I wrote a sentence in a paper which was inspired by something I thought a document said. However, when I went to cite that document, it turns out that it didn't actually say what I thought it said. Do I still need to cite that document or make some mention of it? Thanks!
If you were inspired by something you saw only to realise after you read it wrong, I think you should run away lol! No seriously, you could just explain; I was reading this article (cite piece) and thought blah blah
I think it depends on the situation. If you were only "inspired" and come up with something completely different, I'd say you probably don't need to cite, but if it's the same idea, or if it's related to the idea, then yes.
Based on the info in your post, you don't have to mention it. You aren't quoting it directly or mentioning any idea from that document.
ditto that... 'inspired by' with no words quoted verbatim from any source = your own original work... everything we write is 'inspired by' something we've read/heard/seen... you only need to cite the source if you're referring to what was written or said by someone else, or quoting it...
Okay, so my Bible textbook this past semester pointed out that Hebrew poetry tends pastoral (Hill and Walton, A Survey of the Old Testament, 3rd ed). Now, having read a whole lot of Hebrew poetry this past semester, I think I'm capable of making that observation on my own, though I might not have if the text hadn't pointed it out at first. If I wanted to make the same general observation (probably using similar words; after all, how many different ways can you say that?), would I need a citation? What if I was only making the observation with regard to a specific poem, eg "Psalm 104 is a very pastoral work?" Thanks!
Depends in what context you are writing. If this is for academic or some other authoritative work then you must acknowledge that the opinion that you are making is one that has been articulated by others. So you might state that "As Hill and Watson (2009) observed, there can be no denying that Psalm 104 is a very pastoral poem". Is there a need to re-articulate their observation? To merely rephrase some other persons intellectual effort is still plagiarism, as you are purloining another persons ideas and expression.
Okay, thanks! What about in a non-authoritative context, like, say, a blog or something of that nature? And how common does something have to be for something to be common enough knowledge that a citation is unnecessary?
For blogs the rules are pretty much what you want them to be. Depends on how you wish to be regarded by your readers. The degree of citation is usually more relaxed in blogs. They are not intended to appear as academic articles. As to how common something has to be? This very much depends on where you would place yourself in the discussion surrounding your subject. Are you interpreting to inform a less specialised audience? Are you to be a primary interpreter and analyst of the source materials? In the first case they would probably not be aware of this as being common knowledge. Do be aware that if you do plagiarise somebody else's ideas or analysis there is a good chance that somebody will spot it and leave an unfavourable comment.
In your case, you'll only need a citation if you want to appear authoritative to your readers. But other than that, you have no legal (or moral) ramifications to worry about.
you can be sued for what you write in a blog just as easily as for what you write in a book... and when in doubt on any copyright/plagiarism issue, you should always consult a literary attorney, not members of a writing site who are not licensed to practice that specialty of the legal profession...
