This sentence (an important one) got removed, with the rationale that it was plagiarism. In what way is it plagiaristic? What source is allegedly being plagiarized? There are only so many ways of stating that two books won the History Pulitzer that year...
Source: "Mr. Branch's book, Parting the Waters: America in the King Years, 1954-63 (Simon & Schuster), shared the Pulitzer for history with James M. McPherson's Battle Cry of Freedom: The Civil War Era (Oxford University Press)."
The sentence structure, word order, and word choice are quite similar. The Signpost article here explains plagiarism (and its many flavors) fairly well. Take a look at the "Problems in paraphrasing" subsection. Shubinator (talk) 02:46, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for that greater detail about the concern. I want to be sensitive to this and do the right thing. However, as I mentioned above, there are only so many ways of saying that two books won the Pulitzer for History in 1989. The Signpost article details a number of examples of concerns about just moving phrases around, etc. and I do not contest any of that. However, for a basic fact that I believe merits inclusion in the article, but probably does not merit more than a single declarative sentence, I am not sure how to wordsmith it in a way that would not be open to criticism based on the guidelines in the Signpost article. Do you (or does anyone else) have a suggestion on how better to state that fact in our article?
(And thanks for your diligence, I mean that sincerely. It is an important part of what makes Wikipedia work.) KConWiki (talk) 03:24, 5 February 2012 (UTC)