Wikipedia talk:Plagiarism/Plagiarism problems

This is the Talk page about Wikipedia:Plagiarism/Plagiarism problems, a testing area towards setting up a "Plagiarism problems" service like the Wikipedia:Copyright problems process upon which the testing area is modelled.

bot management questions

The Copyright problems area seems to be organized by a bot run by User:Zorg1bot. For a trial program here, should a corresponding bot system be set up? I suppose it depends on how easy that is for the Zorg1bot bot to be extended to handle this here. Certainly a few cases could be handled without a bot. But, perhaps the mechanics of this page could just be set up right from the beginning, following the Copyright problems page model. Or, are there issues/problems with the way the Copyright problems model that should be addressed first? doncram (talk) 01:36, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please advise

There is no specific template message to tag for plagiarism? Does one need to start a separate Wikipedia plagiarism website to have these matters taken seriously? Please see the Wars of Cyrus the Great, where earlier in the day were found large blocks of text taken verbatim from an 1881 online text—situation at first resolved by converting two sections to long quotes, though this makes the section content based on historiography 130 years old. On further review, I found a paragraph taken all but verbatim from a recent 2012 scholarly text. Given the remaining large blocks of text with few or no sources, it is likely that the rest of the article will be similarly unmasked. In short, the article should be pulled as a plagiarised piece. Copyvio tags were used to mark content, but this seems a misuse of these tags. How does one show that Wikipedia is taking this seriously? Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 00:33, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Looking beyond this one article, it looks as if all of the Cyrus military history material is similarly suspect, to one degree or another. Leprof 7272 (talk) 00:34, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Postscript, the reasons the citations look in good shape—this is deceptive, look in the edit history to the article's state before today—is that the existing citations, while being checked, were also completed (i.e., not left without date, author, publisher, title, URL, etc.). They appear "clean," not because the article is clean, but because they were made clean in determining the article was "dirty." Leprof 7272 (talk) 00:38, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]