Is this plagiarism?

[daijobu]

My dd is researching for a paper, so she googled a quote in a book she's reading.  The book contains the following passage:

 

"They specifically advised against the two major steps that Ambassador L. Paul Bremer III would pursue in 2003 after being named to run the US occupation.  The Iraqi army should be kept intact because it could serve as a unifying force in a country that could fall apart under US control.  

 

 

So she decided to track down the quote and found this in another paper:

"Specifically, the report advised against dismantling the Iraqi army given that that could serve as a unifying force."

 

It's just a couple of phrases but this is the kind of thing she struggles with.  How much can you copy from another person's work just because there really isn't a better way to rewrite it?  

 

 

 

 

[Paige]

It would be fine if she used in text citation. I’d be uncomfortable without it because the phrasing is so similar. I don’t think it would be intentional copying or cheating, but citing it is easy enough.

[Bluegoat]

So it's saying what was in a report?  Does it mention the report in the text itself?

[KrissiK]

She needs to quote it and site it. I went round and round and round with my kid about this kind of thing. That’s why I tell them to jot down notes about specific things you want to write about and then put all the sources away and construct sentences.

[Sneezyone]

My dd is researching for a paper, so she googled a quote in a book she's reading.  The book contains the following passage:

 

"They specifically advised against the two major steps that Ambassador L. Paul Bremer III would pursue in 2003 after being named to run the US occupation.  The Iraqi army should be kept intact because it could serve as a unifying force in a country that could fall apart under US control.  

 

 

So she decided to track down the quote and found this in another paper:

"Specifically, the report advised against dismantling the Iraqi army given that that could serve as a unifying force."

 

It's just a couple of phrases but this is the kind of thing she struggles with.  How much can you copy from another person's work just because there really isn't a better way to rewrite it?  

 

Chances are good that the original report used the words 'specifically advise' and 'could serve as a unifying force.' Has she tracked down the original report upon which both the article and book are based? I would cite both sources, no harm in that. I would look up the original report too and, if it makes the same point, cite that too. I've never seen a teacher or prof complain about too many citations just too few.

Edited January 19, 2018 by Sneezyone

[Tanaqui]

Putting aside the plagiarism question, her edit almost makes it sound like it is the act of dismantling the Iraq army that could serve as a unifying force.

[daijobu]

Just to be clear, neither of these are her writing.  These are 2 different sources that she found in her research: a book she found at the library and someone's thesis that was posted online.  

 

Both sources then go on to quote a 3rd source at length.  

[daijobu]

Putting aside the plagiarism question, her edit almost makes it sound like it is the act of dismantling the Iraq army that could serve as a unifying force.

 

Good catch.  I edited what I thought was an error in the thesis, and I didn't want it to be a distraction.  It actually reads:

 

"Specifically, the report advised against dismantling the Iraqi army given that that the [sic] army could serve as a unifying force."

 

I got rid of the "that that the" business because I couldn't make sense of it and I didn't want it to distract.  

[daijobu]

So it's saying what was in a report?  Does it mention the report in the text itself?

 

 

Both of the quotes I posted are followed by a longer indented quote, nearly identical.  But I'm not sure she's located that original source.  

[justasque]

...

 

It's just a couple of phrases but this is the kind of thing she struggles with.  How much can you copy from another person's work just because there really isn't a better way to rewrite it?  

 

One way to consider this is to think "whose opinion/experience/judgement is this?"  If your dd has read the report in question, she can summarize what it says in her own words.  However, if she's writing about what someone else feels the report said, then she is better off with "Mr. Jones notes that the report "specifically advised [etc]", with a citation to the source. 

 

But if this is a fairly important class, she will be better off finding the original document, because quoting someone else's quote can become problematic.  Finding the quote in the original source can help your dd to decide whether or not she agrees with Mr. Jones' (and Mr. Smith's) take-away from that source - in other words, does the source actually advise what they say it does?  Is their quote a good summary, or is it taken out of context, or did Smith & Jones completely miss something else important in the report?

[fralala]

How much can you copy from another person's work just because there really isn't a better way to rewrite it?  

 

So, the answer is, I think, nothing. She actually made a very good catch there, and if she were an editor or a professor, it would probably make her look more closely at the writer's work to see if there were more examples of similarity that was too close to be coincidental.

 

If you write something that is directly inspired by a single piece of writing, whether or not you reword the sentence, you must note the source. If you are simply looking at a text and trying to say the exact same thing the author of that text says, even if you reword it, you should direct your readers to the person who originally made that argument. You're stealing someone else's work, even if it's the work of interpreting a jargon-y report. Plagiarism is about words and ideas.

 

As others have pointed out, we'd have to read the report itself to truly know that the phrasing is ripped off from the secondary source, and is not the kind of phrasing that would come from the report itself (and be referenced in both places). But your daughter should know that she's found the kind of little turn of phrase that can set off a professor's alarm bells. On its own, it's not enough to cry plagiarism because we cannot know for certain that the second writer did it intentionally. But if it was intentional, the first source should have been attributed. If, instead of reading the primary source and interpreting it on his own, the writer read about the primary source and understood it through the interpretation of another secondary source, that other secondary source must be noted.

[Bluegoat]

I think I might disagree  little with the others, if I'm understanding correctly.

 

If the information is taken as being from the original report, and that's stated in the text, I would say that it counts as a kind of summary or indirect quote, and that it is ok if some of the wording is fairly similar.  In fact, I would think that was more usual than not.  You don't have to use the exact wording or put it entirely in your own words for an indirect quote.

 

As for whether there was some kind of in-text citation or footnote of that - there could be.  If the source is actually mentioned in the text, where the indirect quote is, that could suffice.  I would usually expect in that case to be able to find the information about the original report in the bibliographic material if it's a book, and there could be an in-text citation as well - in a very academic sort of article I might especially expect to see that.  But if it's a book o article that's meant to be read as a narrative, more of a journalistic style, I would not expect it.

 

With plagiarism, I think it's useful to differentiate between actually claiming something not your own, and citation.  If the text makes it clear you are recounting the information from some other source, it's probably not plagiarism, even if you've not done the citation correctly.  What's the correct way will depend to a large degree on the kind of publication it is.

[PeterPan]

There are online engines you (or college professors or writing tutors) can run papers through to check for plagiarism. This has become the norm, and in general, yes if it's recognizable it's going to be flagged. The 2nd source isn't a quality source, so she shouldn't use it. 

 

https://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=avoiding+plagiarism&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8  Some hits when you google avoiding plagiarism.

 

Exploring Plagiarism, Copyright, and Paraphrasing - ReadWriteThink  Don't know the age of your dc, but this is aimed at middle school.

 

https://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&ei=vOtjWuiNNqSYtgXO1IWgBw&q=avoiding+plagiarism+worksheet+middle+school&oq=avoiding+plagiarism+mi…  Another google search.

 

Structure is plagiarism too, so let's just go out on a limb and say that since it's so similar that she's ASKING THE QUESTION, it probably is or is really close.  

 

I then googled for plagiarism checkers and put it into the first one that popped up (Grammarly.com) and it says there is plagiarism, yes. 

 

When in doubt, check. Run your own papers through it. Way better than getting Fs. And teacher her how to evaluate quality of sources.