Talk:Specially Designated Terrorist

Copyright-Plagiarism concerns

I am concerned that this article too closely follows the sources given.

Examples: 1. Article: "apply to foreign branches of U.S. entities, but not to subsidiaries formed under non-U.S. law"

Source: "applies to foreign branches of U.S. institutions, but not to subsidiaries formed under foreign law"[1]

2. Article: "All SDT assets were frozen, transfers of funds, goods, or services to SDTs were prohibited"

Source:"All assets of SDTs were frozen: additionally transfers of funds, goods, or services to SDTs were prohibited" [2]

3. Article: "identified 12 organizations and 18 individuals that threatened to disrupt the Middle East peace process, and empowered the Secretary of the Treasury and the U.S. Attorney General to expand the list."

Source: "identified 12 organizations that threatened to disrupt the Middle East peace process. Clinton empowered the Secretary of the Treasury and the Attorney General to expand the list." [3]

4. Article: "The sanctions apply to any entity owned or controlled by, or acting on behalf of, an SDT" Source:"The SDT sanctions apply to any entity "owned or controlled by, or acting on behalf of, an SDT"" [4] --Slp1 (talk) 6:24 pm, Today (UTC−5)

I'll take a look when I have time. But at first glance, with all due respect, the first point you raise appears highly specious. First, you are suggesting that a U.S. statute is being plagiarized, as that is the primary source to which the secondary source relates. Second, what would one change that has not been changed? Would you use another phrase for "U.S."? For "branch"? For "subsidiary"? Of course not. If you did use a different phrase for any of those, you would be less than accurate. What words are left that are the same? Foreign is not used (instead non-U.S. is). Institutions is not used (entities is). I think you are wildly off-base that there is a legitimate copyright/plagiarism concern there, at least one that a U.S. lawyer who is a copyright/intellectual property expert would find. By the way -- what is your level of legal background. Do you have a degree in law, and if so at what level, and in what country? I think I may have asked you before, but don't recall an answer.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:06, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Having glanced through your other suggestions, I come back to the question of whether you are suggesting that this is too close to U.S. statutes and press releases, and feel that this raises issues under U.S. law vis-a-vis copyright/plagiarism. If you do, I refer you to Section 105 of the applicable U.S. law. I appreciate your concerns, but think you are off-base here. Many thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:19, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

As you will see, in examples 1-3 I am pointing out the too-close paraphrase/copying of material from books under copyright, nothing to do with material from US statutes etc. In example 4, the problem is two fold: the first part of the sentence"The SDT sanctions apply to any entity", is copyrighted material that has been copied virtually verbatim. The section ""owned or controlled by, or acting on behalf of, an SDT" is indeed a quote from US government documents, as indicated by the quote marks in the original. These quote marks were removed when the sentence was imported into the article, raising plagiarism concerns, in that it incorporates "someone else's work without providing adequate credit."

As I mentioned on your talk page, simply adding links to government documents does not solve with the problem here. The copied material needs to be rewritten in your own words, and the sections from government (or other documents) need to be indicated by quotation marks and attributed where appropriate. I am restoring the problem template until these difficulties are resolved. If you have any further questions, please feel free to ask, or request the opinion of others at appropriate noticeboards etc. --Slp1 (talk) 14:39, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

• You haven't answered half my questions. --Epeefleche (talk) 18:12, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Reading WP:plagiarism might help. "If an external work is under a standard copyright notice, then copying text from such a work, with little, or no, alteration to that work, into a Wikipedia article is usually a copyright violation, unless it is clearly indicated in the text by quotation marks." There are little or no alterations to the sentences I quote above, in my view. I agree that the desire for accuracy makes rewriting a challenge at times, but it's not a question of changing a word or two here and there. It's also a question of altering sentence structure, grammar etc and "rewriting text completely into your own words". And do contact other noticeboards/administrators if you think I am off-base here. --Slp1 (talk) 18:41, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

• If it is original wording from the copyrighted web site, then revise it so your words look original. If verbiage here and elsewhere at other copyrighted web sites ultimately originates from a U.S. statute, then there is no need to revise it. You two are talking cross-purpose. Fix what needs to be fixed and delete the tag. We can, of course, quote from the preamble of the Declaration of Independence…

“ We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. ”

…even though a 24,000 other web sites also include that phrase. Why did I have to just write this post??? Greg L (talk) 22:56, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed

One or more portions of this article duplicated other source(s). Infringing material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. VernoWhitney (talk) 19:57, 27 September 2010 (UTC)