Question: "Is it plagiarism to read a section in a book and rewrite it in your own words? It's hard to change to the order around because it's in a timeline of events."
This is a tough one....
Yes, it is plagiarism if you are copying word for word.
It could also be plagiarism if the timeline was a specific argument (i.e. it could be 'idea' plagiarism), as opposed to a historical report of events.
For example (assuming your own words):
11:05 John went to the pub
11:10 John ordered a pint
11:15 John sat down
would not be (in my opinion) plagiarism as you are reporting a series of events.
But, if Calvert in a paper in 2010 reported:
"1920 X was discovered by Smith in London
1933 Y was discovered by Jones in Paris
1977 Z was discovered by Brown in Tokyo
This led to the discovery of A by Morris in 2010"
And you wrote:
"The discovery of X in London by Smith in 1920, and the subsequent discoveries of Y by Jones in 1933 and Z by Brown in 1977, led to Morris discovering A in 2010."
Then although that wouldn't be 'text' plagiarism it would be 'idea' plagiarism as you are passing off the hard work and reading of Calvert as your own. The correct way to report this would be:
"The discovery of X in London by Smith in 1920, and the subsequent discoveries of Y by Jones in 1933 and Z by Brown in 1977, led to Morris discovering A in 2010 (Calvert, 2010)."
That is, the inclusion of the reference of Calvert 'protects' against an accusation of 'idea' plagiarism, and putting the 'findings' in your own words 'protects' against 'text' plagiarism.
Alternatively, if you have made the connection between the events yourself (i.e. you have done all the hard work of finding the original papers and making the connections) then it would not plagiarism.