The Black Knight Strikes

I wonder what those who claim I argue for the sake of arguing would think of this chap:


A: on Lee Wei Ling's plagiarism: Reporting or citing facts from other sources, which is what the original author did, isn't plagiarism. It's actually fair use. The editor should really know that.

B: She did not cite the sources but just copied and pasted the whole chunk into her article.

A: Do you have proof? Because the actual full emails were not published and the article wasn't finished or published.

C: B, please take a tip from me. Engaging A can only amount to frittering irrecoverably, life's valuable moments. A most meaningless exercise.

A: Unfortunately C resorts to personal attacks instead of tackling the argument.

Me: :uckily, Lee Wei Ling has quenched all doubt on the part of reasonable people by posting the article she wanted published

Neither te March 25 version (https://www.facebook.com/weiling.lee.980/posts/214054645616853?pnref=story) nor the April 6 version cites the original sources(https://www.facebook.com/weiling.lee.980/posts/223150868040564)

A: Reporting the facts isn't plagiarism Gabriel.

C: * hands a dictionary to A*. Here, A read this whilst we adults discuss this matter. This way you will learn something. And so will we.

A: Plagiarism, infringement of copyright, is legally defined. What the author did is fair use, not copyright infringement. Hence it's not plagiarism.

If you want to familiarise yourself with the legal concept of fair use then there are numerous sources about it online.

C: Plagiarism is under 'P'....

A: If you cannot contribute anything useful C then please comment elsewhere.

C: I'll just hang around till you get a 'like'.

B: A, isn't using the author's specific words and not crediting the sources a form of plagiarism?

C: B. Keep it short. Too many words and a few more than 3 letters.

Me: Lee Wei Ling has an MBBS from NUS

Let us look at NUS's plagiarism policy

NUS - Centre for English Language Communication :: Communicating in the University Culture

"Students should adopt this rule - You have the obligation to make clear to the assessor which is your own work, and which is the work of others. Otherwise, your assessor is entitled to assume that everything being presented for assessment is being presented as entirely your own work. This is a minimum standard. In addition, the following guidelines will provide some assistance.

- When using the ideas, phrases, paragraphs and data of others in work presented for assessment, such materials should be appropriately credited and acknowledged, so that it is clear that the materials being presented is that of another person and not the student's own...

- Research materials (including texts, graphics and data) obtained from the internet or other electronic resources should be treated in the same way as research materials obtained from traditional sources."

It is crystal clear to all reasonable people that Lee Wei Ling did not acknowledge either her first source (After Mao) or her second (Winston Churchill: 50th anniversary of funeral commemorated | UK news | The Guardian)

Penn State University also notes that the concepts of plagiarism and fair use are entirely different:

Copyright and Plagiarism For Students

"fair use is an exception to infringe­ment. It's the use of copyrighted material without the authorization of the owner for an expressive purpose...

Copyright infringement and plagiarism are different concepts entirely. Plagiarism is claiming that you are the author of someone else's work. Copyright infringement is using someone else's work without their permission (and outside the boundaries of fair use)"

A: Again, it's fair use, not plagiarism.
Also it's not something being submitted for academic research. It's a comment article. It's akin to plain speech and as such doesn't have to include attribution for everything in minute detail.

Me: *twiddles thumbs*

It is unfortunate that the New York Times censored Jayson Blair for his fair use in his newspaper articles

Times Reporter Who Resigned Leaves Long Trail of Deception - NYTimes.com

In their 2003 article called "Times Reporter Who Resigned Leaves Long Trail of Deception", the Times proclaimed the Blair affair "a profound betrayal of trust and a low point in the 152-year history of the newspaper"

The New York Times is as repressive as the Straits Times. Most worrying

B: A, plagiarism applies to journalism too.

C: *sigh*

A: Except no plagiarism happened here. Reporting of facts isn't plagiarism. Fair use means short sections of factual text can be copied without specific attribution.

C: First they bury the poor chap in a ton of facts and then ask him if he sees.

A: In natural speech when you use a catch phrase you don't go surround citing the original source all the time, do you?

Me: *It's just a flesh wound! [picture of limbless Black Knight from Monty Python and the Holy Grail]*

B: This is an article in a newspaper, not "natural speech".

A: It's a comment article, akin to natural speech.

C: I'm thinking of giving you a 'like' just to end this self imposed torture, A but try as I might, there is nothing. Please put up a reply saying " here C, please like this'. And try to get the words right. In fact just cut and paste my comments and I won't crib about plagiarism

A: Think of it like a minister quoted in an article about a speech they made. If the minister talks about some facts from another source without specifically mentioning the source of those facts there and then and the newspaper publishes the quote they don't have to publish the citation to the original source.

C: Told you, B. But did you listen to an elder who has been through a painful exchange with this fine example of what a reasonable and educated man, shouldn't be?

B: I should have taken your advice earlier.

C: There you go, my good man.

A: The fact you're now resorting to being rude shows you have no refutation to the argument.

C: Yes, I have no refutation. None at all.

You won this round hands down , A. Well done!

Please give my regards to the village headman and it's best you move along now. Im sure the village must be missing its idiot.

A: When I talk about things I naturally quote them but obviously in natural speech or when informally posting text, which is akin to natural speech, I don't go around meticulously citing all the sources that knowledge comes from every time.
This the original Lee article is a comment article and akin to natural speech it's unreasonable to expect every section of facts to be meticulously cited. This is part of what fair use means.

Me: C There can be no refutation to jaw-dropping WTFness

Donald Trump will be relieved that his comment article is not plagiarism Donald Trump Plagiarizes Ben Carson Op-Ed | The Daily Caller

A: That's not a quote of facts. It's entirely different to this topic.

It should be quite easy to go through all the stuff the editor had written and find sections of text reporting the facts without attribution.

Me: *twiddles thumbs*

C: * reflecting on my anti abortion stand*

A: Only just yesterday I wrote "the needs of the many outweigh the needs if the few" in the middle of a piece, without citing the original source. This isn't plagiarism either.

C: In your case, there's a complete defense. Non compos mentis.

A: You're only helping to prove my point that you don't understand fair use.

Me: I would bring in a practising lawyer or two, but apparently you can read legal English better than them

A: I cannot help it if they write provably incorrect things, due to personal bias, and ignore citations from higher legal authorities interpretations that also match what I wrote.

Me: *twiddles thumbs*

A: I note your lack of refutation to mean that you accept the point.

C: Yes...yes...we do....for the sake of God, we do and I will strangle anyone who disagrees

A: There is no God, only me

D: Fair Use requires the naming of source and referencing them Where did Dr Lee ever reference the quotes? Maybe I missed her references 'cause I got cataracts. Can point them out pls? And Fair Use by a newspaper different from Fair Use in a non-commercial blog.

A: It doesn't when facts are being cited. As was done in the article. Also she published it on her blog, not in the newspaper.

D: U lawyer is it? Sje quoted verbatiom. Taz the problem.

A: It's quoted facts. It's therefore not plagiarism.

C: D....take your time responding.....this fellow isn't going anywhere....exactly like the point he is trying to make.

A: Please respond to the argument, not make personal attacks.

D: U right about village idiolt. No need to respond further. Ownself make up law. )))
B Can I suugest u withdraw yr apologies. )))))

A: Again, the fact you resort to personal attacks instead of refuting the argument shows your claims are not valid.
There point remains, it's fair use, not plagiarism.

C: We have no refutation to protect.

A: The point about fair use is pretty obvious, it's not copyright infringement, not plagiarism.

D: Obvious doesn't mean correct. in law. Can cite legal text? Ownself make law ownself isit?

A: Can you point to a legal finding of plagiarism for this specific text? If not then you're in trouble.

C: hahahahahahahahaha.....is this guy for real? He should be charging for this entertainment !!

A: Evidently not.

Me: A, for your sake if a judge ever rules against you I hope you don't accuse him of writing provably incorrect things, due to personal bias, and ignore citations from higher legal authorities interpretations that also match your point of view

A: I provided citations from international organisations that specialise in that legal area that proved my interpretation was correct. I cannot help it that I'm right and able to prove a lawyer wrong. Being a lawyer doesn't mean that what they say is always correct. In fact I cited a judge's ruling that disproved the lawyer and agreed with my analysis. The lawyer never posted anything reliable. Again, I cannot be held responsible for the lawyer failing to prove their own incorrect claims. I only look for the truth.

E: A understand what u saying....but for GOOD PRACTICE ...writers should always credit sources at least once in the article, opinion piece commentary etc...works both ways....if someone quotes her , she would also want credit that someone using parts or extracts from her work

A: Where is the original source for historical dates? These things just don't need to be cited.

E: True...if well known facts. But Good Practice...if she is taking chunks inc facts from one source only?

A: It's not mandatory with such information and it's certainly not plagiarism.

E: well...for FB ok since we all share with internet etc ...but if officially publish in ST...then have to be careful in case some publisher reads it and sues if too much cut & paste verbatim from one source?

Me: Those other than piper should note that she didn't take facts from other sources.

She didn't even take strings of words or whole sentences.

She lifted entire paragraphs.

A: It wasn't published on ST. It was a personal post on Facebook.

The paragraphs contain facts. Not creative ideas protected by copyright. That's why it's fair use Gabriel. It's also why you're wrong.

Me: *twiddles thumbs *

A: That's the point Gabriel, you don't understand fair use and constitutes plagiarism.

F: Dr Lee didn't even try to deny the plagiarism, but we got someone here who would insist lifting two full paragraphs from two different articles in one of her articles meant for print newspaper (which of course didn't happen after she refused to budge) was not guilty of plagiarism.

Pritam Singh would love this guy.

A: That's because it's not plagiarism to report the facts.

As it turns out there were numerous emails between the editor and Dr Lee regarding drafts that contained these facts. The editor did not reply even once about plagiarism to Dr Lee. Since it wasn't brought up in the emails then obviously this is suspicious that the ST didn't report these other emails in the report. It casts doubt on the entire story from the editor.

F: Dr Lee was accused of plagiarism, so if she didn't deny it, she seemingly accepted the accusation. It was shown clearly she copied word for word, sentence for sentence. How can this not be plagiarism? So you are not making sense here.

Dr Lee added the Mao and Churchill portions at a late stage. So again you are not making sense here.

Others have patiently told you what was wrong with your argument. Only you can save yourself from further embarrassment.

A: She denied it. Obviously.

As explained it's not plagiarism, it's fair use.

The sections you mention were not that late stage. Five emails from the editor did not mention once plagiarism,

Reporting of facts isn't plagiarism. the sections used were factual. Hence not plagiarised.

Put simply for those, like you, who have difficulty understanding what plagiarism is, in layman terms: Plagiarism is the use of ideas of someone else without attribution.

The sections mentioned are not the ideas of someone else, they are a factual report of historical events. Ergo they are not plagiarised.

Dr Wee's version is an edited versions of the factual events that were reported on the other websites. There are many changes between Wee's versions.

It is certainly not "lifting two full paragraphs". Which is why you're wrong F and also why the other are wrong.

It's easy to demonstrate it's not "lifting two full paragraphs" simply by pointing out the fact that in Dr Wee's text the word "anxiety" is used and in the other website that word isn't used at all.
If it was "lifting two full paragraphs" then the same word would appear in both versions.
It doesn't, you're wrong.
Q.E.D.

In fact Dr Wee's version doesn't quote the parts that could be considered original ideas. She just sticks to the historical facts. Making it even more obvious it's not plagiarism.

B: A, since you are so cocksure that you are right, why don't you write in to the Straits Times and present your side of the argument? The editors may be interested to hear your views.

A: It's highly unlikely the ST would interested in publishing dissenting opinions of their editing.

B: How do you know when you don't even try?

A: Given the inaccurate statements in the ST article by the editor I don't trust them to report differing opinions.

F: Why ST did not publish Dr Lee Wei Ling's column, Opinion News & Top Stories - The Straits Times

Quite clear it was a copy and paste, with a few words added here and there.

A: If you are really interested in finding out then you can tell the ST it's not plagiarism for the very good reasons given above and see what they say.

"copy and paste, with a few words added here and there" is not equal to "It was shown clearly she copied word for word, sentence for sentence" and not equal to "lifting two full paragraphs"

I take your change of statement to mean that you accept your previous statements are wrong.

Again F, historical facts cannot be plagiarised. What Wee wrote are historical facts.

B: Well, I have seen the editors running letters questioning their editorial stance, with subsequent replies from them.

A: So F, since you are proven wrong again (because of your change of statements) do you have anything to rebut the argument?

B, as I said: If you are really interested in finding out then you can tell the ST it's not plagiarism for the very good reasons given above and see what they say.
If you don't bother to do that then don't expect me to either.

B: Why should I write to them when I don't believe in your argument?

A: I refer you to my answer I gave some moments ago.

It's not a question of belief, it's logical analysis.

"Given the inaccurate statements in the ST article by the editor I don't trust them to report differing opinions."
And "If you don't bother to do that then don't expect me to either."

B: That is your own opinion.

A: So? I cannot help it if you cannot be bothered to write in to ST.

if you think it's so important to write to ST then you do it. Just make sure you accurately given the reasons.

Do you have anything to rebut the argument I presented?

I thought not.