Amid plagiarism claims, Paul promises new rules for staff
NASHVILLE — Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul is instituting new approval and citation rules for his staffers and researchers amid accusations that he plagiarized material from several sources for speeches, a newspaper column and his book.
An adviser confirmed the move as Paul looks to stem the fallout, which includes the Washington Times canceling his column.
Paul initially tried to downplay revelations first reported by MSNBC that he had used material from Wikipedia — without attributing it — to describe the plot of a sci-fi movie in a recent speech. Since then, more accusations have surfaced about his writings having similar or identical language to other publications without attribution.
In an email on Wednesday, Paul adviser Doug Stafford said the senator “relies on a large number of staff and advisers to provide supporting facts and anecdotes — some of which were not clearly sourced or vetted properly.”
Stafford said Paul's office now plans to make footnotes available on request and will seek to make attribution to other people's work more complete.
Paul initially said he wished he could challenge his critics to a duel for questioning his honesty.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- White House breach ‘a cry out for help,’ alleged intruder’s ex-wife says
- Mentally ill Pa. man might go free in 9/11 scare
- No info taken as federal health insurance website hacked
- Egyptian Bary admits links to 1998 U.S. Embassy bombings in Africa
- DHS headquarters’ planning goes awry
- Scope of Chrysler’s latest SUV recall questioned
- 121 tourists stranded on schooner near Statue of Liberty
- March around the world seek to put focus on climate change
- Backers seek expansion of Till civil rights death law
- Legislators urge Secret Service to reassess White House security
- Officials say too many in the 18-64 age range skip flu vaccination