McCain has learned to use wikipedia

[kjoe]

It should be noted that Wikipedia material can be freely used but always requires attribution under its terms of use.





Did McCain Plagiarize His Speech on the Georgia Crisis?

By Taegan Goddard | August 11, 2008 1:13 PM | Permalink | Comments (5)


A Wikipedia editor emailed Political Wire to point out some similarities between Sen. John McCain's speech today on the crisis in Georgia and the Wikipedia article on the country Georgia. Given the closeness of the words and sentence structure, most would consider parts of McCain's speech to be derived directly from Wikipedia.

First instance:

one of the first countries in the world to adopt Christianity as an official religion (Wikipedia)

vs.

one of the world's first nations to adopt Christianity as an official religion (McCain)

Second instance:

After the Russian Revolution of 1917, Georgia had a brief period of independence as a Democratic Republic (1918-1921), which was terminated by the Red Army invasion of Georgia. Georgia became part of the Soviet Union in 1922 and regained its independence in 1991. Early post-Soviet years was marked by a civil unrest and economic crisis. (Wikipedia)

vs.

After a brief period of independence following the Russian revolution, the Red Army forced Georgia to join the Soviet Union in 1922. As the Soviet Union crumbled at the end of the Cold War, Georgia regained its independence in 1991, but its early years were marked by instability, corruption, and economic crises. (McCain)

Third instance:

In 2003, Shevardnadze (who won reelection in 2000) was deposed by the Rose Revolution, after Georgian opposition and international monitors asserted that the 2 November parliamentary elections were marred by fraud. The revolution was led by Mikheil Saakashvili, Zurab Zhvania and Nino Burjanadze, former members and leaders of Shavarnadze's ruling party. Mikheil Saakashvili was elected as President of Georgia in 2004. Following the Rose Revolution, a series of reforms was launched to strengthen the country's military and economic capabilities. (Wikipedia)

vs.

Following fraudulent parliamentary elections in 2003, a peaceful, democratic revolution took place, led by the U.S.-educated lawyer Mikheil Saakashvili. The Rose Revolution changed things dramatically and, following his election, President Saakashvili embarked on a series of wide-ranging and successful reforms. (McCain)

Granted the third instance isn't as close as the first two, which seem quite obviously taken from Wikipedia.

It should be noted that Wikipedia material can be freely used but always requires attribution under its terms of use. Whether a presidential candidate should base policy speeches on material from Wikipedia is another question entirely.

[210]

Exactly how many different ways can you say the first two things?

[WinstonSmith]

No kidding.

[kah]

Plenty. Or, you could maybe NOT say them, and write your own speech instead.

[WinstonSmith]

I figured you'd believe this shit, kah.

[kah]

I figured you'd believe this shit, kah.

'Believe' what? That McCain's speech and the Wikipedia article are identical almost down to the word? That's not a matter of 'belief', Winston.

[kah]

Rational McCain supporters should be pissed that their boy is wasting their campaign donations on speechwriters that crib their speeches from Wikipedia.

[kjoe]

Exactly how many different ways can you say the first two things?

there is this---perhaps my source is suspect--

Twice in the past century, when the empire to the north weakened and Georgia declared its independence, the southern Ossetes revolted against Georgian rule. It happened in 1918-20, between the collapse of the Russian empire and the Soviet Union’s conquest of Georgia in 1921; and it happened again in our own time with the fall of the Soviet Union.
In 1918-20, between 5,000 and 15,000 people died, depending on whose figures you believe. For the conflicts since 1990, the figure is about 4,000 and rising.

Analysis: roots of the Georgia-Russia conflict

Central cause of the conflict is that Southern Ossetes want to unite with their counterparts in the North, part of Russia.

As the Soviet Union began to crumble in 1989, and Georgian nationalist moves for independence gathered pace, so too did Ossete nationalism and demands for separation from Georgia.
The Ossete national movement was encouraged by the Soviet Government in an effort to exert pressure against Georgian independence.
In November 1989 the Soviet assembly of the South Ossetian autonomous region passed a motion calling for union with North Ossetia. Thousands of Georgian nationalists marched on Tskhinvali, the South Ossetian capital, in protest but were blocked by Soviet forces.
A year later, after the election in Georgia of a pro-independence government led by the extreme nationalist Zviad Gamsakhurdia, the same assembly declared South Ossetia a Soviet republic separate from Georgia. The Gamsakhurdia Government then sent thousands of Georgian armed police and nationalist militia into the region. These were fought to a standstill by local Ossete militia backed by Soviet Interior Ministry troops.

[kjoe]

My point was omitting mention of Ossettes makes it a terribly simplistic reading of history.

[kjoe]

The press is giving McCain a slam dunk for looking presidential---------------------but what obama did not say----"put them in Nato"----"we really can do something about this" seemed more presidential to me.

We just removed 2000 troops from Iraq. Georgian troops. Airlifted by our planes.

here is another interesting take posted on tpm:

Fred Kaplan on Georgia ...

Regardless of what happens next, it is worth asking what the Bush people were thinking when they egged on Mikheil Saakashvili, Georgia's young, Western-educated president, to apply for NATO membership, send 2,000 of his troops to Iraq as a full-fledged U.S. ally, and receive tactical training and weapons from our military. Did they really think Putin would sit by and see another border state (and former province of the Russian empire) slip away to the West? If they thought that Putin might not, what did they plan to do about it, and how firmly did they warn Saakashvili not to get too brash or provoke an outburst? It's heartbreaking, but even more infuriating, to read so many Georgians quoted in the New York Times--officials, soldiers, and citizens--wondering when the United States is coming to their rescue. It's infuriating because it's clear that Bush did everything to encourage them to believe that he would. When Bush (properly) pushed for Kosovo's independence from Serbia, Putin warned that he would do the same for pro-Russian secessionists elsewhere, by which he could only have meant Georgia's separatist regions of Abkhazia and South Ossetia. Putin had taken drastic steps in earlier disputes over those regions--for instance, embargoing all trade with Georgia--with an implicit threat that he could inflict far greater punishment. Yet Bush continued to entice Saakashvili with weapons, training, and talk of entry into NATO. Of course the Georgians believed that if they got into a firefight with Russia, the Americans would bail them out.

[210]

'Believe' what? That McCain's speech and the Wikipedia article are identical almost down to the word? That's not a matter of 'belief', Winston.

Unless I totally misread your first post, they aren't "almost identical".

Like I said, how many different ways can factual information be written?

Oh, and for the record, I am not supporting either major party candidate...so it's not as if I'm blinding defending anyone here.

[kah]

Like I said, how many different ways can factual information be written?

Lots and lots and lots.

[kjoe]

Unless I totally misread your first post, they aren't "almost identical".

Like I said, how many different ways can factual information be written?

Oh, and for the record, I am not supporting either major party candidate...so it's not as if I'm blinding defending anyone here.

The same facts, in the same order, mentioning the same years,---to me---it looks like a campaign aide had just enough smarts to alter the wording while accepting the simplistic possibly misleading collection of facts.

[kah]

I have on my shelf two different books about the attacks on Trenton and Princeton: "The Winter Soldiers" by Richard Ketchum and "Washington's Crossing" by David Hackett Fisher. They are not identical to the word. I have two books on the Battle of the Little Bighorn: "Son of the Morning Star" and "A Terrible Glory". Also not identical to the word.

[210]

I have on my shelf two different books about the attacks on Trenton and Princeton: "The Winter Soldiers" by Richard Ketchum and "Washington's Crossing" by David Hackett Fisher. They are not identical to the word. I have two books on the Battle of the Little Bighorn: "Son of the Morning Star" and "A Terrible Glory". Also not identical to the word.

Neither one is two or three paragraphs long either, right?