All I see so far are accusations and no examples. What we do know is that Ann Coulter is hated with a passion by leftists and people in the mainstream media. We also know that she has been and is going to be attacked viciously. Some of what I have read on the blogs is sick. So don't assume that the plagarism charges have any validity. It may well be a case of "Slander" -- the title of another book of hers about how conservatives get slandered falsely.

I have read "Godless," and I don't see how a case can be made of plagarism.

My opinion is that I firmly believe that all of us who read and write a great deal plagiarize at least some material from time-to–time, simply because we are information sponges.

No harm, no foul imo.

"Information sponging" doesn't really equate to Plagiarism, though. Yes, we may write something similar to someone else's work, but plagiarism requires essentially copying or paraphrase, to an extent that generally surpasses mere information recollection. Not to mention that most of us will state "I read" or "I saw somewhere" which does at least help to dissolve such claims.

As far as Coulter is concerned, I've seen quite a few people in relatively high places brought down by plagiarism, and it never ceases to amaze me - but I'm also reserving judgment here until someone provides proof, preferably in the form of Coulter's text against the allegedly plagiarized text. I'm with Phil to the extent that generic accusations don't carry any weight with me. If they can prove their claims, they should prove them. If not, they should just shut up.

I firmly believe that all of us who read and write a great deal plagiarize at least some material from time-to–time

No, not really. By its definition plagiarism is deliberate. That’s like saying “accidental murder”.

In Coulter’s case the bits that she’s accused of lifting are mundane factual stuff rather than anything original; it looks like she was just being lazy. Considering how sloppy her writing and research is I can’t say I’m surprised; lazy and sloppy are quite congruent.

I’m more interested in how many corrections and revisions this book will need in comparison to her last few doorjambs.

Gawker from June 13th: (http://gawker.com/news/ann-coulter/possible-plagiarist-ann-coulter-may-have-been-plagiarizing-as-far-back-as-1997-when-she-was-36-180344.php) "In 2001, Boston Globe columnist Alex Beam examined a controversy surrounding her 1998 tome, High Crimes and Misdemeanors. This is the book that David Carr called "fairly scholarly," which is interesting, because it appears that the scholarship came from someone else. Beam compared Coulter's prose to that of Michael Chapman, a former colleague of Coulter's who, in 1997, wrote "A Case for Impeachment" in the popular right-wing nutjob periodical Human Events. After the jump, those comparisons:

Chapman, "A Case for Impeachment," page 13: "Four Democratic fundraisers have stated that former DNC Finance Chairman Marvin Rosen explicitly advocated selling access to the President. . ."

Coulter, page 219: "At least four Democratic fund-raising officials have revealed that former DNC Finance Chairman Marvin Rosen explicitly advocated selling access to the president . . ."

Chapman: "A DNC fundraiser told Nynex executives they would receive invitations to White House 'coffees' if they joined the DNC's 'Managing Trustees' program and agreed to donate $100,000 . . ."

Coulter: "A DNC fundraiser told Nynex Corporation executives that they would receive invitations to White House coffees if they joined the DNC's 'Managing Trustees' program and agreed to donate $100,000 . .

The piece is unfortunately no longer available on line, but those of you with LexisNexis access should be able to find it pretty easily."

also:

"Here's Coulter from Chapter 1 of Godless: The massive Dickey-Lincoln Dam, a $227 million hydroelectric project proposed on upper St. John River in Maine, was halted by the discovery of the Furbish lousewort, a plant previously believed to be extinct.

Here's the Portland Press Herald, from the year 2000, in its list of the "Maine Stories of the Century": The massive Dickey-Lincoln Dam, a $227 million hydroelectric project proposed on upper St. John River, is halted by the discovery of the Furbish lousewort, a plant believed to be extinct."

janine: Is that all there is? Some isolated sentences which are not duplicated but reflect the same factual information? I once litigated and won on summary judgment the defense of a copyright case making that same kind of claim. It was not copyright infringment, and I don't see, at least not yet, any plagarism case either.

I think there's a couple more, but they are a lot like the one's Janine mentioned. One different one was her writing 4 concepts in a few paragraphs, and they found those same 4 concepts written in the same order in a magazine article or something. Like she was reading the article and just re-writing it.

Heck, I do that all the time. Didn't know it was plagiarism.

One other observation about janine's "examples": All "examples," but one, were from "High Crimes and Misdemeanors," a book published in 1998, eight years ago. Given the vigor of the Clinton spin machine, I think we would have been hearing about plagarism some time ago if it were a serious charge. Also, the subject of that book was legal, and I know that sometimes there are only so many ways to say something involving a legal issue without sacrificing the needed precision. As for the one "example" from "Godless," all it is, again, is an isolated sentence not duplicating but communicating the same factual information as in a Portland, Maine newspaper report. To quote an old Peggy Lee song, "Is This All There Is?"

I'm assuming y'all are older than me and don't remember the rules for citations. Taking the same text and changing 1-2 words is plagiarism. Taking the same text, changing 1-2 words, and adding a footnote crediting the the original source is called research. Purdue has a guide online to help people avoid plagiarism http://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/589/01/

"Here, then, is a brief list of what needs to be credited or documented:

* Words or ideas presented in a magazine, book, newspaper, song, TV program, movie, Web page, computer program, letter, advertisement, or any other medium
* Information you gain through interviewing or conversing with another person, face to face, over the phone, or in writing
* When you copy the exact words or a unique phrase
* When you reprint any diagrams, illustrations, charts, pictures, or other visual materials
* When you reuse or repost any electronically-available media, including images, audio, video, or other media"

Bullets number two and three (especially three) are her problem. Period.

Still, the examples are lacking and do not give enough evidence to support the accusatory headlines.

She uses footnotes, in her book Slander, she had 780 listed notes, not to mention her specifically attributing the source within the text.

In the examples given, were these specifically lacking any form of attribution as to the source?

Ok I get it janine. Yes, my original post in this thread was plagiarized from Conf Yankee. I am very sorry, and it will possibly never happen again.

The funniest part is that a few months ago, she wrote an editorial in which she complained about the fact that she must not be an important conservative because she hasn't gotten into any legal trouble like Rush, DeLay, and Rove.
This is just another example of the Left reaching as hard as it can on some flimsy issue to criminalize people who disagree with it. She'll come out of this just fine and live to continue tormenting liberals.

If you write a two page article you will use a phrase or word used by someone else. A crime would be to copy an entire chapter, or maybe most of a chapter. When you're making fun of someone (it's easy to do to the left wingers since they are such fools) it requires you to repeat what they said to show that they are fools. I doubt that there are two sentences strung togather today that wouldn't fit the lefties defination of a crime, unless it applies to them. Then it's legal. I'll boo hoo all night because they're feelings are hurt.

There are only so many ways to write a declarative sentence this short.

Go Ann! the left cannot survive without the lie. Keep the pressure on

Phil Byler -- I have read 'Godless,' and I don't see how a case can be made of plagarism.

How can you say that? You may equally well assert that 879879834645834654341 is a prime number because you don't know of any factors for it.

You continue to surprise me CY. I guess we'll have our answer pretty soon one way or the other.

Jeffersonranch you !@#&$^#&*!. I wrote "Go Ann!" a few weeks ago. You plagiarized me!

janine: Your comment about Ann Coulter having a "problem" with two ways that plagarsm can occur does not make sense. While it has been noted above, Ann Coulter's books are very heavily footnoted, almost like a law review article; and none of the supposed "examples" of plagarism remotely reflect a serious case of plagarism. So instead of straining to make unjustified accusations that are obviously part of the left's attempt to slander Ms. Coulter, why don't you read her books, including "Godless," and concern yourself with the substantive issues that she discusses? I bet that you can't refute her on the merits, which is one reason why I think the plagarism charge is so pathetic.

Cyrus McElderry: You question how I can say that I don't see how a plagarism case can be made based on "Godless" and then attempt to support your questioning of me by a one-line reference to a large number being prime because I don't know any factors for it. Say what?? Either your statement is a non sequitur, or you are, in an inarticulate way, suggesting that I don't know the factors for plagarism and hence cannot make a reasoned judgment about "Godless" (which I have read). Excuse me, but I am a lawyer who received his law degree in 1976 from the Harvard Law School and in the course of my career, communications law has been one area in which I have practiced. But more importantly, if you think that there is a case of plagarism to made against "Godless" (which is a unique book), then why don't you state it directly in plain English? Seemingly clever allusions can hide the lack of substantive thought, and I think that is the case here. Also, why don't you read "Godless" and, like janine, concern yourself with the substantive issues that she discusses? I bet that, like janine, you can't refute Ms. Coulter on the merits.

I suspect that a few sentences do not make plagiarism. Look at ol' Ward Churchill. Was he fired for a few sentences? I think not.

Now honestly, I think Coulter is over-the-top in some of her writings. It doesn't fit my style. And while I have not read Godless, I suspect her style is the same as other things I have read by her. Style to my liking or not, the issues are what counts in a book like this. And if the issues are valid, let's discuss them instead of simply trying to shoot down the author because or her style, or even more important because of her conservatism. At least it doesn't sound like any politicians are paying her to "consult" and "play them up" in her writings - unlike others we know of.

You question how I can say that I don't see how a plagarism case can be made based on "Godless" and then attempt to support your questioning of me by a one-line reference to a large number being prime because I don't know any factors for it. Say what??

You're restating the remark in question, which was, "I have read 'Godless,' and I don't see how a case can be made of plagarism." That's flatly ridiculous, because you have to know about the works it purportedly plagiarizes to make a rational judgment.

The prime number comparison is applicable in that it is impossible to know whether a number is prime without examining all the possible factors. Similarly, you cannot know if a work is plagiarized without examining all the possible sources.

... you are, in an inarticulate way, suggesting that I don't know the factors for plagarism and hence cannot make a reasoned judgment about "Godless"

Exactly, except I take offence regarding the inarticulate remark. How so?

(which I have read)

So?

Excuse me, but I am a lawyer who received his law degree in 1976 from the Harvard Law School

No doubt you will know the principle of ipse dixit then.

and in the course of my career, communications law has been one area in which I have practiced.

Since you took the liberty to accuse me of being inarticulate, I will point out that this is an odious sentence. Why not, "In the course of my career I have practiced communications law", or even, "I have practiced communications law".

But more importantly, if you think that there is a case of plagarism to made against "Godless"

I haven't a clue. You misspelled 'plagiarism' by the way.

(which is a unique book)

What does that mean? It's not a copy of another book? I guess you mean 'special'.

then why don't you state it directly in plain English? Seemingly clever allusions can hide the lack of substantive thought, and I think that is the case here. Also, why don't you read "Godless" and, like janine, concern yourself with the substantive issues that she discusses? I bet that, like janine, you can't refute Ms. Coulter on the merits.

I'm simply not interested in Godless. I don't have an opinion about whether Coulter is a plagiarist or not. My only point was that you said something unwise.

Here is a list of purported plagiarisms by Coulter. Not very impressive.

http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/001070.php

Cyrus McElderry: So you have not read "Godless," you "haven't a clue" whether there was plagiarism, you refuse my invitation to state directly in your own words what the case of plaigarism against "Godless" would be, and you have no interest in reading "Godless." You just wanted to bust my chops for being "unwise" in saying that I did not see how a case of plaigarism could be made against "Godless," a book that I have read and you have not.

I don't see that I said anything "unwise." "Godless" is 281 page book with 346 footnotes, covering abortion, crime and punishment, the attempt by liberals to avoid reasoned debate, the role of religion in public life, public education and science. What the book argues is that in a variety of ways contemporary liberalism is a religion in opposition to traditional Judean-Christian morality and resulting in policies and beliefs that are very destructive and unwise, and that I why I used the word "unique" -- i.e., the entirety of her argument has not been argued elsewhere before. If you have not read the book and have no interest in reading it, then you don't have a basis for criticizing my choice of the word "unique" for describing its contents, which does have the ramification that a case of plaigarism is dubious at the outset. Indeed, all that has been put forth for a case of plaigarism are some isolated sentences concerning factual points, and that does not make for a plaigarism case. The listing of purported plaigarisms by Ms. Coulter are unimpressive, which you seem to acknowledge in your last post. So given the foregoing, it does not make sense to assert, as you do, that because I don't know all the possible sources, it was unwise for me to say that I don't see a case of plaigarism here. That is just a way of preserving from dismissal the claim of plaigarism against Ms. Coulter that was unwise to have been made in the first place.

I do apologize about the misspelling of plaigarism, but I was at work and was a bit rushed. At the same time, please accept my advice that ipse dixit is not a principle of law, but a Latin phrase. In the last year I had an oral argument to an appellate court and at one point, one of the judges threw out a Latin phrase to suppport a position contrary to what I was arguing, and my response was that the use of the Latin phrase made the proposed position seem stronger that it really was if you looked at the pertinent facts of the case and the applicable law. Here, I don't think that the use of the phrase ipse dixit helps you any.

In the end, I repeat my challenge to you to read the book "Godless" and consider the merits of the argument that Ms. Coulter makes, asking yourself whether you have an argument on the merits to counter what she says. I really think that it is cowardly to be horsing around with this claim of plaigarism. All it is, at bottom, is an effort to avoid dealing with the argument that Ms. Coulter makes in her book.

Phil,

So you have not read "Godless," you "haven't a clue" whether there was plagiarism, you refuse my invitation to state directly in your own words what the case of plaigarism against "Godless" would be

I never said she is a plagiarist!

You just wanted to bust my chops for being "unwise" in saying that I did not see how a case of plaigarism could be made against "Godless," a book that I have read and you have not.

You know perfectly well that you would have to be an expert on the topic in general to judge soundly whether Coulter plagiarized. Therefore, saying I have read "Godless," and I don't see how a case can be made of plagarism. doesn't carry much water.

Consider that with ten minutes of Googling I became more informed than you on the plagiarism charge, despite your having read the book and my having not.

I didn't bust chops until you called me inarticulate.

Here, I don't think that the use of the phrase ipse dixit helps you any.

You're right, I used the wrong phrase. There is another Latin phrase which means something like "appeal to authority". When you say, "Excuse me, but I am a lawyer who received his law degree in 1976 from the Harvard Law School", you are arguing the man rather than the facts.

I really think that it is cowardly to be horsing around with this claim of plaigarism. All it is, at bottom, is an effort to avoid dealing with the argument that Ms. Coulter makes in her book.

I never said she was a plagiarist.

I'm avoiding Ms. Coulter's argument for two reasons. First, it has nothing to do with my point, which is that you made an unwarranted assertion. Second, do you really want to go there?

I've heard several times the argument that without God, trust and goodness among men would evaporate. The counter argument is equally well-entrenched, namely that we are social animals and our nature contains goodness and we don't need to fear an angry god to be decent to one another. I'm not afraid to talk about this, but it does bore me.

I have been on a Tulane University student/faculty committee responsible for trying students charged with plagiarism, and judging by the examples listed on

http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/001070.php

(hat tip: Cyrus McElderry),

we would not have found Ms. Coulter guilty of plagiarism.

All sentences that Ms. Coulter is supposed to have plagarized are modifications of the purported original source. In all of our "guilty" verdicts, the student had copied entire paragraphs word for word.

John Barrie is quoted as saying these examples would "flunk any English student." If this is indeed true at UC Berkeley, people would be advised to avoid attending that university! But I'm quite dubious of this claim. At any university, a conviction for plagiarism is very serious. I challenge Barrie or anyone to find an actual case of a student, at any university, being convicted of plagiarism on the basis of nothing but similarly worded sentences.

As regards Janine's citation criteria, one must remember that space is tight in a newspaper column. Any space used for a citation means less space used for an idea. I remember being accused of plagiarism myself on a radio show by a listener who was outraged that I didn't mention, on the show, one of my predecessors. Actually I did in my book on the subject --- I devoted a substantial fraction of an entire chapter to the earlier work of this particular individual --- but in a radio program, the ideas come first, and unfortunately their description must be limited to sound bites.

Cyrus McElderry: I referred to my background as a lawyer not because I was appealing to authority as definitive, but in response to a post of yours to indicate that I have relevant experience in assessing publications. What started this was that I had written in my first post on this subject, almost in passing, that I have read Godless and I didn't see how a case of plaigarism could be made. I made that statement because of the reasons that I explained in my prior post to this one. In response to my statement that I didn't see how a plaigarisnm case could be made, you made a comment that I thought was not clear ("Say what??"), but as best as I could understand it, I took to suggest that I could not render a judgment about plaigarism. It was then that I referred to my background as a lawyer because in the course of my career, I have had to review and defend publications for a variety of concerns. As I was not rendering a definitive legal opinion, but rather expressing the belief that "Godless" was not a likely candidate for a case of plaigarism, I don't think that there was anything unwise in what I wrote.

Instead of arguing with me, why don't you read the book "Godless"? The issues discussed there are far more important to consider, and I think that you would in a good way be intellectually challenged by what Ms. Couilter writes.

The problem with trying to connect this to liberals is that this guy Barrie was contracted by the king of all conservative media, Rupert Murdoch and the NY Post