Ive listened to your comments and tried to find constructive ways to improve the article for all to enjoy but clearly you have an entirely different agenda in mind  I never made a claim that this was my article you continue to assert  Instead I transcluded an already excellent public domain article into WP format and I cited the original article  I then expanded the article in areas where I knew interesting and relevant background was missing and others in our community have already begun to do the same  Your views on this issue have already been adequately discussed in their entirety on the Village pump policy  You made your assertions and the consensus viewpoint of the WP community is that US Government sources including images and text are a valuable resource for WP should be used to the fullest extent and that using the FBI material in its original form is not only appropriate but even preferable in this case  Im including the complete unedited and certainly not paraphrased discussion in a new section on this talk page  From the Village pump policy  for all to view      From the Village pump policy   Is it okay under IAR to create a Wikipedia article which is a verbatim copy of an identical article appearing on a US government website ie a website in the public domain  A recently added May   Wikipedia article is a Wikified word for word copy  both text and photos  of a page article which appears on the FBIs website at httpwwwfbigovlibrefhistoricfamcasesspyringspyringhtm titled Federal Bureau of Investigation Famous Cases  Members of the Duquesne Spy Ring  The recent Wikipedia article that was copied from that FBI website is Duquesne Spy Ring  The Wikipedia article originally carried the USGovernment template but did not cite the current FBI article as the articles source  The word for word copying of the entire text and photos of a page article in the public domain and inserting that copied article in Wikipedia seems to me technically and ethically if not in fact to be plagiarism even though the work copied is in the public domain  If it is considered to be plagiarism what can be done about effectively flagging readers that the copied article is a direct copy from another source  I think the text of the USGovernment template isnt adequate for this situation    Its not plagarism so long as its indicated that the text came from somewhere and was not just originally written Its best not to do verbatim copies for NPOV reasons but so long as the source is given its not terrible    I agree that the standard text of the USGovernment template isnt adequate for this situation  Rather than say This article incorporates text from  it would be much more accurate to state something along the lines of The original version of this article was copied from  so that readers are clearly informed of the extent of the copying  To list the FBI website as a source clearly understates the copying  In the context of an article or paper this would be akin to copying passages without showing them in quotes and merely listing the source in the bibliography  Almost everyone would consider that plagiarism      This bothers me even if it is not plagiarism ie even if we give credit to the cite where it is copied from wikipedia should not simply copy another site  We should write original articles based on the information obtained in reliable secondary sources  I could understand basing the bulk of this articles information on the FBI site but we should at least paraphrase it instead of copying it  I would love to flag it for improvement in some way but I am not sure if there are any tags that apply     To be clear the article always referenced the FBI as the source of substantial content and no claim to the contrary was ever made  in the original document a URL was provided and the reference was Much of this article comes from FBI documents and photos released in  under the freedom of information act and in the public domain  What does seem to be controversial is the quantity of public information reused in this Wikipedia article  However it is not illegal unethical and even uncommon for a private entity to reissue and resell public information sometimes adding value and sometimes not eg Natio