Talk:Raid at Renacer Prison

Copy-write violation allegations
I worked on fixing this article yesterday (I did not write any of the content) and when reviewing all of the external links/references I didn't immediately see anything that looked like copyright infringement. I took some time to further read the Newsweek article alleged of being violated and comparing it to the article text and I couldn't see anything obviously copied. Are we sure this article is in violation? When I first read it, I thought the article did a good job of not looking copy-pasted. Maybe someone is seeing something I don't? Buddy23Lee (talk) 18:14, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Without even going to the source, I googled "two UH-1 helicopters executed a 180-degree turn and dived into the prison’s basketball-court-size exercise yard" because it seemed like an odd phrase. Know what I found? The source article. That's where this started. Of course now I can't access it because, in going back and forth, finding the highlighting of Sgt. Schleben and seeing the same tone, I passed my 5 free views, so now I'd have to pay to see it. You see the same terminology, same descriptors, same specific mentioned. The point is, even without it being a direct copy paste, it can still be a copyvio. Taking the article and re-arranging a few words is still a violation. This went beyond fair use. Worse that the article is based on the single source that is plagiarizes. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:14, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Ok, I see what you're saying now. Looks like "With weapons blazing, 20 U.S. paratroopers poured out into a barrage of gunfire from the Panamanian guards" approximates another line from the Newsweek article as well. I realize I'm not at liberty to resolve this issue, but hopefully at least a nominal amount of this article can be retained, if only in stub form. I've run g-searches on many of the lines from the introductory paragraphs, for example, and they seem to be fairly neutral and plagiarism free. Buddy23Lee (talk) 18:29, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Again, don't look for just verbatim copying. For example, the source says "Weapons blazing, 20 paratroopers poured out into a hail of gunfire from the guards". This article says "With weapons blazing, 20 U.S. paratroopers poured out into a barrage of gunfire from the Panamanian guards." Changing a word or two doesn't make it original, especially when it immediately follows the helicopter phrase I googled first. This article: "Col Lynn Moore recalled that this firefight during the raid at Renacer was fierce as any he experienced in the Vietnam war." Source: "Moore recalled that the battle was as fierce as any he experienced in Vietnam" I wish I could access the full text of the source again to do more. Again, it doesn't have to be verbatim to be a plagiarism. See WP:PLAGFORM. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:15, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I think called this one right. Clearly some effort had been made by the original author to rephrase the content, but unfortunately not nearly enough. Apart from the phrases quoted above, there were other signs of copy-pasting, such as the use of two hyphens (--) instead of an em- or en-dash (– or —). The content was also far from encyclopaedic in tone. I've removed it (see below). I'm truly sorry that that undoes the work of, but at least it leaves the way clear to write a neutral source-based Wikipedia article without having to respect the previous text. I'll admit I have my doubts about the notability of this particular piece of skulduggery, and also that the article title is correct. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:34, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed
Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://www.newsweek.com/inside-invasion-206478. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and according to fair use may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:34, 6 November 2014 (UTC)