DCP's ongoing problem with plagiarism

[Dr Moore]

I hope this submission to the thread isn't redundant.

To inaugurate 2015, Dan Peterson made a post to Sic et Non, entitled "New Testament 19, 20"

The post begins,

In Kurt Aland’s Synopsis of the Four Gospels, which I’m using as the structural basis (and the Greek text) for my ongoing commentary...

Suggesting an inspiration from Aland to guide Dan's own, "ongoing commentary."

Next he says,

Let’s move on now to a couple of comments — many, many more could be offered! — on the temptation in the wilderness.

And offers 3 passages for the reader to follow along: Matthew 4:1-11, Mark 1:12-13, and Luke 4:1-13.

From here, Peterson begins to reflect on the number 40. He writes, in the next 2 paragraphs:

The number forty often seems to be connected with a period of testing in the Bible, time of trial or probation. Moses, for example, lived for forty years in Egypt and then for forty years in the Sinai desert before he was called to lead the Hebrews out of bondage. Then, he up on Mount Sinai for forty days and nights on two separate occasions (Exodus 24:18, 34:1-28), receiving God’s laws. He also sent spies to investigate the land of Canaan for forty days (Numbers 13:25, 14:34).

The prophet Jonah warned Nineveh for forty days that the city would be destroyed if it didn’t repent. The prophet Ezekiel laid on his right side for forty days in order to symbolically represent Judah’s sins (Ezekiel 4:6). Elijah went without food or water for forty days at Mount Horeb. And, of course, in today’s readings Jesus was tempted by the devil during forty days and nights of fasting immediately before the commencement of his ministry. And, later, he’ll appear to his disciples and others for forty days after his resurrection from the dead.

Quite an interesting and fascinating set of facts, woven so artfully into a common thread, Dr. Peterson! Your ongoing commentary suggests a healthy bit of research, and I so appreciate the specific scriptural references.

And yet, this delving into the number 40, it's not the first time I've heard this before. Being the year 2020, I'm sure we have all seen that email about 20+20=40, making this the year of 40, connecting the pestilence of Covid-19 with Biblical curses and trials.

Well, it got me thinking, so I ran a quick Google search on articles published pre-1/1/2015, using some textual fragments from Dan's 1/1/2015 post, and what do you know? Up pops an equally fascinating article, published in March, 2014, by an anonymous online Christian outreach called BibleStudy.org.

You can read about BibleStudy.org here (though the webmaster doesn't reveal too much about his/her identity):
https://www.biblestudy.org/who-operates ... -site.html

The site features a nifty page entitled "Meaning of Numbers in the Bible"
https://www.biblestudy.org/bibleref/mea ... ction.html

And, then if you click on the link for the number 40, you'll arrive at the page turned up by my Google search:
https://www.biblestudy.org/bibleref/mea ... le/40.html

Note that there are no ellipses disconnecting any of what follows. This is linear text from from BibleStudy.org's 3/20/2014 post first, then Dan's 1/1/2015 post. Alternating colorization added by me to visually highlight plagiarism (with occasional alterations to insert trademark Petersonesque transitions) of both content AND sequential flow.

https://www.biblestudy.org/bibleref/mea ... le/40.html
Published March 20, 2014
Mentioning 146 times in Scripture, the number 40 generally symbolizes a period of testing, trial or probation. During Moses' life he lived forty years in Egypt and forty years in the desert before God selected him to lead his people out of slavery.

Moses was also on Mount Sinai for 40 days and nights, on two separate occasions (Exodus 24:18, 34:1 - 28), receiving God's laws. He also sent spies, for forty days, to investigate the land God promised the Israelites as an inheritance (Numbers 13:25, 14:34).

The prophet Jonah powerfully warned ancient Nineveh, for forty days, that its destruction would come because of its many sins. The prophet Ezekiel laid on His right side for 40 days to symbolize Judah's sins (Ezekiel 4:6).

Elijah went 40 days without food or water at Mount Horeb. Jesus was tempted by the devil not just three times, but many times during the 40 days and nights he fasted just before his ministry began. He also appeared to his disciples and others for 40 days after his resurrection from the dead.

https://www.patheos.com/blogs/danpeters ... 19-20.html
Published January 1, 2015
The number forty often seems to be connected with a period of testing in the Bible, time of trial or probation. Moses, for example, lived for forty years in Egypt and then for forty years in the Sinai desert before he was called to lead the Hebrews out of bondage. Then, he up [sic] on Mount Sinai for forty days and nights on two separate occasions (Exodus 24:18, 34:1-28), receiving God’s laws. He also sent spies to investigate the land of Canaan for forty days (Numbers 13:25, 14:34).

The prophet Jonah warned Nineveh for forty days that the city would be destroyed if it didn’t repent. The prophet Ezekiel laid on his right side for forty days in order to symbolically represent Judah’s sins (Ezekiel 4:6). Elijah went without food or water for forty days at Mount Horeb. And, of course, in today’s readings Jesus was tempted by the devil during forty days and nights of fasting immediately before the commencement of his ministry. And, later, he’ll appear to his disciples and others for forty days after his resurrection from the dead.

Strangely, Dan provides no link or citation credit to the good evangelical webmaster over at BibleStudy.org. There is no quotation mark or reference of any kind. The work is simply presented as Dan's own, original, "ongoing commentary."

Note the scriptural citations are exactly copied -- every one of them -- and left in the same parts of relevant sentences.

I also point to the "Then he up [sic]..." mistake in the Peterson version of the article. I think this offers a strongly supportive piece of evidence for plagiarism. It indicates the text was formed through a copy+paste+modify model, as this is the kind of error not found in Dr. Peterson's freehand writing. I suspect that what happened was the following:
1) "Moses was also on Mount Sinai" (original copy)
2) Edited first to "Moses was up on Mount Sinai"
3) Then edited out "Moses" to "Then, he" replacing the proper noun, in order to further remove echoes from the copied text
4) Resulting in "Then, he up on Mount Sinai" as it was published.

Yikes, Dan! As Ace sings, "How long has this been going on?"

[Dr Exiled]

Maybe Dan or Coach isn't really human but more computer, casting its dragnet far and wide over the internet to find religious and scientific nuggets it can call its own?

[Lemmie]

I also point to the "Then he up [sic]..." mistake in the Peterson version of the article. I think this offers a strongly supportive piece of evidence for plagiarism. It indicates the text was formed through a copy+paste+modify model, as this is the kind of error not found in Dr. Peterson's freehand writing

Excellent point about how repeating errors due to cut and paste supports the plagiarism conclusion, dr. Moore. It came up several years ago, also, but I know this is a very long thread to get through, so I am reposting it here, if you are interested:

The textual critic in me can't help but say: shared features are not enough to prove dependence, only shared innovations. In other words, a clear mistake unique to two texts is what proves that the one derives from the other. I think "derivative" is a highly accurate word to describe Daniel Peterson's intellectual work (such as it is), and his tralatitious writing is at least a reflection of that. But find a mistake in something he writes that can only have come from another source and you'll nail him for good as a copy-and-paste plagiarist—if you haven't already.

[bolding added]

We have, at least twice in this thread that I remember .

First, when DCP plagiarized his blog entry about Anfinsen from Dimitrov's piece, he repeated an error:

As additional proof, note in the very first copied piece, I have enlarged two parts where DCP makes the identical error, found in his source, of repeating "the" just before the quote which begins with "the."

In 1979, Christian Anfinsen converted to Orthodox Judaism, and he remained a practicing traditional Jew for the rest of his life. He had, he said in explanation, been deeply impressed by the " the history, practice, and intensity of Judaism.”

In 1979, Anfinsen converted to Orthodox Judaism, a commitment he retained for the rest of his life; he maintained that he had been deeply impressed by the " the history, practice and intensity of Judaism.”(http://nobelists.net; also see http://scigod.com/index.php/sgj/issue/view/3)

http://mormondiscussions.com/phpBB3/vie ... 9#p1084299

Also, when he plagiarized from Pearcey, he footnoted a Berenstain Bears book, but actually copied the same misquote that was in the Pearcey chapter:

....when I was looking into Peterson's plagiarism I also noticed that his Berenstain Bears quote was incorrect. The text from the actual Berenstain Bears book is this:

Nature is you!
Nature is me!

It's all that IS
or WAS
or EVER WILL BE!
https://www.google.com/search?q=%E2%80% ... WWrSijJS_M

According to Peterson's footnote, he is quoting the book itself, even though what he wrote in his blog entry is NOT from the book. What he wrote does, however, exactly match what Pearcey wrote, right down to the ellipses and the error:

The Berenstain Bears’ Nature Guide. In it, the Bear family invites the reader on a nature walk, and after a few pages, we open to a two-page spread, glazed with the light of the rising sun, proclaiming in capital letters:
“Nature … is all that IS, or WAS, or EVER WILL BE!”23

And here is Peterson:

As the 1975 children’s book The Bears’ Nature Guide, featuring the Berenstain Bears, informs its young audience,
“Nature . . . is all that IS, or WAS, or EVER WILL BE!”[3]

[bolding added]
http://mormondiscussions.com/phpBB3/vie ... 0#p1103220

( link to original post, p 10 of this thread: http://mormondiscussions.com/viewtopic. ... 5#p1115255 )

With your addition, Dr. Moore, that’s at least three times Peterson has plagiarized not only others’ work, but others’ errors.

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

I mean he’s just so flagrant about it. Two minutes ago I was all like, “Let’s take a looksee at DN and see what his latest thievery is.” I simply googled “Daniel Peterson”, clicked on his DN profile, opened it up, saw a series of articles, clicked on the one with Mary because it was eye-catching, voila! Plagiarism!

Lol. So. All I did was copy and paste the title of the plagiarized article, “How Mary’s ‘Immaculate Conception’ is about her origin”, into Google and this was the second hit, not including his DN piece:

https://www.catholicfaithstore.com/dail ... onception/

It’s so bad his article just follows the plagiarized piece down the page when you compare the first two paragraphs of his DN article. Anyway, if you keep googling his article you can see where he lifted bits and pieces from his Google searches, and just composed a pastiche of plagiarized articles. This is par for the course, and the DN doesn’t care.

BYU Professor. Deseret News columnist. Priesthood holder.

- Doc

[Dr Exiled]

Coach is a clever one. He plagiarizes because Joseph Smith was the master plagiarizer, perhaps. Perhaps it is because imitation is a form of worship? Or perhaps is it done as an open form of taunting to his critics? Catch me if you can sort of thing when he knows that the church with its leaders who make up stories and statistics for salesmanship sake won't bat an eye to his copying habits?

[Dr Moore]

Notice the new pleading for permission to post "notes" without standard citation marks:
https://www.patheos.com/blogs/danpeters ... oices.html
https://www.patheos.com/blogs/danpeters ... nking.html

Well, sure, but in the 1/1/2015 piece above, it is impossible to plead such an excuse with the text of the post under a banner of "my ongoing commentary."

It's just good old, cheap, dishonest plagiarism.

[Doctor Scratch]

Oh, wow. He's making what I'm almost certain is a false accusation in an attempt to doxx someone.

[Dr Moore]

Clearly the topic strikes an exposed nerve.

Simple solution - just retract all of the plagiarized material and stop doing it.

[Lemmie]

Oh, wow. He's making what I'm almost certain is a false accusation in an attempt to doxx someone.

Yes, he is, and yes, it is.

[Postscript: To ____ ______ and one or two of her associates, who eagerly scan these blog entries in hopes of finding evidence of plagiarism:

Smokey, of all people, told him that is who I am. And Peterson believes it, given what a reliable source Smokey is.

Also, being a film professor totally explains my familiarity with Bayesian analysis, right? How much more naïve could Peterson possibly be? I apologize to the person he named, if she should ever happen to see this, and may I say, Peterson is an asshole.

[Lemmie]

Posting this here to document Peterson’s latest excuse (in a very, very long list of excuses) for his plagiarism:

Postscript: To ____ ______ and one or two of her associates, who eagerly scan these blog entries in hopes of finding evidence of plagiarism: The entries that I identify as “notes” are, as I say, notes. In the particular case above, they are notes from John H. Walton, Genesis 1 as Ancient Cosmology (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2011). They are notes from that text. I do not count them as my original creation. I do not count them as a publication of mine. They are notes, of the kind that I would, in the old days, have written onto an index card or into a notebook for future use. I share them here because I think that some might find them of interest, and also because using them as blog entries gives me an incentive to extract them from my readings. (It’s plainly easier and faster to read and to mark passages than to copy out notes from those marked passages, but making double use of them [here currently, and as resource material for a planned future book] makes the task more agreeable to me.) Sometimes, as here, they will be all or mostly actual quotations. Some other times, they will all or mostly be my closely paraphrased jottings, or something in between the two.]

https://www.patheos.com/blogs/danpeters ... nking.html
[also, excuse is also posted in ]

https://www.patheos.com/blogs/danpeters ... oices.html

That extra work of typing in “ at the beginning and “ at the end of a quote is apparently exhausting. Although he manages to add color, bolding, and pages when he does quote, and he also goes to the trouble of rearranging words, adding and subtracting adjectives and adverbs, and rearranging sentences when he plagiarized, so with all that effort it seems pretty disingenuous for him to argue quoting properly is too much work.

[Lemmie]

I have posted this explanation about what constitutes plagiarism before, but since Peterson seems to have decided it is time to start up his nasty habit again, I thought it was worth reposting:

[/i]
Why this is plagiarism:

This paraphrase is a patchwork composed of pieces in the original author’s language (in red) and pieces in the student-writer’s words, all rearranged into a new pattern, but with none of the borrowed pieces in quotation marks.

Thus, even though the writer acknowledges the source of the material, the underlined phrases are falsely presented as the student’s own.

https://writing.wisc.edu/Handbook/QPA_paraphrase.html

[bolding added]

For a prime example of this, let’s look at one of Peterson’s recent posts, titled Correcting a basic mistake in neuroscience, or just committing one? posted APRIL 23, 2020 BY DAN PETERSON.
( link: https://www.patheos.com/blogs/danpeters ... g-one.html )

In this blog entry, Peterson is ostensibly reviewing and quoting from Douglas Fox, in Scientific American:

Dan Peterson:

I share some notes that I jotted down from Douglas Fox, “The Brain, Reimagined: Physicists who have revived experiments from 50 years ago say nerve cells communicate with mechanical pulses, not electric ones,” Scientific American (April 2018): 60-67:

Curiously, although physicians have been administering general anesthesia for nearly two centuries now, and although they have discovered dozens of different but effective anesthetic compounds, nobody actually knows exactly how anesthesia works. We know that they all shut down body and brain functions in the same order — memory formation first, then pain sensation, then consciousness and, ultimately, breathing — across all animal species, from flies to humans. But nitrous oxide , ether, sevoflurane, and xenon are so very different in their molecular structure that it seems highly unlikely that they function in the same way in their common effects.

Thomas Heimburg, a physicist at the Niels Bohr Institute in Copenhagen who trained in quantum mechanics and biophysics at the Max Planck Institute for Biophysical Chemistry in Göttingen, Germany, believes that anesthetics change the mechanical properties of nerves. What difference would that make? Writing for Scientific American, Douglas Fox says that,

You’ll notice the last two paragraphs are framed as a quote of Fox’s article in Scientific American. The problem is, in the two paragraphs before that, to use the words in my opening quote, are plagiarism because “ even though the writer acknowledges the source of the material, the underlined phrases are falsely presented as the student’s own.”

Let’s compare, starting with the source of Peterson’s first paragraph, which although it is touted as a review, is still represented as Peterson’s own work by omitting quotation marks. Or should I say, misrepresented. The original, from Fox’s article in SA:

Physicians have administered general anesthetics for 170 years. They have discovered dozens of effective compounds. When given at progressively higher doses, the drugs all silence nerve functions in the body and brain in the same distinct order: first memory formation, then pain sensation, then consciousness,and eventually breathing. This same sequence happens across all animals, from humans to flies.Yet no one knows how anesthesia actually works. The molecular structures of nitrous oxide, ether, sevoflurane and xenon are so different that it is unlikely they exert their common effects by binding to equivalent proteins in cells, as other drugs do.

And now, Peterson’s plagiarized paragraph:

Curiously, although physicians have been administering general anesthesia for nearly two centuries now, and although they have discovered dozens of different but effective anesthetic compounds, nobody actually knows exactly how anesthesia works. We know that they all shut down body and brain functions in the same order — memory formation first, then pain sensation, then consciousness and, ultimately, breathing — across all animal species, from flies to humans. But nitrous oxide , ether, sevoflurane, and xenon are so very different in their molecular structure that it seems highly unlikely that they function in the same way in their common effects.

I would continue on, but Peterson’s plagiarizing is so ubiquitous and so obvious that yet another proof, on top of the more than a dozen or so in this thread alone, doesn’t seem necessary. Suffice it to say, throughout this entire blog entry Peterson has blatantly stolen someone else’s intellectual property, yet again.

Peterson has now added an explanation for his plagiarism documented above:

[Postscript: To those who obsessively scan these entries seeking evidence of plagiarism against me: These are, as I said above, notes from Douglas Fox, “The Brain, Reimagined: Physicists who have revived experiments from 50 years ago say nerve cells communicate with mechanical pulses, not electric ones,” Scientific American (April 2018): 60-67. They are notes from that text. I do not count them as my original creation. I do not count them as a publication of mine. They are notes, of the kind that I would, in previous days, have written onto an index card or into a notebook. I share them because I think that some might find them of interest, and also because using them as blog entries gives me an incentive to extract them from my readings. It’s plainly easier and faster to read and to mark passages than to copy out notes of those marked passages, but making double use of them (here currently, and as resource material for a planned future book) makes the task more agreeable to me.]

https://www.patheos.com/blogs/danpeters ... g-one.html

[Dr Moore]

Wow, just wow. Some truly low lows by Dr. Peterson. Is he losing his mind? Who does he think he is, to outright doxx someone in blatant retribution for a legitimate, well-researched watchdog thread?

This is the kind of behavior that ruins careers -- straight up. BYU ought to have a zero-tolerance policy on such things.

[Lemmie]

In Peterson’s latest explanation of his plagiarism, in blog post titled: Correcting a basic mistake in neuroscience, or just committing one? he makes this curious statement:

Postscript: To those who obsessively scan these entries seeking evidence of plagiarism against me: These are, as I said above, notes from Douglas Fox.... They are notes from that text. I do not count them as my original creation. I do not count them as a publication of mine. They are notes...

If that is the case, why does he put quotation marks around only some of the paragraphs, and not all?

Also, if they are notes from someone else’s text and not his “original creation,” why does he carefully change a few synonyms, the order of a few lists and sentences, a verb tense here and there, and change or add a few adverbs and adjectives? If they are the “author’s words,” why is he doing anything other than quoting them?

These sophomoric efforts to disguise plagiarism are ridiculous.

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

He always does this, though. He’ll make some half-assed attempts to ‘correct’ some blog entries, or he’ll go back and half-ass some citations on some articles, or he’ll go on the attack like he just did. I don’t know why he bothers. It’s not like BYU cares. It’s not like the Deseret News cares. He’s been getting away with this since, I suspect, at least his days in UCLA. WHATTYA WANNA BET HIS DISSERTATION IS PROBLEMATIC, RIGHT DAN?

- Doc

[Jersey Girl]

[Postscript: To Mina Estevez and one or two of her associates, who eagerly scan these blog entries in hopes of finding evidence of plagiarism:

I can tell you without question that you have it exactly wrong, Daniel. I know for a solid fact that you're wrong. You're falling for the same ____ as you did when you came up with the Chino Blanco accusation. How stupid are you?

You're dead wrong. You're dead dog wrong. Your dead dog is dead dog wrong.

You're one of the most gullible human beings I've ever seen on the boards.

[Jersey Girl]

Oh, wow. He's making what I'm almost certain is a false accusation in an attempt to doxx someone.

It's false.

[Dr Moore]

In case it's been a while since Dan bothered to attend a training seminar on academic integrity, including plagiarizing, the following resource may be a helpful refresher. It was written in 2012, same year he began blogging.

https://www.law.nova.edu/online/files/A ... ty2012.pdf

BYU's plagiarism standards are similar.

Does Dan wish to argue a position that plagiarism standards selectively apply to some settings, such as submission to a professional journal, and not in others, such as blogging? It would help if he'd clarify that position. (And, that position is easily proven erroneous today.)

Or does he seem to argue that he has never plagiarized? In which case, how does he explain his 1/1/2015 blog, labeling several paragraphs of text "my ongoing commentary" and then pasting someone else's written words with only minor edits?

I challenge Dan to set a higher standard for his students and peers by (a) requesting a thorough review of his blog writings for instances of plagiarizing, followed by (b) redaction or issuance of proper citations for plagiarized material.

The violations are there, and direct accusations have been made. What does he do? Pretend these are "personal attacks" as some twisted Clintonesque legalism? "No, President Worthen, I did not have plagiaristic relations with that website, BibleStudy.org."

This isn't a personal attack. Personal attacks are stupid. This is something far more serious -- accusation of a pattern of academic dishonesty. And the thread here has built up an impressive body of evidence, which I've only just now finished reading from start to finish (whew! and ewww!).

It might take a while, investigating and cleansing the record of more than 10,000 blog posts since 2012. But that IS the price of shortcutting, sorry to say. Meanwhile, Dan might consider simply removing his entire blog history until such time as he can confidently verify the absence of plagiarized content.

Would an honest professor wish to set any lower standard for students, peers and Saints?

Public figures always hate it when independent watchdog groups call them out for dishonest behavior. Kicking and screaming doesn't make the behavior any less dishonest. Do the right thing, Dan. Stop whining about the accusations and do something about the problem.

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

Lol. He actually plagiarized a Trip Advisor writeup for his ‘Stave’ post:

https://www.fjordnorway.com/things-to-d ... h-p1024333

“Built around 1180 and is dedicated to the Apostle Andrew. The church is exceptionally well preserved and is one of the most distinctive stave churches in Norway. Some of the finest features are the lavishly carved portals and the roof carvings of dragons's heads. The stavchurches are Norway's most important contribution to world architecture and Norway's oldest preserved timber buildings.”

Compare and contrast to this cut-paste-and-modified paragraph in his article:

“ The most famous, best preserved and most authentic of the remaining stave churches, though, is that of Borgund, which is not far from Urnes and, having been built and dedicated to St. Andrew the Apostle around A.D. 1150, is only slightly younger. With its carved portals and especially with the dragons that are carved on its gables, it is difficult to escape the impression that, notwithstanding its Christian dedication, one is looking at a building that is very closely related to the Viking age.”

You can see he lifted bits and pieces, as he does, from a few other sources, but you already knew that. So...

- Doc

[Lemmie]

DanielPeterson Mod Moksha • 5 hours ago

If I quote directly and significantly from Wikipedia, I'll cite it as a source.

https://www.patheos.com/blogs/danpeters ... 4894811537

Well that’s a lie.

[Gadianton]

"[Postscript: To M___ E___ and one or two of her associates, who eagerly scan these blog entries in hopes of finding evidence of plagiarism: "

Yikes! WTF?

I'll help out Coach here based on info that I believe is public enough: One is a stats professor and the other is an English professor, with very different styles of writing and interest. One is a math whiz and the other is into Marxism and postmodern theory. I get it: Coach doesn't know anything about math or philosophy so I can see where he's confused, but suffice it to say, for those of us who at least know a little, the difference is pretty much night and day.

[Jersey Girl]

That probably wasn't a good idea. Just saying.