Oh boy: New plagiarism found in book co-authored by Elizabeth Warren in 2006? Update: Or did other author plagiarize from Warren?

posted at 6:45 pm on May 18, 2012 by Allahpundit

Go look at the side by side comparison that Katrina Trinko found. Or at least, I assume she found it; maybe it was passed along to her by someone who’s now aggressively looking into this stuff for the Brown campaign after the apparently plagiarized recipes came to light. The good news for Warren? She co-authored the book in question so she can blame it all on her partner if she wants. The bad news? Her partner on the book was … her own daughter. Good lord, this is turning into a rout on the order of Little Bighorn. Except, of course, in that case the Indians won. And they were real Indians.

Until now I’d been thinking that while the Fauxcahontas stuff was fun and the plagiarized recipes interesting, it’s probably all too small-ball to really hurt her in a state like Massachusetts. We’re talking about people here who elected Ted Kennedy to the Senate seven times after Chappaquiddick, never with less than 58 percent of the vote. Said Dan McLaughlin of Red State, “Homicide? Pederasty? Brother is state’s top mobster? Roommate’s running a brothel? MA Dems have been there, done that.” Indeed. If Warren drove Scott Brown into a lake and left him for dead, she’d be a lead-pipe cinch in November. But … I don’t know. Massachusetts wasn’t supposed to elect a Republican to “the Kennedy seat” and yet they did. Maybe times have changed. Her problem is that she’s not just dealing with one fiasco anymore, she’s dealing with two, first her ancestry and now, more seriously, apparently lifting passages from other people’s work. That’s multiple data points for the proposition that she’s a phony and a cheat. Luckily for her, this is all starting to pop late on Friday afternoon such that it’ll be buried over the weekend. But if someone digs up more plagiarized passages from her work next week, she’s in real trouble. I wonder if Massachusetts Dems are already starting to huddle about possible replacements on the ballot.

Update: Trinko reported that Warren’s book came out in 2006 and the book she allegedly plagiarized from came out in 2005. That’s true — of the paperback version of Warren’s book. According to Amazon, though, the hardcover came out on March 1, 2005 — seven months before the book she supposedly plagiarized from. Assuming those dates are right, it’s her writing that was lifted by someone else, not vice versa. Sorry to Warren and our readers for passing along apparently bad info, and good work by BuzzFeed’s Andrew Kaczynski to catch this.

Update: And here’s Trinko’s correction.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

Publish dates mean absolutely nothing. Someone plagerized the other, we don’t know who yet, but the character evidence we have so far doesn’t make things look good for Warren.

Spliff Menendez on May 18, 2012 at 7:48 PM

Indeed. We don’t know how old the manuscripts are, and Black is a multi-media guy who may have compiled some of his own previous work into his book.

Jumping to the conclusion the Black plagiarized Warren based on some sketchy dates on Amazon is just as hare-trigger as the original presumption that Warren plagiarized Black.

More research needs to be done, but somebody was ripping someone off here.

forest on May 18, 2012 at 7:52 PM

Publish dates Reality mean[s] absolutely nothing. Someone plagerized the other, we don’t know who yet, but the character evidence we have so far doesn’t make things look good for Warren.

Hahahaha.

lostmotherland on May 18, 2012 at 7:54 PM

Warren’s book came out 1 March 2005 hardcover, 3 months before the series premiered.

Dr Evil on May 18, 2012 at 7:47 PM

All this hitting in 2005, I’m thinking they both got it from somewhere else.

MechanicalBill on May 18, 2012 at 7:59 PM

More research needs to be done, but somebody was ripping someone off here.

forest on May 18, 2012 at 7:52 PM

Yep.

Dr Evil on May 18, 2012 at 7:59 PM

Pam Krueger is the host of Money Track and wrote the forward to the Rob Black book.

On the Money Track web site, her bio says this:

Pam also serves as the official spokesperson for the California Jump$tart Coalition an organization dedicated to increasing financial literacy among children and teens. She and her labradoodle, Chloe, live in Tiburon, California, and spend a great deal of time in the town of Osterville on Massachusetts’ Cape Cod.

Think maybe Warren and fam know her and perhaps she gave uncredited assistance to both books?

WhatSlushfund on May 18, 2012 at 7:59 PM

Hahahaha.

lostmotherland on May 18, 2012 at 7:54 PM

Here’s another alternate reality from Barnes and Noble:

ISBN-13: 9780471770794
Publisher: Wiley, John & Sons, Incorporated
Publication date: 7/11/2005
Edition number: 1
Pages: 208

Amazon listed the publication date for Black’s book in October.

Lots of leg work to be done before this one is figured out.

forest on May 18, 2012 at 8:03 PM

Pam Krueger’s Facebook page has Elizabeth Warren listed as a favorite.

https://www.facebook.com/pamkruegertv

WhatSlushfund on May 18, 2012 at 8:12 PM

Unfortunately the reputedly plagiarized content seems to have been taken down. All Your Worth uses a lot of cases of people who had gotten into financial trouble and gives corrective action plans as examples of the points they are making. If the same cases were used in different books by different authors I don’t know that would be very exciting.

talkingpoints on May 18, 2012 at 8:12 PM

It is possible it was copied from Warren’s work. Or from someone’s work related to this: http://bdp.law.harvard.edu/papers.cfm. I just can’t source the exact quote yet.

MechanicalBill on May 18, 2012 at 8:17 PM

WhatSlushfund on May 18, 2012 at 8:12 PM

I think you may be zeroing in on the source of the common language. And there are more identical passages in the two books than were cited in the Trinko piece that has been taken down in a panic.

forest on May 18, 2012 at 8:19 PM

Here are some more common passages at google.

Their “popular passages” feature could cause alot of grief for people who swiped language in the past.

forest on May 18, 2012 at 8:25 PM

IN this YouTube video Warren says her husband’s family goes back generations in Cape Cod, “mostly mid-cape,” – which looks like it would include Osterville. Might Pam Krueger be a family friend?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=maxpbC6Cdx8

WhatSlushfund on May 18, 2012 at 8:33 PM

Whether or not this allegation proves true, I fear that Warren is being torn down too soon. Se is not, in fact, the Democratic nominee. The Demonratic primary in Massachusetts is not until September.

If Warren implodes any more before then, she can be replaced by someone who will only get a few months of scrutiny before the November election.

So, if I were in possession of more damning info about Warren, I’d sit on it untill after she becomes the nominee.

SwampYankee on May 18, 2012 at 8:39 PM

conservatives in the media admit mistakes. if it were a lib who made that same mistake they would probably very quietly admit it and make it so that most people still see the original (false) story. i’ve seen the lib media do that before.

Sachiko on May 18, 2012 at 8:41 PM

Homicide? Pederasty? Brother is state’s top mobster? Roommate’s running a brothel?

You forgot Ed Markey and Amy Bishop, McLaughlin.

jaime on May 18, 2012 at 8:43 PM

Type of Work: Text
Registration Number / Date: TX0006248196 / 2005-11-04
Title: Getting on the moneytrack / Rob Black ; foreword by Pam Krueger.
Imprint: Hoboken, NJ : J. Wiley, c2005.
Description: 199 p.
Copyright Claimant: Rob Black
Date of Creation: 2004
Date of Publication: 2005-09-30
Basis of Claim: New Matter: text excluding foreword & some prev. pub. material.

Names: Krueger, Pam

Black, Rob

Type of Work: Text
Registration Number / Date: TX0006125867 / 2005-03-08
Title: All your worth.
Notes: Cataloged from appl. only.
Copyright Claimant: Elizabeth Warren and Amelia Warren Tyagi
Date of Creation: 2004
Date of Publication: 2005-02-08
Basis of Claim: New Matter: additions & compilation.

Names: Warren, Elizabeth

Tyagi, Amelia Warren

Above is from copyright data base, both works created in 2004.

tessa on May 18, 2012 at 8:57 PM

Need to look at past Ron Black articles.

tessa on May 18, 2012 at 8:58 PM

wingnut FAIL

DBear on May 18, 2012 at 7:31 PM

conservatives in the media admit mistakes. if it were a lib who made that same mistake they would probably very quietly admit it and make it so that most people still see the original (false) story. i’ve seen the lib media do that before.

Sachiko on May 18, 2012 at 8:41 PM

This (with a FIFY).

Hey DB (i.e. asswipe). FAIL!

pain train on May 18, 2012 at 9:03 PM

Mango Salsa was a staple.

Ben Hur on May 18, 2012 at 9:17 PM

Can we keep the endgame anyway?

KirknBurker on May 18, 2012 at 10:39 PM

Bless that Andrew, so much better than his brother Ted.

TallDave on May 18, 2012 at 11:29 PM

Here’s another alternate reality from Barnes and Noble:

ISBN-13: 9780471770794
Publisher: Wiley, John & Sons, Incorporated
Publication date: 7/11/2005
Edition number: 1
Pages: 208

Amazon listed the publication date for Black’s book in October.

I have been in the bookselling business for 20-some years, and one thing I can say with absolute certainty is that pub dates mean diddly-squat. Wiley may have scheduled Black’s book with an official pub date of 7/11/2005, but that doesn’t mean the book was actually published on that date. First off, if by “published” you mean printed, the thing was printed several weeks prior to that date, enabling Wiley to get the phyical book out to booksellers for that date. 7/11/2005 is probably referring to the “street date”, the day booksellers put the book out on their shelves. Another problem is that concepts such as November, June or February can be very nebulous in the publishing world. Very often, books slated for a November release actually hit the shelves in October. Also, concepts such as 2005 or 2012 can be almost as squishy. Everybody involved may have sincerely intended to publish a particular title in 2012, but things happen and it doesn’t get published until 2016. (Ask George R.R. Martin.)

One thing to look at, though, is: Did Wiley pass around ARCs (advanced reading copies) prior to the official pub date? ARCs are frequently sent out three or as many as four months in advance of publication. (ARCs usually come in the form of super-cheap trade paperbacks, and are intended for bookstore staff and book reviewers.)

However, even that doesn’t explain the apparent plagerism on the part of either party. In most instances, it is an 18 month period between the time the publisher accepts a manuscript and the time a book actually appears on a bookstore shelf. With the use of computers, that lead time has been shrinking, but not enough to give either party a chance to read, plagarize, submit and get published.

If there is a plagarism issue, it occured at least a year prior to the publication of whichever book came out first. The people investigating this need to quit worrying about actual pub dates and look at any connections between Warren, Warren’s daughter and Black beginning at least a year prior to publication.

catsandbooks on May 19, 2012 at 12:28 PM

Comment pages: 1 2