Is this plagiarism?

Question

Hi,
I'm writing a movie review for Thank You for Smoking. I read the plot outline on Wikipedia and I really liked it. So I changed the summary I wrote to be more it. First I'll give you what I have written, and then their's.
Will you tell me if they are different enough to not be considered plagerism? Or if I still need to make some changes.

Here's my summary:
Nick Naylor is the chief spokesman and Vice President of the Academy of Tobacco Studies, a lobby created and funded by cigarette companies to "research" the links between smoking cigarettes and health. Obviously, no links are ever found. His job is to "inform" the public of these results, as well as defend the rights of smokers.

Each week, Nick meets with Bobby Jay Bliss and Polly Bailey, the lobbyists for the gun and alcohol lobbies, collectively self-referred to as the M.O.D. Squad (or Merchants Of Death) for lunch to discuss the new problems they come against.

Faced with a bill to add a skull and crossbones to all cigarette packaging, Nick proposes an idea to his boss, BR, to put cigarettes in movies and bring the sex appeal back to smoking. BR sends him to Hollywood to meet with producer Jeff Megall and arrange product placement. Nick decides to bring his son, Joey, after deciding they do not spend enough time together since Joey's mother gained custody. Joey asks about Nick's job during the trip, and they bond as Nick teaches him the art of spin.

In Hollywood he arranges for cigarettes to be in a new movie that is sure to be a hit. Also, he sent a briefcase full of money to deliver to Lorne Lutch, the former Marlboro Man. Lorne is dying of lung cancer and is speaking out against tobacco, so Nick is sent to give him the bribe.

Nick also plans to appear in Congress to fight the cigarette labeling bill and Senator Finistirre, a tough on tobacco Senator and the primary supporter of the bill.

. During an appearance on Dennis Miller's talk show to debate the issue with Finistirre, a caller threatens to kill Nick. Soon afterwards, he is kidnapped and nicotine patches are placed all over his skin, sending high doses of nicotine into his blood stream. This triggered a toxic response and nearly killing him. He survives and his doctor tells him that ironically, it was his smoking habit and resulting tolerance of nicotine which saved his life. However, he can never smoke again.

In the midst of all of this, Nick has secretly begun having sex with an ambitious, young reporter named Heather Holloway. He revealed many off-the record secrets to her, while she prepared a piece about him, promising to be fair to both sides of the issue. She then publishes an article that portrays Nick as a heartless monster. The article includes proprietary information such as Nick's dealings with the M.O.D. Squad, the bribery of Lorne Lutch, the supposed training of Joey to follow in his footsteps,

, and the behind-the-scenes plan to increase product placement of cigarettes in movies. BR, deciding that the article has removed any sympathy of the public towards Nick after his kidnapping, decides that the Academy should distance itself from Nick and fires him. After Nick initially becomes depressed, Joey reminds him of why he does his job: to defend the "defense-less" corporations.

Speaking to the press, Nick promises to clear the names of those linked to him by the article, and reveals his affair with Holloway, ruining her professional journalism career. He also reveals his intention to still testify before the Senate in hopes of stopping the bill from passing.

If you want to know the outcome, I would recommend seeing the movie, I don’t want to completely spoil it for you.

Now, here is what Wikipedia's summary says:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thank_you_for_smoking

(I would paste it here, but that would make this question SSOOO long)

Hey, just so you all know, the summary of this movie, is really a small part of my paper, the majority of it is about the laws relating to smoking and big tobacco and so on.
Also, I did write my own summary, but it wasn't very good, it was way too long. I was having a hard time deciding what to keep and what to leave out and how to organize all of it.

Will you look at my new question?

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20061130131831AA1dPWo&r=w

Is this any better?

Answer 1

Yes.

Why? Because all you did was substitute a few of your own words here and there. You took the person's ideas and words and tried to pass them off as your own. I didn't get past your first paragraph because it was blatant plagiarism.

You need to write something that is YOURS, not just make changes to somebody else's review. Watch the movie, write down elements of the plot, make your own comments on it. If you can't locate the movie or can't get it in time, you take the article and pull out the main ideas NOT simply go through and sort of rewrite what somebody else has written.

What you gave was not YOUR review of the movie--it was somebody else's that you are trying to pass off as your own. It's not just about the words: it's the ideas themselves, too, that count. You not only took that person's ideas, you took them in the order given!

How would you feel if you were the one who had written the wikipedia article and discovered some kid had written what you wrote and was trying to pass it off as theirs?

If you want to know more about plagiarism, visit http://www.plagiarism.org/research_site/e_what_is_plagiarism.html

ADDED: Those who are saying, "Just credit wikipedia and it's not plagiarism" don't get it. If it's supposed to be YOUR review, then there's nothing you have written that you can say is actually your review. You are simply submitting somebody else's review. If that's all you need and you need no credit, then fine, but I'm guessing that you actually have to submit your review and not somebody else's.

Answer 2

You need to state your reference.

One way of doing this is to go "whatever you are quoting" then add a number in a subscript then put a sources page at the back, like they do on Wikipedia if you translate that into web page talk.

Judging by the length of it however, that is too long to be a quote and you would probably be marked down because it looks like you didn't do any work, even if you did.

Answer 3

Hi Amy, see if these links help you.

Paraphrase: Write it in Your Own Words
http://owl.english.purdue.edu/handouts/research/r_paraphr.html

Practice Exercises in Paraphrasing
http://owl.english.purdue.edu/handouts/research/r_paraphrEX1.html


A paraphrase is an indirect quotation. It must be documented because it relates in your own words and style the thoughts you have borrowed from another person. Paraphrases are more flexible than quotations. They fit more smoothly into your text, and you can express your own interpretations as you paraphrase.

http://leo.stcloudstate.edu/research/usingpara.html

http://www.utoronto.ca/ucwriting/paraphrase.html

Good luck.

Kevin, Liverpool, England.

Answer 4

If you don't give credit, then that's plagiarism. Just be sure to cite your sources and have a works cited at the end of your paper and you should be fine.

If you use anything word for word you put it in quotes.

Answer 5

No. Not if you have your source. Any actual things said in the movie you have to put in quotations and explain why, though.

Answer 6

site the source and more than 3 words in a row cant be placed unless u have " " around it.

Answer 7

Yes it is blatant plagiarism... moving words like chief spokesman and vice president does not make it in your own words... the word "Obviously" is not even correctly used in place of "of course"...

rewrite this in your own words... and be sure to site your references!

Answer 8

Its not plagiarism if you cite it as a reference source.

Answer 9

Just give credit to Wikipedia and it's not plagiarism.

Answer 10

That is plagarism. And I garuntee the teacher will check.