Talk:Sixty-sixth session of the United Nations General Assembly

Copyright

Considering the fact that those quotes are quite big (50 words each), I think it would be best to paraphrase them and report them as something he believes / thinks. Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:39, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

then do so. be WP:BOLD. youve just shown itself that theres not need for a tag and that there isnt a copyvio since its duly ttributed.

And what about the other content that you removed? You still havent shown what you removed and why? meaning it was blindly wholly removed on presumption.Lihaas (talk) 18:00, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Im just being BOLD and putting in the newer version as there is no copyvio prob. Go ahead and shorten the quote if you want, i have no issues with that.(Lihaas (talk) 03:20, 23 September 2011 (UTC)).

Attribution is an issue under Wikipedia:Plagiarism; it is not connected to copyright under the US law that governs Wikipedia. As the US Copyright Office says, "Acknowledging the source of the copyrighted material does not substitute for obtaining permission."[1] I'm afraid that even if presented in quotation marks, substantial excerpts from copyrighted sources may be copyright infringement. In order to ensure that Wikipedia stays well within the allowances of fair use, the community has devised a conservative approach to non-free content. While quotes are desirable, extensive quotes are forbidden unless the source is public domain or compatibly licensed. (Unfortunately, the UN is neither. They have chosen to retain full copyright reservation on their publications.) We can quote; we just need to keep our quotes brief.:)

We also need to be careful to indicate accurately whom we are quoting. For example, the article says:

He also added that world faces "enormous political, social, economic and environmental challenges...people still were living under occupation, while other crucial questions of human rights, sustainable development and poverty eradication, among many others, persisted."

The quotation marks suggest we are quoting the individual, but in fact we are not. (There should always be a citation immediately after a quote, even if the citation is used to support material in nearby sentences.) We are quoting the anonymous author of this document, who paraphrased Mr. Al-Nasser. There are two tip-offs of to this: (a) verb tense, and (b) lack of quotation marks around the content in our source document. (The source document does use quotation marks for direct quotation.) Quotes that are misattributed to Mr. Al-Nasser in this fashion should be corrected in the article so that our readers know when the source is speaking for himself and when he is being paraphrased by someone else. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 10:17, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

then correct it dont censor. its stadard practice to quote non-extesivelyLihaas (talk) 03:27, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Correct it before you restore it. In order to maintain my status in this article as an uninvolved administrator, I will not correct it. This is not a content dispute. You may not misattribute quotations or place quotations in articles without providing sources immediately following them. This is a matter of policy, and I will protect the article if necessary to prevent this material being restored without correction. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 10:07, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Making sure you understand the issue here: misattribution of quotations is when you say somebody said something but they did not say it. You can't quote Mr. Al-Nasser unless you have a source that proves that he said exactly those words. This is a problem under WP:BLP and WP:NFC as well as WP:V. It is not true. The other issue is quoting living people without citing your source immediately afterwards. This is also forbidden by WP:BLP and WP:NFC. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 10:38, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Theres nnothing uninvolved about correcting a mistake you see.

Anyways, ive sourced the Prez's statement exactly now. at any rate, many an admin DO in fact do a simple search on google to find a source and cite it

For this EVERYTHING is duly listed in the source, where there are no sources in betwee to require a ref name. Im, not sure you even read that source. its quite clear and sourced there. (blockquotes have the source directly after, this is withi the prosepara)Lihaas (talk) 06:37, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

The difference between indirect speech and direct speech

I've duplicated this from your talk page in case any future readers are similarly confused as to what constitutes misattribution of a quotation.

Extended content

Based on your note at the talk page of this article, it is clear that you do not understand what is meant by "misattributed quotation." Direct speech is when we literally and precisely duplicated what somebody said: He said, "I feel fine today." Indirect speech is when we paraphrase. He said he felt fine today. If we encounter the latter in a source, we can't report it as the former. We cannot write: He said, "he felt fine today." In fact, he didn't. That is a fair representation of what he meant, but not the words he used. We know it's a fair representation of what he meant, because he know what his quote was. We cannot always be sure that indirect speech accurately represents the words of the subject. Quotes must be accurate. When we report what somebody else has said that was indirect speech, we need to acknowledge that it is indirect speech and not put it in quotation marks, unless we are saying According to a General Assembly report, the president said, "he felt fine today." It is not the man we are quoting; it is the reporter. In the case of this sentence, for example, you are mixing direct quotation and indirect quotation: President al-Nasser said that he would propose the theme for the debate as "the role of mediation in the settlement of disputes by peaceful means," in order to enhance cooperation on one of the United Nations' founding ethos that he said also effects the UN's "existence...integrity, legitimacy, survival and effectiveness." This is what your source says: He said he had proposed a high-level debate be held at the opening of the sixty-sixth session under the theme of “the role of mediation in the settlement of disputes by peaceful means”, which he believed would deepen cooperation on an issue that was at the heart of the United Nations work. That issue affected the United Nations existence. Indeed, the integrity, legitimacy, survival and effectiveness of the Organization depended on Member States. You can quote that President al-Nasser said "the role of mediation in the settlement of disputes by peaceful means" because your source indicates that this was direct speech. But you'll notice that this is the only direct speech in that passage. They are not telling you that they are using his exact words anywhere else. For that reason, you can't quote that he said "existence...integrity, legitimacy, survival and effectiveness" because we don't know that he used those words. We know that the author of your source used them to describe al-Nasser's position. We do not know that al-Nasser said those exact words himself, and we can't put them in his mouth. They could be a very close paraphrase or a very relaxed one, but in any event we have to report accurately what our sources say.

Since you are now working on this issue, I will not remove the misattributed again, but you need to go in and fix all of them immediately, or I will remove them again.

I will however, remove this quote:

Basem Elmary, a coordinator for Palestine at the UN Mansour, said that U.S. opposition and comments that the issue should involve direct negotiations with Israel and that a U.S. veto would "not be surprising" were "the blackmail to us."

This is what your source says:

Basem Elmary, coordinator of Palestinians for UN, was with Mansour here on Thursday to represent the Palestinian civil society in Palestine to campaign for the full Palestinian membership at the United Nations. He, while speaking to reporters here, described the U.S. opposition as "the blackmail to us."

"Palestine deserves to have full membership at the Untied Nations," Mansour said. "This campaign has this symbolic gesture of a chair, a set of Palestine to become a full members of the Untied nations."

So, your source talks about Elmary and then begins to quote Mansour. It quotes Mansour in the next paragraph and begins an indirect speech about Obama and an unnamed U.S. State Department spokeswoman:

U.S. President Barack Obama has reiterated the American position that the recognition of the Palestinian state should be made through peace talks with Israel. Earlier, a U.S. State Department spokeswoman said that an American veto against the vote at the Security Council should not be surprising.

Elmary's name is not mentioned again. The person who said "that an American veto against the vote at the Security Council should not be surprising" is, clearly, an unnamed U.S. State Department spokeswoman. Per WP:NFC and WP:BLP, you cannot say that Elmary said something a US State Department spokesman said. That, and anything else like it, that you have restored, I will remove. You must not misattribute quotations in this way. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 10:22, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Since I see that you have again put in quotes without citations directly after them, I will note that this also you must fix. While in a printed article, you might rely on one source at the end of a paragraph to cover multiple quotations, you cannot do that on Wikipedia because you cannot be sure that somebody will not come in later and add a new sourced statement between your quotes, causing people to become confused about where your quotation came from. You also cannot be sure that people will not remove the sentence that contains the citation, leaving the whole paragraph unsourced. Each quotation must be able to stand on its own. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 10:48, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

If that happens then we simply add it in. We dont presume first hand. WP is always changing and it changes/can change both ways.This is a talk page. Please respect the talk page guidelines, and remember to sign your posts by typing four tildes (Lihaas (talk) 12:24, 2 November 2011 (UTC)).

ICJ resignation

I digress that itds irrelevant, it could certainly draw context for an added judge whether its political or "personal"Lihaas (talk) 05:03, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't quite understand; what do you mean by "digress"? Regarding this edit, keep in mind that this is an article on a session of the General Assembly. The election of 27 April is a minor occurrence in the context of the whole session. All that needs to be said about it is that it's an election to fill one vacancy on the ICJ. Mentioning the previous occupant is already going beyond the scope of this article. You are saying that we ought to go even further outside the scope of this article, by listing the reason for his resignation. That information would be relevant to the article on the judge himself (and perhaps other articles), but it’s just too remote to include in the article on this session of the General Assembly. —Mathew5000 (talk) 21:59, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

International Court of Justice judges by-election, 2012

Should be merged here as a small article wih 1 paragraph and a sentence which can easily be merged into this section.(Lihaas (talk) 22:42, 29 April 2012 (UTC)).

I'm going to simply blank and redirect that article here. There's no content there that's not also here. L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 01:26, 10 December 2015 (UTC)