1.媒体来源: 纽约时报
2.完整新闻标题/内文:
Montana Democrat’s Thesis Presented Others’ Work as His Own
Senator John Walsh of Montana Confronts Questions of Plagiarism
WASHINGTON — Democrats were thrilled when John Walsh of Montana was
appointed to the United States Senate in February. A decorated veteran of the
Iraq war and former adjutant general of his state’s National Guard, Mr.
Walsh offered the Democratic Party something it frequently lacks: a seasoned
military man.
On the campaign trail this year, Mr. Walsh, 53, has made his military service
a main selling point. Still wearing his hair close-cropped, he notes he was
targeted for killing by Iraqi militants and says his time in uniform informs
his views on a range of issues.
But one of the highest-profile credentials of Mr. Walsh’s 33-year military
career appears to have been improperly attained. An examination of the final
paper required for Mr. Walsh’s master’s degree from the United States Army
War College indicates the senator appropriated at least a quarter of his
thesis on American Middle East policy from other authors’ works, with no
attribution.
Mr. Walsh completed the paper, what the War College calls a “strategy
research project,” to earn his degree in 2007, when he was 46. The sources
of the material he presents as his own include academic papers, policy
journal essays and books that are almost all available online.
Continue reading the main story
INTERACTIVE GRAPHIC
How Senator John Walsh Plagiarized a Final Paper
A line-by-line analysis of Mr. Walsh’s master’s thesis shows that he took
much of it from other sources without giving them credit
Most strikingly, each of the six recommendations Mr. Walsh laid out at the
conclusion of his 14-page paper, titled “The Case for Democracy as a Long
Term National Strategy,” is taken nearly word-for-word without attribution
from a Carnegie Endowment for International Peace document on the same topic.
In his third recommendation, for example, Mr. Walsh writes: “Democracy
promoters need to engage as much as possible in a dialogue with a wide cross
section of influential elites: mainstream academics, journalists, moderate
Islamists, and members of the professional associations who play a political
role in some Arab countries, rather than only the narrow world of westernized
democracy and human rights advocates.”
The same exact sentence appears on the sixth page of a 2002 Carnegie paper
written by four scholars at the research institute. In all, Mr. Walsh’s
recommendations section runs to more than 800 words, nearly all of it taken
verbatim from the Carnegie paper, without any footnote or reference to it. In
addition, significant portions of the language in Mr. Walsh’s paper can be
found in a 1998 essay by a scholar at the Belfer Center for Science and
International Affairs, a research institute at Harvard.
For example, Mr. Walsh writes: “The United States will have an interest in
promoting democracy because further democratization enhances the lives of
citizens of other countries and contributes to a more peaceful international
system. To the extent that Americans care about citizens of other countries
and international peace, they will see benefits from the continued spread of
democracy.”
The Harvard paper, written in 1998 by Sean M. Lynn-Jones, a scholar at the
Belfer Center, includes the same two sentences.
Mr. Walsh does not footnote or cite Mr. Lynn-Jones’s essay, titled “Why the
United States Should Spread Democracy,” anywhere in his paper.
Both the Carnegie and Harvard papers are easily accessible on the Internet.
In an interview outside his Capitol Hill office on Tuesday, after he was
presented with multiple examples of identical passages from his paper and the
Carnegie and Harvard essays, Mr. Walsh said he did not believe he had done
anything wrong.
“I didn’t do anything intentional here,” he said, adding that he did not
recall using the Carnegie and Harvard sources.
Asked directly if he had plagiarized, he responded: “I don’t believe I did,
no.”
On Wednesday, a campaign aide for Mr. Walsh did not contest the plagiarism
but suggested that it be viewed in the context of the senator’s long career.
She said Mr. Walsh was going through a difficult period at the time he wrote
the paper, noting that one of the members of his unit from Iraq had committed
suicide in 2007, weeks before it was due.
The aide said Mr. Walsh, who served in Iraq from November 2004 to November
2005, “dealt with the experience of post-deployment,” but acknowledged he
had not sought treatment.
The master’s degree in strategic studies from the War College has benefited
Mr. Walsh’s career: In a military evaluation the year after Mr. Walsh
received it, his commander praised him for it, writing that he “leads his
peers and sets example in maintaining continuous military education and
training subjects pertinent to today’s leadership challenges.”
In September 2008, Mr. Walsh, a recipient of the Bronze Star, was appointed
adjutant general of Montana’s National Guard by the governor. A subsequent
military evaluation said his prospects for the post had been “bolstered” in
part by his degree from the War College.
Located in Carlisle, Pa., the Army War College is a coveted career stop for
ambitious officers, and its graduates since its 1901 founding include Dwight
D. Eisenhower, George Patton and Norman Schwarzkopf. As with most military
institutes, the War College emphasizes honor and integrity: Its current
student handbook states that plagiarism will result in disenrollment and that
discoveries of academic violations have led to degrees being rescinded and
names being scraped off the bronze plaques honoring graduates on campus.
“Sooner or later, academic dishonesty will be discovered,” the handbook,
known as the Communicative Arts Directive, warns.In 2012, Mr. Walsh stepped
down as the head of the state’s National Guard after winning his first bid
for elected office to become Montana’s lieutenant governor. From that
position, he was appointed to the Senate this year by Gov. Steve Bullock.
The Senate vacancy arose after President Obama nominated Max Baucus, the
veteran Democrat who planned to retire from Congress, to be ambassador to
China. Democrats hoped that installing Mr. Walsh in February would strengthen
the party’s position and efforts to retain the seat.
Mr. Walsh’s military record and centrist politics were seen as assets in the
independent-minded state, and, as an incumbent senator, he would be better
positioned to raise money for this fall’s election. Still, Mr. Walsh is
trailing Representative Steve Daines, his Republican opponent, strategists on
both sides say, and has trailed Mr. Daines in fund-raising.
Questions have previously been raised about Mr. Walsh’s résumé and
conduct, though they were comparatively minor.
Earlier this year, it was revealed that he was reprimanded in 2010 for using
his role as adjutant general to urge other guardsmen to join a private
advocacy group, the National Guard Association of the United States, in which
he was seeking a leadership role.
As a result he was denied a promotion from colonel to general, he
acknowledged in January. In response to the matter, Mr. Walsh released about
400 pages of his military records, which detailed his service awards and was
full of effusive praise from his commanding officers.
There has also been a discrepancy about where Mr. Walsh earned his
undergraduate degree. He was listed in the biographical directory of Congress
as having graduated in 1990 from the University at Albany, State University
of New York, but actually earned his bachelor of science from what was then
known as Regents College, an adult learning institute that issued degrees
under the umbrella of the University of the State of New York.
Mr. Walsh changed the listing after the newspaper Roll Call ran an article
about the matter, but did not offer an explanation publicly.The breadth of
Mr. Walsh’s apparent plagiarism, however, is startling — and rivaled by few
other examples in recent political history. Senator Rand Paul, Republican of
Kentucky, was found last year to have presented the work of others as his own
in a newspaper opinion article, a book and speeches. And Vice President
Joseph R. Biden Jr. dropped his 1988 presidential bid when it was revealed
that in campaign speeches he had used language similar to that of the British
Labour Party leader Neil Kinnock without attributing the remarks.
Mr. Walsh appears to have gone considerably further.
About a third of his paper consists of material either identical to or
extremely similar to passages in other sources, such as the Carnegie or
Harvard papers, and is presented without attribution. Another third is
attributed to sources through footnotes, but uses other authors’ exact — or
almost exact — language without quotation marks.
The senator included 96 footnotes in his paper, but many of them only
illustrate this troubling pattern. In repeated instances, Mr. Walsh uses the
language of others with no quotation marks, but footnotes the source from
which the material came. In other cases, the passages appear in his paper
with a word or two changed, but are otherwise identical to the authors’
language.
For example, in the first paragraph of his paper, Mr. Walsh writes of
President George W. Bush: “During the 2000 presidential campaign Bush and
his advisors made it clear that they favored great-power realism over
idealistic notions such as nation building or democracy promotion.”
At the end of this sentence, which Mr. Walsh included without quotation
marks, he footnoted a reference to a 2003 article in Foreign Affairs by
Thomas Carothers, a prominent and highly credentialed foreign policy expert.
Mr. Carothers’ essay read: “During the 2000 presidential campaign Bush and
his advisers had made it clear that they favored great-power realism over
idealistic notions such as nation building or democracy promotion.”
The only difference is that Mr. Walsh wrote “advisors” rather than “
advisers” and did not use “had,” as Mr. Carothers did in his article.
In other instances, Mr. Walsh swaps a synonym for a word in the original
document, and condenses sentences.
He writes on his second page: “There are deep disagreements about the
appropriate theoretical framework, about whether democracy is simply an
institutional arrangement for choosing rulers or an end in itself, about how
to measure and evaluate democracy, and about the importance of prerequisites
for democracy.
The footnote at the end of this sentence, presented without quotation marks
in Mr. Walsh’s paper, is to a chapter by Robert L. Rothstein in a 1995 book
of essays, “Democracy, War, and Peace in the Middle East.”
Mr. Rothstein’s sentence is slightly longer and uses “profound” rather
than “deep,” but is otherwise identical.
Such copying of a footnoted source without quotation marks is specifically
prohibited in the War College’s handbook.
CONTINUE READING THE MAIN STORY
156
COMMENTS
“Copying a segment of another’s work word for word, then conveniently ‘
forgetting’ to include quotation marks, but ‘remembering’ to cite the
source,” is described as the second example of academic fraud in the
handbook.
The first is: “Directly quoting another author’s work without giving proper
credit to the author.”
“Plagiarism,” the handbook notes, “is a serious form of cheating that
carries serious consequences.”
Nick Corasaniti and Kitty Bennett contributed reporting.
来自华盛顿-对于当来自美国蒙大拿州的约翰沃尔什在二月时被任命为参议院议员时,民主
党感到非常欣喜。作为一个从伊拉克战争老将以及国民警备队的副指挥官，沃尔什先生是
民主党中最缺乏的－一个具有专业军事背景的政治家。
年值53岁的沃尔什在今年的竞选活动中，以他的军事背景做为主要卖点，始终顶着象征军
人的小平头。在受到一系列的访问中对于他在服役期间的问题，他提到他曾经是伊拉克武
装恐怖分子的狙杀对象。
但沃尔什三十三年的军事生涯中，最引人注目的一点却备受争议。从他在美国战争学院的
硕士毕业论文中发现，至少其中有四分之一以上的内容是从一个对于美国中东政策的参议
员的文章内容中节录的，而且论文最后并没有提到有引用该篇章。
沃尔什最终还是完成了论文＂战略研究项目＂并且在2007年取得硕士学位，当年他46岁。
而他论文中的研究材料，几乎都是统整自来自网络上可搜寻到的包含学术论文，政策期刊
和书籍。
更让人值得注意的是，贯穿14页论文中六个章节并奠定他且做为结论的"做为一个民主国
家的长期战略案例"内容，竟然是从卡内基国际和平基金会中的在国际和平文件中，一字
不漏，连语句上的修饰都没有的节录进去。
举个例子来说，他的第三个重要章节中提到：民主的推动者需要与更多元的具影响力的社
会精英进行对话，主流学者，记者，中产阶级的伊斯兰教徒，以及不同专业的协会成员，
比起西方的民主人权倡导这种狭隘的观点，更能在阿拉伯国家发挥政治作用。
从一篇由四位学者共同撰写的卡内基论文章中的第六页，可以发现与上述例子完全相同的
句子。总而言之，沃尔什自己的观点建议在论文中不超过800个字。几乎大部分都是抄自
卡内基基金会的研究文章，但完全没有提到有引用其内容的部分。此外，而其论文中的观
点也可以在1998年的一位哈佛大学研究者在贝尔佛科学和国际事务研究中心发表的论文中
明显的得到。
举例来说，沃尔什先生写道：美国致力于发展民主是基于民主能进一步保护其他国家国民
的生命，并且建立一个更完善的国际体系。而扩大美国人对于关心其他国家的国民和国际
和平，他们能借此看到民主发展的好处。
而哈佛大学的研究学者－锡恩林恩琼斯在贝尔佛研究中心1998年发表的论文中也包含其中
两句话。
而沃尔什也没有下任何注脚在他论文中的任何地方提到关于锡恩林恩琼斯的这篇题为＂美
国为什么要民主的＂文章。
卡内基基金会跟哈佛大学两者的学术论文在网络上都可以很容易的取得。
本周二在国会山庄办公室他接受记者采访，并承认了对于他的论文和上述两篇论文中有多
处雷同之处的事实后，他表示并不觉得他在这件事情上有什么错误。
他表示＂我并没有做任何的蓄意行为＂，并补充到他完全不记得有参考卡内基跟哈佛的论
文资料。
而当记者直接问起他是否抄袭。他的回应是：不，我不相信我有。
在上周三，一位沃尔蛇的竞选助理并没有对抄袭一事做出反驳声明她他建议此事应该从参
议员先生其漫长的事业生涯做为观点来看。她说当沃尔什在撰写论文时，人生正经历一个
非常困难的时期，当时有一个从伊拉克的部队成员在2007年自杀了，就在提交论文的
那段时间。
助理说沃尔什先生在2004年11月到2005年11月在伊拉克服役，并经历战后创伤症候群，＂
但她承认他没有寻求治疗＂
战争学院中的硕士学位有助于沃尔什先生的职业生涯:在论文发表一年后沃尔什先生收到
了一份军事评估，他受到指挥官的表扬中写道，他带领着他的同僚并且对于的军事训练科
目及教育上的领导能力挑战做了一个良好的示范。
在2008年9月，沃尔什获得铜星勋章，并同时被任命为蒙大拿州的国民警备队的副指挥官
。在军事的评价中（这边应该是指兵袋里面的资料吧..)他的晋升有一部分是因为受到战
争学院硕士学位的影响。
对于那些具有雄心壮志的军官位于美国宾州的陆军战争学院是一个极为重要的目标。其中
的毕业生自1901年成立以来，包含艾森豪威尔，乔治巴顿和诺曼师瓦兹科普夫。与大多数
军事院一样，战争学院一样强调其荣誉和尊严；目前的学生手册内有规定一旦被发现有抄
袭事实，其学位会被注销，并且在青铜匾额那表彰的优异毕业生，名字也会从上面刮除。
＂学术上造假，迟早会被发现＂这是2012年广告年鉴上的一句警世名句，沃尔什先生辞去
了他在国民警备队的职位，并参加了他人生的第一次公职选举，担任了蒙大拿州副州长的
职位。并且从那个位置被州长在今年任命为蒙州的参议员。
在欧巴马总统提名包斯卡－一位民主党老将将计画退出国会担任驻中国大使，使的参议院
出现空缺后，民主党希望在二月将沃尔什送上参议院的位子能够稳定席位并强化政党的在
议院中的处境。
沃尔什的军事生涯纪录和中立派的政治色彩再摇摆州中显得特别重要。做为现任参议员，
他将有更好的机会去为今年秋天的大选筹措资金。尽管如此，双方的竞选顾问都一致认为
沃尔什已经落后他的竞选对手史帝芬代恩斯。
虽然先前已经提过了关于沃尔什的相关经历和行为，但与接下来的相比之下他们已经是很
轻微的了。
在今年稍早，他被提到关于他在2010年担任副指挥官时滥用职权，迫使其他警备兵去加入
一个私人的宣传机构－国民警备队协会，他在此机构中寻求担任领导干部的职位。
因此，他失去了从上校晋升为少将的机会，他承认在一月时他对此回应并且发布了一份大
约400页左右的军事备忘录。里面都是详细记载了他各种服务的奖项，并充满了他的军事
幕僚对于他各种热情的赞赏。
还有一点对于他过去大学学位的争议性。他在国会议员的自传募路中提到他过去毕业于纽
约州立大学奥尔巴尼分校。但是实际上他获得的理学院学位在过去是摄影学院，并且只是
一个纽约州立大学的下辖的成人教育中心。
沃尔什先生在报纸将此事公开报导前改变了报导此事的文章，但他并没有公开向大众解释
关于抄袭的事情。然而令人吃惊的是，在近年来其它政治历史上的其它例子，去年共和党
的肯塔基州参议员保罗兰德被发现把一些报纸社论，书籍及演讲变成自己的观点。而副总
统小乔许Ｒ拜登也在1988S年竞选总统的竞选演说时，使用类似英国工党领袖尼尔金诺克
的言论并没有提到引用其观点。
沃尔什先生比起上述两位似乎更佳的全面进化。
关于在他的的论文材料或其他类似的来源有三分之一，如卡内基及哈佛的论文段落并没有
写出引用来源。而另外三分之一引用其它作者的文章但并没有做适当的记号来做为其段落
做标记。
参议员在他的论文中注明了96处的注脚，但其中有很多只是提到文章来源，并没有切确的
点出哪些段落是出自其他人的手比，而且除了更动一两个只字词组外其它都是相同的。
例如，在论文的第一段落，沃尔什先生写道2000年的总统大选：布什总统和他的竞选顾问
明确表示,他们赞成大国现实主义概念,如国家建设及民主发展。
这句话，沃尔什先生并没有明确以注脚标示出是引用出自于外交事务处马斯卡罗塞－一个
极度杰出的外交政策专家在2003年的文章。其原文是：在2000年总统大选中，布什总统和
他的顾问明确表示：他们对于理想主义的概念，如国家建设和民主促进的大国实现主义。
为一的区别是沃尔什先生写的顾问advisors跟原文的adviser不同而且句子也少一个had。
在其它情况下，沃尔什先生也只是交换一些文句中的代名词。
他著作中的第二页＂民主是否只是一种选择统治者货其目的，有一些理论框架存在很深的
分歧。如何衡量和判别民主的先决条件在于制度上民主的重要性。
这句话并没有提到任何注解，但其实是出自于罗伯特罗斯坦在1995年的散文"民主战争与
和平的中东中的其中一章
而罗斯坦的句子较于拢长，并且使用的是＂深刻＂并非＂深＂
但其它字巨基本上是一样。
在战争学院中的手册对于直接复制饮用的句子不加引号注脚源是明确记载完全禁止的。
手册中记载的第二点是著抄袭其他文字工作者的文字，随兴的忘了＂引号＂
第一点是：引用其它作者的作品却没有给他们相当程度的报酬。
该手册并指出＂抄袭＂是一种严重的作弊形式，并会造成严重的后果
3.新闻连结:
http://ppt.cc/Y8UF
4.备注:
政府官员学术造假，世界潮流正夯，人家还爽当继续爽当国会议员唷
不负责 随便翻翻，出错也不用指正了 看看就好