Bill Ackman goes 'Conan the Barbarian'
on MIT and Business Insider
American Thinker,
by
Monica Showalter
Original Article
Posted By: Dreadnought,
1/6/2024 10:28:35 AM
In response to allegations that his wife had plagiarized her MIT thesis, billionaire Bill Ackman, who drew attention by challenging antisemitism at Harvard University, has decided to go 'Conan the Barbarian' on MIT, and its media ally, Business Insider, playing the pair at their own 'gotcha-journalism' cancel-culture game:
My wife, @NeriOxman, was just contacted by Business Insider claiming that they have identified other plagiarism in her work including 15 examples in her dissertation where she did not cite Wikipedia as a source.
Business Insider told us that they are publishing their story…
— Bill Ackman (@BillAckman) January 5, 2024
Dinest d'Souza had the best response: And while was at it,
Post Reply
Reminder: “WE ARE A SALON AND NOT A SALOON”
Your thoughts, comments, and ideas are always welcome here. But we ask you to please be mindful and respectful. Threatening or crude language doesn't persuade anybody and makes the conversation less enjoyable for fellow L.Dotters.
Reply 1 - Posted by:
Dreadnought 1/6/2024 10:29:24 AM (No. 1630751)
Ackman is a major left-center Democrat. But he crossed the line in the eyes of the progressive wing when he made a prediction on Twitter regarding Kyle Rittenhouse; and, in his active support of Israel.
12 people like this.
Reply 2 - Posted by:
seamusm 1/6/2024 10:42:24 AM (No. 1630774)
Can't speak for a thesis per se but in most academic classrooms, Wikipedia is not allowed or edited as a source.
19 people like this.
Reply 3 - Posted by:
hershey 1/6/2024 10:53:27 AM (No. 1630778)
Tell me now, why would anyone cite Wikipedia as a reliable source??? Run by two leftist liberals...
22 people like this.
Reply 4 - Posted by:
spacer 1/6/2024 11:17:35 AM (No. 1630803)
Ackman is experiencing the Trump effect. The only way to win is to fight back with our own bareknuckle hits. Let the leftist and rinos whine. Go for the throat Bill.
23 people like this.
Reply 5 - Posted by:
mariboo72 1/6/2024 11:26:54 AM (No. 1630808)
Almost anyone can submit information to Wikipedia. Could someone have read her dissertation and submitted parts of it to Wikipedia?
Maybe Wikipedia plagiarized Ms. Oxman?
29 people like this.
Reply 6 - Posted by:
Ruhn 1/6/2024 11:29:59 AM (No. 1630810)
Conan, what is best in life?
"To crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and hear the lamentations of their women."
This is a typical counter-argument tactic, when you've really no valid counter-argument: deflection. In this case a variant of deflection called "what-about-ism". There is no legitimate defense for plagiarism so then accuse a third party that really has no bearing to the argument of the same charge, whether it is factual or not. In this case, Ackman's wife has a very tenuous and tangential connection to the argument and the plagiarism accusation on her is dubious at best. But here we are now, talking about Ackman's wife and deflecting from the subject at hand: Claudine Gay. But I do like the aspect of investigating the records of the "journalists" and editors of Business Insider for potential plagiarism. Goose, meet gander.
15 people like this.
Reply 7 - Posted by:
j9zig2009 1/6/2024 11:32:41 AM (No. 1630812)
Wikipedia?! The website that can be edited in realtime by the public?
And is not useful for anything but actors' bios. Better to use Britannica website & inch for movies, actors, entertainment.
8 people like this.
Reply 8 - Posted by:
j9zig2009 1/6/2024 11:34:23 AM (No. 1630814)
*** imdb.com for actors/entertainment
5 people like this.
Reply 9 - Posted by:
MickTurn 1/6/2024 11:56:44 AM (No. 1630827)
Wikipedia is Public Sourced, No attribution is necessary, PERIOD!
5 people like this.
Reply 10 - Posted by:
NotaBene 1/6/2024 12:32:41 PM (No. 1630861)
Bill Ackman got the Black scalp of Gay by the short hairs.
1 person likes this.
Reply 11 - Posted by:
FLCracker 1/6/2024 12:41:19 PM (No. 1630864)
George Washington (February 22, 1732 – December 14, 1799) was an American Founding Father, military officer, politician and statesman who served as the first president of the United States from 1789 to 1797.
Now, who wrote that? Me or Wikipedia? (You want to trust me or will you verify?)
What words or facts in that sentence are original thought or cultural property by whoever wrote the Wikipedia article, as potentially amended by other Wikipedia participants? How much rearranging of the sentence will make it NOT Wikipedia material?
If I write, "From 1789 to 1797, George Washington (February 22, 1732 – December 14, 1799), also an American Founding Father, military officer, politician and statesman, served as the first president of the United States." Is that now my original composition or still Wiklpedia's?
How about for a elementary school paper of (or maybe high school, these days)?
"George Washington lived from February 22, 1732 – December 14, 1799. He was the first president of the United States. He was president from 1789 to 1797. He was an American Founding Father, military officer, politician and statesman."
Wikipedia does not own the facts, and if you know your subject, Wikipedia is a quick and reasonably reliable way fact-check yourself. As in, "was it Lincoln or Washington that was born on 22 Feb?"
Wikipedia doesn't own the words, either, and when you are presenting facts, there are only so many words you can use in context. So when does something become the intellectual property of Wikipedia? In my two examples, how can I tell whether I've plagerized Wikipedia or anywhere else on the Internet, or in undigitized book, article or manuscript?
But here's the rub. The United States was founded on 4 July 1776. Washington became the "first president" on 30 April 1789. OMG, has somebody changed history? NOW, I can't trust Wikipedia. NOW, I have to start doing research and accurately define the terms "first" "president", and "United States". And add footnotes.
Here's a place to start: https://www.constitutionfacts.com/us-articles-of-confederation/presidents-who-served/
8 people like this.
Reply 12 - Posted by:
4Diogenes 1/6/2024 1:24:38 PM (No. 1630884)
Ackman for Vice President!
2 people like this.
Reply 13 - Posted by:
anniebc 1/6/2024 2:43:56 PM (No. 1630924)
She could always claim she wrote the examples that came from Wikipedia.
2 people like this.
Reply 14 - Posted by:
downnout 1/6/2024 4:00:57 PM (No. 1630945)
The dirty secret here is how many of the currently admired elite have academic records that cannot withstad serious scrutiny. Wikipedia?? Please.. no.
3 people like this.
Reply 15 - Posted by:
Luandir 1/6/2024 4:06:39 PM (No. 1630946)
#6, Thank you for the quote. You saved me the trouble.
1 person likes this.
Reply 16 - Posted by:
FormerDem 1/6/2024 4:44:39 PM (No. 1630960)
I didn't look at all the Wikipedia excerpts (you can, because Bill Ackman has posted everything on X), but the cites didn't seem political - one was a matter of how to state the Second Law of Thermodynamics -- as to which, the Wikipedia author apparently failed to attribute the Second Law to Kelvin OR Clausius.
1 person likes this.
Below, you will find ...
Most Recent Articles posted by "Dreadnought"
and
Most Active Articles (last 48 hours)