At the first day of the 2016 Republican National Convention in Cleveland, Melania Trump gave a speech including these words:
"From a young age, my parents impressed on me the values that you work hard for what you want in life, that your word is your bond and you do what you say and keep your promise, that you treat people with respect. They taught and showed me values and morals in their daily lives. That is a lesson that I continue to pass along to our son. And we need to pass those lessons on to the many generations to follow. Because we want our children in this nation to know that the only limit to your achievements is the strength of your dreams and your willingness to work for them."
This seems strikingly similar to Michelle Obama's speech when her husband was nominated as the Presidential candidate about eight years earlier:
"And Barack and I were raised with so many of the same values: that you work hard for what you want in life; that your word is your bond and you do what you say you're going to do; that you treat people with dignity and respect, even if you don't know them, and even if you don't agree with them. And Barack and I set out to build lives guided by these values, and to pass them on to the next generation. Because we want our children -- and all children in this nation -- to know that the only limit to the height of your achievements is the reach of your dreams and your willingness to work for them."
Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort characterized the possibility of plagiarism as "crazy" and "just really absurd," an attempt by Clinton to "demean [Melania Trump], and take her down." Apparently "what she did was use words that are common words;" "these were common words and values." Gov. Christie said "There's no way that Melania Trump was plagiarizing Michelle Obama's speech." After all, most of the speech was not the same as Obama's (or Astley's). The speaker herself claimed, "I wrote it ... with (as) little help as possible."
The campaign could have said something like "Yeah, we copied those bits; so what? Our party will unite the country behind those values this November and we can see they've got proven electoral success. We're going to be winning so much,..." Instead, they chose not to do that and took a strong position that this kind of copying is not plagiarism and is so far from it that even the suggestion is absurd.
In a situation unsettlingly common for modern American politics, it seems like people with opposing views don't even understand why there's any question here. On the one hand, widely respected voices say there's no way this could even possibly be plagiarism, while others taking a different perspective think there's no way it isn't. I wouldn't be surprised if folks from both sides vote to close this under the reasoning that there isn't even a real question about this topic, since their own view is so obviously the only right one.
Maybe standards have diverged so much because plagiarism is usually handled quietly and it's rare to have any large-scale public discussion or catalyzing event that would prompt such a discussion. Here is such an opportunity.
If it's now "crazy" or "just really absurd" to think that this might be plagiarism, what are the standards?
They've apparently shifted (or gotten on a plane and flown halfway around the world) quite a bit since I learned them. If I'm going to be writing, reviewing, and grading work of politically diverse authors, I need to learn the modern standards, quickly.
So, what are the standards, especially around reusing "common words and values," tweaks to original phrasings, and percentages of a work that's mostly original?
Are they a lot different with an audience tens of millions strong than when it's a handful of specialists? If so, how?