Rand Paul and Wikipedia: Plagiarism or lazy staff?

Sen. Rand Paul is in a flap over speech passages lifted from Wikipedia and other sources without attribution. Will it hamper any run for the White House in 2016?

Manuel Balce Ceneta/AP
Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky. listens to a question during a news conference on Capitol Hill in 2011. Critics say he's quoted Wikipedia and other sources in speeches without attribution.

Being a southern gentleman, Rand Paul places great store in personal honor. At times, he even wishes dueling were still legal in Kentucky, the state he represents in the United States Senate.

It’s unclear whether he was thinking of pistols, swords, or maybe a walking cane (with gold head) of the type Rep. Preston Brooks used to beat Sen. Charles Sumner in 1856 in a dispute over the Kansas-Nebraska Act.

“I think I’m being unfairly targeted by a bunch of hacks and haters, and I’m just not going to put up with people casting aspersions on my character,” he fumed on ABC's "This Week” Sunday.

“I take it as an insult,” Paul continued. “And I will not lie down and say people can call me dishonest, misleading or misrepresenting, and if dueling were legal in Kentucky, if they keep it up, you know it’d be a duel challenge.”

So what was all the ruckus about?

Turns out phrases and whole paragraphs in recent Paul speeches appear to have been lifted from that major source of undergraduate study: Wikipedia. The Associated Press too, and story lines from a couple of popular movies.

The revelations mainly came from MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow, Politico.com, and BuzzFeed.com.

On Saturday, BuzzFeed also reported that “An entire section of Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul’s 2013 book ‘Government Bullies’ was copied wholesale from a 2003 case study by the Heritage Foundation…. The copied section, 1,318 words, is by far the most significant instance reported so far of Paul borrowing language from other published material.”

Paul is particularly miffed at Maddow – likely the one he was thinking of with his “dueling” comment. She’s one of the strongest media voices on the left.

“You know, the person who is leading this attack, she’s been spreading hate on me for about three years now, and I don’t intend for it to go away, but I also don’t see her as an objective news source,” he told anchor Jorge Ramos of Fusion, a new cable channel from ABC News and Univision.

Not so, says Maddow.

“This is about you lifting other people’s words verbatim and pretending that they’re your own,” she said on her show. “This is about you lifting entire sections of a website, inserting them into your own speeches, and then passing them off as your own original thoughts. This is something that high school students know not to do….”

The Paul camp is trying to dismiss the flap as inconsequential.
 
 “Only in Washington is something this trivial a source for liberal media angst,” Paul adviser Doug Stafford, the senator’s former chief of staff, told Politico.

But Stafford also said, “While Sen. Paul doesn’t believe that this is the normal standard for speeches, going forward he will be more cautious in presenting and attributing sources.”

End of story? Probably.

But in a way, it’s probably a good thing for Paul that any speech-making attribution sloppiness came out now. He’s frequently on short lists for Republican presidential candidates.

He doesn’t need any more headlines like this recent one on the Atlantic magazine web site – “Can Rand Paul Learn to Tell the Truth?” – referencing “his sticky habit for bending the facts.”

Better that it should come out now than in 2016.

(I’d explain the Kansas-Nebraska Act, by the way, but I’d have to crib from Wikipedia. And as everybody knows, professional journalists never do that.)

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.