PLAGIARISM AND CITATIONS, Satire

Citations and Plagiarism

(aka How to Avoid Automatically Failing a Class)

I occasionally come across unintentional plagiarism and since this is still a very serious matter, you should review this before the next paper is due.  For full guidelines, please check out your textbook. Here’s a crash course, though.  For MLA internal citations, list in parentheses the author’s last name (or the editor’s last name, or one of the editors’ last names, if there are multiple authors, like in a textbook), plus the page number for written sources and the paragraph number (if possible) for online sources.  The period goes after the last parenthesis.  Like this:

When it comes to grammar, the evidence is clear that, “…readers equate correctness with the writer’s competence” (Bullock 80).

However, there is one exception—when you give the author’s name earlier in the sentence.

When it comes to grammar, Bullock believes that, “…readers equate correctness with the writer’s competence” (80).

If there’s no author, just list the name of the website or source (example: ABC News). 

For MLA citation on a work cited page, you can also use the citation generator found on www.easybib.com. For you own information, though, this is how it’s done:

Article in a Printed, Scholarly Journal:

Last name, First name.  “Name of Article.”  Name of magazine.  page numbers.  Date.

Jacobson, Elmer.  “10 Causes of Global Warming.”  Newsweek.  pp. 23-42.  March 3^rd, 2006.

Internet News Site:

Last name, First name.  “Name of Article.”  Name of site.  Date of last update. Date you accessed the site.  <site url>.

Twin, Alexandra.  “Fed Can’t Save Stocks.”  CNN.  October 8, 2008.  <http://money.cnn.com/2008/10/08/markets/markets_newyork/index.htm?cnn=yes>

Warning: if you type this then press “enter”, it’ll turn the web address into a hyperlink.  On a PC, press control and Z at the same time to undo this.

When you have more than one source, list them alphabetically on your Works Cited page.

*

OK, and now an important word on plagiarism…

Plagiarism is basically using someone else’s ideas, research, statistics, or descriptions without giving them proper credit.  Note: It’s possible to cite something and still commit plagiarism! 

Whenever you cite something but don’t use quotes, you’re indicating that you’re paraphrasing (i.e. significantly changing something into your own words), or referencing some raw fact or idea you used.  If what you cite as a paraphrase is actually identical—or close to identical—to the original, this constitutes plagiarism and results in a failing grade, just the same as if you copied a paper or paragraph directly off the internet.

Remember, you have to cite EVERYTHING you put in a paper that you didn’t already know/that isn’t common knowledge.  If you use the author’s/website’s/article’s words directly, you MUST put them in quotes with an internal citation immediately after.  In general, a student who shows me their rough draft but tells me that they “haven’t put their citations in yet” is immediately on my radar because it’s much easier (and safer) to put in your citations as you go.

Again, if you give an internal citation WITHOUT quotes, but you haven't really changed the phrasing very much, that’s just as bad as providing no citation at all.  So if I find that phrase (or a very similar one) online or in an article, you’ve technically plagiarized.  And you fail.

Don't panic—just take a look at this short example to show you what I mean.  If you have questions, ask me (or the Writing Center).  Here’s a fictitious passage by John Smith, from paragraphs 14 and 15 of Ancient History:

The biblical story of Noah is by no means the only story of an ancient, cataclysmic flood.  In fact, many religions and peoples from the Greeks to the Aztecs have similar stories; this leads scientists to speculate that some sort of ancient cataclysm might actually have occurred.  Some scientists further speculate, based on geographical evidence, as well as patterns in the distribution of these myths, that the flood was caused by a massive meteor strike in the Indian Ocean in 2084 BC.  Such a meteor strike would have triggered great tsunamis and other destructive climate changes. 

This calamity was relatively mild compared to other cataclysmic changes our planet has endured, though.  You may have heard that a meteor strike caused the death of the dinosaurs, but did you know that most scientists and paleontologists agree that there have been at least five mass extinctions in the history of our planet, each resulting in the loss of at least 50% of animal species around at the time of the extinction?

Here are two examples of situations in which the above passage is cited.  The first constitutes plagiarism; the second does not.

Plagiarized Version (which results in failure):

There are many stories of floods in the ancient world.  The Greeks and Aztecs have similar tales, which has led scientists to think that some sort of ancient flood actually took place.  Some even speculate, based on geographical evidence and patterns in the distribution of these stories, that the flood was caused by a massive meteor in the Indian Ocean in 2084 BC.  Such a strike would have triggered tsunamis and other climate changes.  However, this was not the first time life on earth was nearly wiped out; in fact, most scientists agree that it’s happened at least five times (Smith, 14-15).

Acceptable Version:

In John Smith’s book, Ancient History, he notes many intriguing similarities between the story of Noah and the flood, found in the Bible, and other flood myths throughout the world.  He also points out that these similarities and other evidence has prompted scientists to theorize “…that the flood was caused by a massive meteor strike in the Indian Ocean in 2084 BC” (Smith, par. 14).  However, our planet has endured worse.  For example, there may have been “…at least five mass extinctions in the history of our planet,” like the one that wiped out the dinosaurs (15).  Such events illustrate how fragile the ecosystem of any given species really is. 

The Plagiarized Version is plagiarism because it isn’t clear what ideas come from the author of the paper, and which ideas come from the source.  Also, the phrasing is nearly identical in many places.  The Acceptable Version makes clear which ideas the author is citing, but more importantly, it also puts forth some original ideas. When in doubt, don’t just restate the passage you read; ask yourself why it’s important.  Also, you can try setting aside whatever source you’re quoting and restating it from memory.  This is a good way to help put it in your own words.  Finally, never just drop a quote in a paper; always set it up first.

*

Now, a quick lesson on commas and semi-colons.  This may not seem like a big deal but small mistakes in grammar are very stigmatizing. In other words, a reader who doesn't know you and sees typos in your writing will have less respect for you and is less likely to take you seriously.  (That can have some negative ramifications in the real world, too.)

A semi-colon and a period are basically used for the same thing—to separate two independent clauses (aka what could be a complete sentence).  Commas, on the other hand, usually denote sequence or are used to separate independent and dependent clauses.

Exception: if you have a sequence that would normally be separated by commas (like items you bought at a store), but you want to group some of them, you can use semi-colons to separate the groups.  Example:

While I was at the store, I bought skim and whole milk; white, wheat, and rye bread; and a giant box of frozen chicken.

OK, now for some practice.  What should go in the blanks below: a comma or a semi-colon?     

1)     Poor class participation means a loss of participation points and unexcused absences for disruptive behavior ____ as a general rule, rude students cannot pass discussion-based classes.

2)     I like pizza _____ it’s my favorite food.

3)     Jonathan Swift doesn’t actually think we should eat babies ____ in fact, “A Modest Proposal” is a famous work of satire, or deliberate exaggeration to prove a point.  In this case, Swift was illustrating the apathy of the rich towards the starving poor in 18^th century Ireland.

4)     I have lived in Osage, Iowa _____ Iowa City, Iowa _____ Carbondale, Illinois and Muncie, Indiana.

 

 

Stephen Colbert and Jonathan Swift: More on Satire 

 

The following is a crash course on satire (how it works, why writers take that approach, etc) that I put together because, well, I've gotten the impression that Indiana school systems aren't covering this, even though satire is a huge element of entertainment and political discourse in the U.S.

The classic example of satire, coming from 1729, is Jonathan Swift's "A Modest Proposal." The essay argues that the Irish government should respond to poverty by using unwanted kids as food. Did Swift actually think we should be eating children? Of course not. He exaggerated for dark humor and shock value, to get his audience's attention, so that he could try and get them to see how bad it was that the government (and the wealthy) of Ireland at that time didn't seem to care about all the neglected and starving children right under their nose.

Satire is to apathy what an uppercut is to somebody's jaw. It's a great way to reach an audience that's stuck in their old ways and very reluctant to consider a different point of view (i.e. people who are dumb). There are many modern examples.

If you watch "The Daily Show," it's pretty obvious that Jon Stewart is a liberal/progressive (even though he regularly skewers Democrats, too) but Stephen Colbert seems on the surface to be mega-conservative. Actually, his act is a total satire, a parody of Bill O'Reilly and Glen Beck off Fox News. From his clothes to his jokes, body language, and the various segments on his show, Colbert uses exaggeration to mock what he sees as O'Reilly's and Beck's use of bad logic, their lack of appreciation for science and civil discourse, their use of fear to gain an audience, etc. His famous speech at the White House Correspondents Dinner in which he made fun of George W. Bush (who was literally a few feet away) is another example.

Now, Colbert could just come out and say directly what he really thinks--but that wouldn't be as funny. By using humor and staying in character, he's able to better convey why he thinks the people he's satirizing are absurd. That also has the added bonus of getting under some people's skin because satire isn't always easy to understand and it's very hard to counter.

Here's another example. This famous letter made the rounds on the internet awhile back. It was also. It was supposedly sent to Dr. Laura Schlessinger, a radio talk show host known for making Bible-based arguments against homosexuality. The letter satirizes this by pointing out plenty of other biblical passages that Schlessinger ignores; in other words, it demonstrates that she was being hypocritical and just trying to claim divine authority for what is really just her personal opinion.

The writer of the "Letter to Dr. Laura" could have just said something like, "Dear Dr. Laura, I disagree with your view that homosexuality is a sin, something you've based solely on the Bible, since the ancient books of Leviticus and Exodus also express many other laws that all of us break on a regular basis. So if we don't make burnt offerings or think it's a sin to eat shellfish, and we no longer believe in selling children into slavery, why should we adhere to prohibition of same-sex couples as put forth in Leviticus?"

Instead, though, the letter PRETENDS to agree with Dr. Laura, gets the audience to lower their guard, then proceeds to point out the hypocrisy of those who cherry-pick passages from the Bible (or any text, really) just to substantiate their own claims. Why? Well, because it's unexpected, a little funny, and a much more effective way of pointing out that Dr. Laura wasn't even familiar with the very text she was quoting.

A big question people ask: how do we know something is or isn't satire? For example, how do you know Hitler's autobiography, Mein Kampf, isn't just a satire making fun of racism? Well, even if the Holocaust hadn't happened, you have the way Mein Kampf is written, i.e. it's ranting, rambling, and largely incoherent. If you look at "A Modest Proposal," on the other hand, it's well-organized and very articulate. Can you imagine a smart, sane person thinking that we should eat babies? Probably not. Sso even without looking at Swift's (or Hitler's) other writings, we can tell which one of them is making a satire.

Long story short: satire requires a sense of humor, but more importantly, it requires empathy and three dimensional thinking (aka thinking outside the box).