Friday, May 14, 2010

John Smithson Claims Contents In George Will Article His Own

As this blog has reported before, conservative activist John Smithson of The Midknight Review, has continually plagiarized the work of others, copying articles to his site without giving proper credit to the author, but this time, Smithson has taken it too far, actually making the claim on his website that parts of an article written by George Will are his own.

Below are both Smithson's article and Will's article from RealClearPolitics.

Take notice below Will's name, where Smithson writes that the "red highlights are Midknight Review's".  Now check out the original article:

Notice something?

The highlighted portions in Smithson's article are exactly the same as those in Will's.

Really Smithson?  When is enough enough?


  1. This comment has been removed by the author.

  2. Blogger jds said...

    Kevin Kevin Kevin. You're such a dunce. The RED HIGHLIGHTS are mine -- you know, when the text is black and suddenly the words are "red." I did not say "the highlighted text is mine," I said "the RED Highlights" are mine.

    Just in case there is confusion, you being from the south and all, you little one toother you, I linked to the actual article. Now, if I was plagiarizing from George Wills, for heavens sake, I wouldn't link to his article or put his name on the article, would I?? !!

    Hey, put this response on the main page of your blog. Let's see what your readership thinks. I am certain some of them know how to read. Grow up and stop doing your imitation of a tattle-tail schoolyard girl.

  3. Here we go again with the baseless claims and name-calling!

    First, I am not from the South, I am from New York.

    Secondly, you did not link to the actual article. You link to George Wills RealClearPolitics author profile, and the hyperlinks in the article don't link back to original article, rather, they link to various other supporting articles that Will apparently linked to.

    I had considered the possibility that only the highlights were yours, but considering other articles you had written, where you either indicated an "editor's note" or used highlights inconsistently, sometimes in the body of the editor's note and sometimes in the body of the citation, that particular usage became unclear.

    I'm not asking you to use MLA or APA formatting when citing a source, but your formatting is highly inconsistent, and especially how you phrased this particular article, it would lead one to believe you were taking ownership of the Will article.

    Just look at your article from May 15th.

    In it, you differentiate between the black and red text, stating that the "The red highlighted wording" concerned a particular issue, and you initialed it "jds".

    Maybe you should stop insulting me and focus on fixing your misleading website.

  4. @jds

    I agree Kevin should post your response with links to the offending article and see what the readers think.

    I think the conclusion from educated readers would be "jds is trying to fool people into thinking this text is his own but we're fortunately educated enough to find out the truth" while most of your readers (and most of the viewing public unfortunately as evidenced by fans of Beck and Hannity) will think "jds added his own thoughts in red highlight, What a smart fellow!!"

    Listen we know what you're trying to do, and you know what you're trying to do so either correct your ways or at least be man enough to admit what you are doing, regardless of how wrong it is.

  5. Solid blow is what we have here:

    >I had considered the possibility that >only the highlights were yours, but >considering other articles you had >written, where you either indicated >an "editor's note" or used highlights >inconsistently, sometimes in the body >of the editor's note and sometimes in >the body of the citation, that >particular usage became unclear.

    You have nothing here except your willingness to pontificate. Just made up stuff beginning with the recent accusation.

    I give credit where credit is do. To argue otherwise is to do what liberals do best, accuse and debase.

    Shallow, moronic and transparent.

    Good night girls.


  6. Here is the link for the follow up, placed on the main page for all to see

    Smithson wrote: "You have nothing here except your willingness to pontificate. Just made up stuff beginning with the recent accusation."

    Actually, I had researched your website, and read a majority of your articles. What I had found would not pass the Gordon Rule requirement in Florida. If your citations were better, there wouldn't be this problem.

    You should cease and desist writing copied essays until you have mastered citing other peoples works.

  7. This comment has been removed by the author.

  8. @jds
    "I give credit where credit is do."

    Well you probably mean "due" but unlike you I'll forgive a few typos in a comments section.

    But I would like to hear your explanation of that statement. From your history of posts I take it to mean that you only feel credit is due when it is painfully obvious who you are cutting/pasting. You definitely do not give credit/links when the original post when read in full does not 100% support your agenda.

    I find it amusing than you would rather make personal attacks or just ignore valid arguments/points being made (like your latest about Kevin's response).

    Why not defend your actions? If they are 100% legit than it should be easy.

    1. Why do you link to a writer's profile and not the original article you are copying?

    2. Why do you not just explicitly state in the beginning or end "The above/below is from the X article by Y person"?

    3. Why do you not use any kind of formatting to differentiate your own words with those of the source article? Such formatting could be as simple as bold/italic font, indenting, or even as advanced html to "blockquote".

    The above can be summarized in questioning why you make it as difficult as possible to properly identify source articles and your own words. In some cases what you do (adding highlites and a statement claiming they are your own) you actually have to go out of your way to do it, when making proper references would be easier and more legible.

    BTW, how have your pageviews been since posting on The Midnight Review? I assume better with whatever trickle down from this sites higher traffic.


Please share your thoughts and experiences in relation to this post. Remember to be respectful in your posting. Comments that that are deemed inappropriate will be deleted.