Examples of Orton articles removed for plagiarism:
Kyle Orton on his 'resignation' from Henry Jackson Society (HJS) and his non-apology for plagiarism (which he took down on request of HJS):
Since it has become a semi-public matter, a word seemed in order about my resignation from the Henry Jackson Society (HJS) on Tuesday. Earlier this month, accusations of plagiarism were made against me for a number of blog posts, here and at HJS. The accusations were of incorrect or insufficient citation. Some of the accusations were territorial in nature—asserting ownership over publicly-available information, for example—but there were more legitimate issues involved: hyperlinks missing; a hyperlink at the beginning of a paragraph that I had intended to cover the second sentence in the paragraph, too, and which might not have been obvious to a reader; pictures of jihadists used without attribution, etc. One accusation related to an extensive book review I did of The Connection: How al Qaeda’s Collaboration with Saddam Hussein Has Endangered America on this site in 2015. The accusation centred on the review containing significant overlap with the book—something I had thought was innate to the project. My intention with that review had been to highlight a book I’d felt had received too little attention. I sent the review to the author at the time, and I did not receive a complaint. I have done many similar detailed reviews/summaries of books and monographs since, and so far from being complained about, these reviews have often been welcomed by the authors themselves and have led to people sending me advanced copies of their books with the intent that I review them in this way. However, people react in different ways and now that I am aware of the negative reaction to this review, the post has been removed. The most serious mistake related to some material provided by an external agency for my last report for HJS. The dossier covered eleven ransom payments made by the Qatari government to terrorist groups in Syria. This was represented to me as their work; I verified the sourcing and then included the list. As it transpires, the structure/list was taken from an individual’s Congressional testimony. I missed this fact and for that I am sorry. The view taken by HJS was that this fell into the category of substandard work. These accusations were submitted in two batches and HJS followed procedure. There were no new mistakes/malpractice between the two sets of accusations, and had they been submitted as a single batch the result would likely have been a warning. But as it was, the procedure dictated a final warning and the second strike would have led to dismissal. In view of this, I resigned. The sense that these accusations were made with an attempt to damage, rather than gain recompense and correction, is displeasing, and this sense is unfortunately furthered by their being leaked to, and made public by, a third party with a history of malpractice so severe it surpasses even the most kleptomaniacal forms of plagiarism. Nonetheless, without my mistakes they would have had nothing to work with, and that’s a lesson that I will be taking forward. The first stage is to go through all past work on the site and correct as needed. This will take some time, but I do not want other authors and researchers to feel taken advantage of in their work and have set about trying to prevent these problems arising again. I have been reaching out to other analysts and researchers to help correct bad habits and ensure that the correct formats are adopted in future.