Source text:

From Kelly, M. K. (1991).

Writer’s text:

Scorsese’s films are not so preoccupied with the theme of love as they are with the darker issues of New York such as violence and urban alienation.

Writer’s comment:

“Urban alienation” was a phrase I took from a book that I read. I thought that was a neat way of calling it. I did not refer to the source because it’s a common term that people use.

Student’s comment:

1. But it’s so, it’s already in like… they only have to type it into the computer twice, in order to get a footnote or a cite out of it, so I would say cite it. I mean what’s the worst alternative is that you get… there is the suggestion that it’s plagiarized, so… five seconds to put in Kelly or… (A Master’s student in Library & Information Studies)
2. I’ve seen that phrase cross multiple texts than be cited. This is not, this is like, try to copy, right, something. It’s like “ah, no, that’s out there, that’s newspapers, magazines.” So no need to put citation.(A PhD student in Education)

Faculty member’s comment:

1. He thought it’s a neat term; it’s a neat term then it’s not so common. You would not think, ‘oh that’s a neat term. I already use it.’ I will ask the student to cite. (A professor in Education)
2. I tend to agree with the writer that it seems to me to be a very everyday part of English language. I can put the two parts of the phrase together and calculate or compute probably an easy meaning. It doesn’t seem puzzling to me. I would expect to read it in a newspaper. (A professor in Education)