called out on this (although i have seen colleagues who copy pasted phrases here and there be asked to change wording)
but obviously, the real sin of plaigarism is lifting data. thats obviously unforgivable. but the humanities doesnt really have data, does it? -
i dont know much about humanities doctoral dissertations, but most medical journals that i have published in run the text through programs looking for matching texts from previous medical publications, and if it catches too many similarities of phrase, you will get called out on it, even if they are referenced. there is a certain amount of leeway, but if you have too much material lifted without quotes, they wont review it until you change the wording sufficiently.
when i write papers, i usually always just write freehand from my head, and then look for references to support what i wrote, and so invariably i have nevever been called out on this (although i have seen colleagues who copy pasted phrases here and there be asked to change wording)
but obviously, the real sin of plaigarism is lifting data. thats obviously unforgivable. but the humanities doesnt really have data, does it?@bachophile said in The Curious Case of Claudine Gay:
obviously, the real sin of plaigarism is lifting data. thats obviously unforgivable. but the humanities doesnt really have data, does it?
Harsh!
-
There are many different truth seeking mechanisms. Data and logic and the scientific method are typical white male oppressor mechanisms. The mystical truths of women of color are a step beyond, and I don't feel personally able to understand them or pronounce any judgment of them.
