Talk:ACLU: Gen. Sanchez possibly perjured himself at 2004 Senate inquiry
April 2005
editThis was said previously:
- 05:30, 5 Apr 2005 Davodd (→Memo shows Gen. Sanchez purjured himself to senate - cut & paste from ACLU site - copyvio)
How about a little proof to back that up, bucko? Yes, some similar words are used, like "memo" "Sanchez" and "purjured." Other than that, though, there was no copying.
Try having a bit more respect for other people's work.
Pencil Pusher 07:56, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Many of the longer phrases selected randomly matched exactly with various reports on the ACLU site and are uncited in the report - which means that they are likely copyright violations. Everyparagraph with borrowed quotes needs to be cited. -- Davodd | Talk 16:11, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Needs cite:
editArticle paragraph without citation, copyvio? Congressional record?:
- On May 19th, 2004, Senator Jack Reed (D-RI) asked Sanchez, "General Sanchez, today's USA Today, sir, reported that you ordered or approved the use of sleep deprivation, intimidation by guard dogs, excessive noise and inducing fear as an interrogation method for a prisoner in Abu Ghraib prison. Is that correct?"
- Exact phrase found on these sites:
Article paragraph without citation, copyvio? Congressional record?:
- Gen. Sanchez's response was, "Sir, that may be correct that it's in a news article, but I never approved any of those measures to be used within CJTF-7 at any time in the last year." He then reiterated, "I have never approved the use of any of those methods within CJTF-7 in the 12.5 months that I've been in Iraq." CJTF-7 is the initialism for Coalition Joint Task Force-7.
- Exact phrase found on these sites:
-- Davodd | Talk 16:23, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Can you possibly be serious? You are claiming that a quote -- a quote taken from a transcript -- a transcript that is cited at the bottom of the article -- is a copyright violation.
Your user page says you are a law student -- a law student specializing in "Journalism law." You should be ashamed of yourself. You were sloppy when you originally deleted the article from the "submit a link" page. I called you on it. Instead of backing down (or *gasp* apologizing) you stuck to your guns, asserting copyright violations.
How dishonest is that? How dishonest is it to stick to an argument you know to be false. You better change your tune before you become an attorney, otherwise you are going to have some unpleasant experiences with Rule 11. If anyone else is interested in why congressional testimoney isn't copyright protected, I explained it here http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/User:Pencil_Pusher .
I don't mind honest editing. I don't mind honest criticizm. I cited the transcript on the bottom of the page. The cite has been there since the beginning. If you want to fix up the html, fine. If you want to pretty up the cites, fine. Just don't be dishonest and stick to an argument you know to be false. Pencil Pusher 19:50, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I withdraw my previous comments (you can delete above if appropriate). Pencil Pusher 03:06, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- As you can see by my recent edit, I've cited the sources for the quotes to make it more clear that it is not a copyviolation. I have removed the cite tag. If you quote from a public domain document, you need to cite the quote in the same paragraph as the quote to avoid confusion. -- Davodd | Talk 02:49, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Categories
edit{{edit protected}} Please add this article to Category:USA Today and update the wikilink to become local. Thank you. Green Giant (talk) 16:57, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
Done --Pi zero (talk) 01:32, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
