I wasn't questioning the "literary forgery" issue i.e. "hoax" but the claim that "plagiarism" isn't used here in the lead except as a partisan view when looking at the sources of the document. Given that the document was published well after the death of the source author (whom it is alleged borrowed from an earlier source anyway) your example isn't remotely relevant. The chain of authorship isn't as simplistic as your example. An alternative presentation of plagiarism is the Origin_of_the_Book_of_Mormon#Purported_plagiarism because of the intent of the author but oddly enough the Book_of_Mormon article doesn't mention "plagiarism" at all. Here it is the reverse with numerous use of wording for "plagiarism" and in the lead paragraphs but yet with no clear idea how the (mostly) anonymous authors would gain from the plagiarism i.e. gain from the reputation of Maurice Joly. The claim of "plagiarism" only works if there is an unearned increment to the plagiarizing author's reputation that is achieved through false claims of authorship. Now the problem for you is that Serge Nilus did plagiarise the protocols but the protocols themselves are not plagiarised but derivative. If no one claims authorship then where does that leave the claim of plagiarism ? . That's not clearly proven here so I'm suggesting that the word "plagiarism" is removed from the lead paragraph (though it can stay within the main text and elsewhere that the protocols are used in context of being derivative from the earlier work) as it unbalances the lead. "hoax" and "literary forgery" can obviously stay.