Jump to content

Talk:Quote mining/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Untitled

There's no source about when and where the Origin of Species was misquoted. I added a citation tag.Unmitigated Success 21:28, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

This probably went uncited because, to people involved in the creation-evolution debate, it's so well known. I grabbed a random creationist book that I had handy, Darwin's Enigma, and found it on page 52-53 in a section about the Cambrian explosion and the appearance of eyes:
Paley made much of the intricacy and perfection of the eye, and said that it could have no other interpretation than that it was not the product of chance. In fact, he began his book with this very point. Since Darwin was quite familiar with Paley's book, it is no wonder that he wrote that the eye turned him cold all over when he pondered it's origin. He said:
To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to difference distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I confess, absurd in the highest degree.15
Certainly, Darwin knew that the eye could not have been the product of an accident -- especially not an explosion, Cambrian or otherwise. (Sunderland, Luther (1984). "The Fossil Record - Nonlife to Reptiles". Darwin's Enigma: Fossils and Other Problems (2nd edition ed.). Master Books. pp. 52–53. ISBN 0-89051-108-X. {{cite book}}: |edition= has extra text (help))
So not only did Sunderland use this exact quote, he represented it as an admission on Darwin's part that it couldn't have evolved. A fragment of the quote is used similarly in this ICR impact article. Even Answers in Genesis acknowledges that this quote is sometimes used "subtly out of context."[1] TheIncredibleEdibleOompaLoompa 02:25, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Does this term apply specifically to Creationists misquoting Darwinists, or also to Darwinists misquoting Creationists? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.156.219.134 (talk • contribs) 00:06, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

The term "quote mining" applies to such actions taken by anyone, regardless of viewpoint. The essential element for the criticism is that the quotes are taken out-of-context or intentionally misinterpreted. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 06:22, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Should the article mention other examples of quote mining? For example some apologists accuse sceptics of quote mining from the Bible when sceptics produce lists saying that Christians shouldn't eat shell fish or should stone to death adulterers etc.

Interesting - that's actually an example of an accusation. Ironically, it is the apologists who are quote mining, although not quite in the sense of this article. The furore swirls around some people quoting Leviticus to justify varying amounts of disapproval of homosexuality, selecting the particular verse that suits their need, without honoring any of the rest of that section - which has many, many rules, mostly dietary. The skeptics then have fun by picking another Levitican verse to parody the more extreme gay bashers among the "disapprovers". Thus, the extremist nastiness of carrying signs that say "God Hates Fags" gets parodied with signs saying "God Hates Shrimp." Although I suppose really, God must love shrimp, since He apparently tells us not to eat them. human 22:07, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
human, I'll resist the salacious corollary to your last line ☺ to get back to the real issue here. If we really want NPOV here, we might try enforcing a deletion of any example that doesn't quote two well-sourced, diametrically opposite instances of quote mining for any particular topic. The proper goal here is to illustrate the subject of quote mining, not prosecute an argument on any particular issue. Since quote mining is liberally used by some proponents on all sides of any major controversy I've ever seen, this restriction shouldn't cause any difficulty in producing plenty of clear examples. It would only inconvenience editors who have agendas not appropriate to pursue here. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 22:30, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Agreed, Jeff. I was mostly pointing out that the anon's example wasn't a good one. Can someone come up with some egregious examples pointing in other directions across the spectrum of ideas? The trouble I am having is 1. the phrase was practically invented to describe the "quote lists" presented by creationists to attempt to make a case against evolutionary concepts, and 2. my own "blind eye" to, let us say, liberal/left examples (of taking conservative/right quotes out of context). I keep laughing as I think of them, and I think someone more to the right on the spectrum would have better examples to add - surely, for instance, some of the malaprops I have heard or read of attributed to certain poitical figures must be examples - they can't all be accurate and fair. If I do come across any good examples in some other arena I will instantly repair to my computer and add them appropriately, though. Again, I agree that the subject ought to be able to be illustrated by enough variety of examples to gore everyone's ox. human 23:16, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

"Purposely"

I don't see this word in the article. I believe it's an important one, however. As I've just written below, everyone may mess up and misrepresent someone's quotes, however quote-mining when this practice done on purpose. A few mistakes are forgivable, but whole books of falsehoods are no accident. So, I'll add it in in a few days if people agree. Erebos12345 (talk) 04:12, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Sourcing

Possible sources, placed here for evaluation and consideration by editors:

The impartiality of this article is disputable

Granted, a bonafide example is given to what some creationists have done.

But the article focuses on "quote mining" as something copyrighted by creationists themselves. The tone itself of the article is impartial and belittles a viewpoint of a group of people by focusing on an apologetic mistake.

Moreover, creationists have been subject to quote mining as well... verses from the scriptures are taken out of context gratuitously.

This entry is very biased. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Underdog7 (talk • contribs) 23:46, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. We should either delete this article or rewrite it so that it's actually about quote-mining, rather than "quote-mining by creationists".149.142.46.146 (talk) 20:22, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Quote-mining by creationists is probably the most prolific form of the phenomena, and certainly the best-documented. It is therefore hardly surprising that this article is dominated by creationist quote-mining. Please see WP:DUE. HrafnTalkStalk 05:47, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Frankly, this is b.s. For such a "well-documented" phenomenon, the article certainly is lacking in references backing up such a claim. 67.135.49.171 (talk) 19:51, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. Quote mining is also referenced when talking about 9/11 conspiracy theorists. It has been used in a lot of different contexts. And yes I believe in evolution. This thing needs a re-write. You can mention the evolution thing as an example but this is a terrible article.--76.186.219.176 (talk) 23:19, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Then find reliable sources on its use in that context & add material to the article. HrafnTalkStalk 05:22, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
You shurely won't find quote-mining in other fields, since the WORD is only used regarding creationists. Nevertheless the METHOD is used nearly everywhere... In conclusion: this article is blaming Wikipedia.

Is quote mining done by scientists? Anti-creationists?

As far as I know, there are no examples of noncreationists doing quote mining. Does anyone have RS sources for scientists doing quote mining? anti-creationists?--Filll 15:58, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Now that I think about it, it is quite well-established that 911 conspiracy theorists engage in quote mining. There might be some in the global warming controversy on both sides as well.--Filll 16:00, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
Well KC in the section above gives three refs for post-modernists, conspiracy nuts and global warming deniers using the tactic.  –  ornis⚙ 16:03, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
It's also a favourite tactic of political pundits and journalists, but I haven't a source at hand for those, I'll see if I can't dig something up tomorrow.  –  ornis⚙ 16:04, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
And so, since you yourself have not seen it happen (either literally have not seen it or you either willfully or unconsciously didn't recognize it), that means it's never happened. Nice logical fallacy there. 67.135.49.171 (talk) 19:48, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

This article is a bit of a mess and it needs some work.--Filll 16:23, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Many of the lists of biblical contradictions produced by anti-creationists are good examples of quote mining.

I'm an ardent anti-creationist myself, but I think the focus on that group is excessive. We need some other examples here. Richard001 (talk) 08:21, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
The thing is, you can't confuse quote-mining with honest mistakes. We all make mistakes and accidentally take things out of context. However, quote-mining is when people purposely take things out of context to represent an opposing viewpoint. A few misunderstandings about evolution are forgivable mistakes. Entire books of published falsehoods are not. So, do non-creationists take things out of context? Sure. But are they quote-mining? Well, probably not. At least, I don't recall many cases of it happening. Erebos12345 (talk) 04:07, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

There is a German newspaper called "Bild" ("picture") which uses quote mining excessively to make their articles more exciting. E.g. when talking about a recent bestseller they quote mined good reviews to make them look like bad reviews. 84.59.218.216 (talk) 13:24, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Regarding quote-mining by and about non-scientists

An announcer on the London underground was recently sacked when she was apparently quote-mined in an interview.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7113545.stm

81.174.226.229 (talk) 12:40, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Pubjacking

I added a comment about "pubjacking" to this article along the lines of:

The science community later came up with the term "pubjacking", which described a variant of quote mining in which a scientific paper or other document was not actually quoted, instead being cited as favorable to a viewpoint that it actually didn't support. The origins of the term are obscure; it is hard to find references to it online dated before 2006.

To no surprise the comment was yanked, I know not why, and I have no interest in finding out, the matter not being significant enough to dispute. So I leave the comment here in order that those who care may consider its inclusion. I am gone and won't be back. Bye. MrG 4.227.251.210 (talk) 20:29, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Then you did not read the edit summary of the revert. It was "yanked" because it was unsourced and thus was not verifiable. HrafnTalkStalk 05:20, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

He probably didn't read it because he knows better than to pay any attention to Wikipedia editors. SLIM 71.33.225.71 (talk) 01:07, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps it is "well-documented" among Creationists...

...because anti-Creationists are virtually the only ones who use the term. "Purposely compiling frequently misleading quotes from large volumes of literature or speech" happens all the time, particularly in the subjects of politics and religion. Usually it isn't called "quote mining," though, because that's a made-up term. Most of the time, it's just called "taking statements out of context." 67.135.49.171 (talk) 20:09, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps because it is so ubiquitous among Creationists -- it is in fact most of what passes for 'research' in that community -- as Numbers' The Creationists documents of George McCready Price and the early days of the Institute for Creation Research, where the 'research' involved poring through scientific research to find pieces that could be strung together to support their position. It is not just "taking out of context" it also involves omitting and re-arranging pieces, to give a quite contrary impression of what the speaker actually said -- see the Darwin quote at Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed‎ for an egregious example. HrafnTalkStalk 04:26, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

This article takes a side

In violation of NPOV policy, this article assumes the truth of one side in the dispute between evolution supporters and evolution opponents. Not only does it pit "scientists" vs. "creationists" (lumping together ID supporters with the latter), it endorses the POV that it is chiefly the evolution opponents who engage in quote mining.

Having scored this point, the evolution supporters can (do?) go on to assume that evolution supporters are in the right, that they follow the scientific method, abide by the rules of logic and rhetoric and so forth; while dismissing their opponents as deceivers.

To make this article neutral, we need only refrain from endorsing the pro-evolution position. Simply say that according to evolution supports like X, Y, Z, and Q ... it is primarily evolution opponents who engage in the practice.

This will change the article from one which says "A is true" and uses footnotes from X et al. to "prove it", to one which says that "X says that A is true".

Anyone interested in making this article neutral with me? --Uncle Ed (talk) 16:47, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

This proposed solution flies in the face of WP:FRINGE#Particular attribution which encourages us to avoid the pitfalls of trying to name all those people who fall in the mainstream camp. ScienceApologist (talk) 00:40, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

This article states the facts

That Creationists (and "ID supporters" are Creationists, no "lumping" necessary, just a mountain of academic support for this point, sufficient to convince a Federal court) frequently indulge in quote-mining is a well-documented fact. The practice goes back to George McCready Price, as Numbers documents in The Creationists, and as a contemporary and correspondent of Price's described as "scattering mistakes, omissions, and exceptions against general truths that anybody familiar with the facts in a general way can not possibly dispute." If you are intending to rewrite the article to obfuscate these facts, then I would suggest that (i) you would be POV-pushing and (ii) that your efforts will be opposed. HrafnTalkStalk 18:05, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

You're proving my point (or one of them). By glossing over the objection stated by some ID supporters that they oppose Creationism and lumping them all together, you are endorsing the NCSE point of view in the evolution controversy. As a Wikipedian shooting the breeze, you are of course entitled to have and express your own opinion.
But if you cause a Wikipedia article to endorse one side over another, you would violate NPOV. (In case you didn't know, there is a dispute about whether all ID supporters are also Creationism supporters.) Indeed, as is generally known, there is a dispute about whether ID is itself a form of Creationism.
The NCSE, among others, say that it is. But there are also that say it is not. Which side should Wikipedia endorse? According to how I remember NPOV, when there is a dispute over whether something is true or false Wikipedia should not make an assertion but should avoid taking sides in the controversy.
Anyway, if a writer is mostly familiar with "evidence" (or better yet, claims) that it is evolution opponents, ID supporters or Creationists who are quote mining, then NPOV would contemplate (1) identifying the people and groups making that claim and (2) rehashing the evidence they give to support that claim. It should likewise identify those who deny that claim or make a counterclaim, along with their evidence. Agreed? --Uncle Ed (talk) 21:21, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

And you Ed Poor have simply demonstrated that you are flogging a POV dead horse. The whole point of Neo-creationism is to obfuscate its religious roots and to provide a new, shiny, sciencey wrapper for the same tired old creationist arguments -- so of course they deny that it's creationism -- but such assertions are wholly self-serving and unsubstantiated, so should not be given WP:UNDUE weight. In private they admit that the intelligent designer is merely a "politically correct way to refer to God."(The Creationists, p380)

Likewise I have yet to see anything in the way of a substantive defence of any of the 'quote-mines', let alone of the more prominent and egregious ones, in a WP:RS. Therefore there is not currently another "side" to be presented. If you can find WP:RSs for such, by all means bring them to our attention.

The dishonesty of these 'quote mines' is blatantly obvious from a simple comparison between the 'quote mine' and the original. It is therefore not unreasonable to provide this factual information without attribution. A few more prominent examples (e.g. the Darwin quote from Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed‎) would however be helpful.

I would further note that those objecting to quote-mining are often the quote-mined authors themselves (most notably Stephen Jay Gould, who had particularly harsh words to say about those misrepresenting his work).

In conclusion I would suggest that you read WP:NPOVFAQ#Giving "equal validity". Wikipedia does not "give equal validity" to the misrepresentations by WP:FRINGE adherents of science. HrafnTalkStalk 05:20, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Read it, been there, got the tee shirt. What part of the above is unclear? I never said that minority views should be given equal importance or validity. Rather I am saying that in article about the controversy between adherents of the mainstream POV and adherents of the minority POV, Wikipedia should not take sides. It should not say that the Mainstream is correct; it should not say that the "Fringe" is correct.
Nor should it say (or even imply) that the mainstream and the minority are equally valid or equally important. What it should say, and I believe NPOV requires this (and is quite clear about it too) is that our articles describe all viewpoints fairly and clearly. If you think it would violate neutrality with regard to, say, the ID vs. evolution dispute, to explain clearly the reasons ID supporters give for their claims - than I hope you would explain where the supposed violation would lie.
Please explain in terms of the arbcom rulings you've seen me quote, such as "Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, a fundamental policy, contemplates inclusion of all significant points of view regarding a subject. If there is controversy regarding the subject, all sides of the controversy should be fairly represented." (see Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Arbitration_cases) --Uncle Ed (talk) 01:03, 26 August 2008 (UTC)


Uncle Ed, not only does ID critics claim that and many ID supporters are creationists or former creationists, it was a federal court decision. The overwhelmoing consensus is that ID is creationism, a religious belief. The quote from Darwin about the eye is a common one, which should be added. We66er (talk) 16:36, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
We66er, I have known what ID critics and supporters claim for about 5 years now, and I'm familiar with the federal court decision. My question is whether Wikipedia should endorse the court POV, or merely report it as having taken place but without saying whether they are right or wrong.
Wouldn't it fulfill the requirements of NPOV to say that a federal court said X about ID, and that ID supporters said Y? Alternatively, how might it violate NPOV to say that ID supporters stand in opposition to a federal court and/or to ID critics in general? --Uncle Ed (talk) 01:03, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
Because the IDers self-serving assertions are (i) undercut by their own statements when in religious fora, (ii) unsubstantiated & (iii) contradicted by evidence that meets the legal standard of expert testimony. As I said above, this is a dead horse, stop flogging it! HrafnTalkStalk 04:04, 26 August 2008 (UTC)


At the risk of venturing into the Godwin Zone, Ed--if we followed your logic, we would also be forced to conclude that there is a "controversy" over whether the Holocaust happened; after all, there are many Holocaust deniers who claim that it did not. Should Wikipedia therefore remain "neutral" on the issue? Report the positions of those who say millions were murdered, and the positions of those who say they were not, without "endorsing" the Holocaust? --BRPierce (talk) 17:01, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Humph

So what is the term for having an article on quote mining which is actually an attack on quote mining by Creationists? Why not re-name the thing "Quote mining by Creationists?" There are plenty of sources, it looks like, for such an article. If that's all you guys are interested in, rename. ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 06:17, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

We have an abundance of reliable sources documenting quoting-mining by creationists. We have, as yet, little to none documenting quote-mining from others. That means that we (i) give WP:DUE weight to what we do have & (ii) don't needlessly restrict the article's topic based on what we have to date (as more information comes to hand). HrafnTalkStalk 07:48, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Kulp's accusation of Price in Deluge Geology

This section is confusing to me. There doesn't seem to be enough information for me to understand why this is an example of quote mining, and, if it weren't for the Darwin examples, I wouldn't know anything more about quote mining after reading this example. Can this section be expanded or removed? TWCarlson (talk) 21:07, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

It is not. It is but a single out-of-context quote, not a systematic collection of (mis)quotations. - 7-bubёn >t 19:31, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Answers in Genesis claims/quote

I can see a number of problems with the AiG claims:

1. The source appears to make no explicit mention of quote-mining. Most of the 'arguments' on the list are not quote-mines (the Darwin & the Eye argument being the sole obvious exception).
Would you agree that the topic "Darwin mentioned the absurdity of eye evolution in The Origin of Species" on that site is dealing with quote mining, and hence an example of the organization's disapproval of it? --Ed Brey (talk) 18:13, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
No I would not agree. It is dealing with a single quote, not the practice generally (it makes no generalised condemnation) -- a practice that AiG themselves, in their Creation Science Foundation days, indulged in. HrafnTalkStalk 02:54, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
I moved this topic to its own section "Quote mining definition". Please see my argument there. --Ed Brey (talk) 03:37, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
2. Both Henry M. Morris and AiG themselves have been accused of quote-mining. "not practiced by mainstream creationists" is therefore highly controversial.
Agreed. Yet, what is missing in the article is the distinction between creationist organizations. The quote I included from AiG helps to make that distinction. Your removal of the quote leaves a hole in balance of the article. Do you have another suggestion? --Ed Brey (talk) 18:13, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
What distinction? AiG does it, their close firends at ICR do it, but AiG try to pretend that nobody mainstream does it. The claim has no credibility, and so does not belong in the article. HrafnTalkStalk 02:54, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
What is your evidence that these two orgs currently engage in quote mining (no recanted accidental misquotes)? --Ed Brey (talk) 03:37, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
Each has a book chock full of quote-mines still in print [correction, TRQB is out of print -- last edition was 1990]. Have either That Their Words May Be Used Against Them or The Revised Quote Book been disavowed (let alone retracted from print)?
Further both organisations have pages currently on their websites misusing the Gould quote -- "persistently using" a very high profile "discredited argument". HrafnTalkStalk 09:07, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
Regarding the book, see the section below on whether they are books or quotes only or also book of misquotes. Regarding the web sites, can you provide links? --Ed Brey (talk) 12:54, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
"Regarding the web sites, can you provide links?" Already in the article -- in fact it was referenced by some of the material you deleted. You might want to consider reading the material and its sources before you delete! HrafnTalkStalk 15:12, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
I find your statement to be a WP:PA. --Ed Brey (talk) 12:01, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
Ed Brey, your assertion of a PA is untimely and appears wildly inaccurate. If you really want to take it up, this isn't the right page to do that. dave souza, talk 12:09, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
Please forgive me for not knowing the best way to handle the issue. I didn't want to continue the thread because of what I felt was a PA, yet I didn't want readers of the thread to believe that I implicitly agreed. I'm not sure the best way to keep personal issues out of the talk page but maintain clarity. Hopefully, this response provides sufficient clarification for this talk page and should someone desire further discussion, it can continue on my talk page. --Ed Brey (talk) 02:28, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
3. Their claim that "Many of these arguments have never been promoted by AiG, and some have not been promoted by any major creationist organization (so they were not directed at anyone in particular), but are instead straw men set up by anti-creationists." is problematical in that Kent Hovind, a prominent creationist, uses many of the "Arguments we think creationists should NOT use".
The AiG comment is of a general nature ("some have not been promoted"). How does Kovind's use make the statement untrue, or looking at the bigger picture, make the page unsuitable for presenting AiG's side of the controversy? --Ed Brey (talk) 18:13, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Hovind is infamous for using the most crackpotty creationist claims going, if there's a single claim on AiG's 'do not use' list that he hasn't used I'd be surprised. If there's a single claim on that list that hasn't been used by a prominent creationist, but has been purely "set up by anti-creationists" I'd be utterly flabbergasted. Again, the AiG simply isn't credible on this. HrafnTalkStalk 02:54, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
I don't see how you conclude that there is no significant distinction between creationists based on the arguments you've given. --Ed Brey (talk) 03:37, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
Because you have given no "argument" for a "significant distinction between creationists" -- you have merely baldly asserted that there is one -- in spite of the fact that both of the supposed 'good guy' organisations have whole books of quote mines in print. HrafnTalkStalk 03:49, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
I'd agree that the article shouldn't state that creationists are either all the same or all different without RS on the topic. --Ed Brey (talk) 12:01, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I am therefore removing this material per WP:SELFPUB #2, #3 & #4. HrafnTalkStalk 04:57, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

The removal is POV because it leaves the view of the accuser and removes the view of the accused. Regarding selfpub, what is the #2,#3,and #4 that you are referring to? --Ed Brey (talk) 18:13, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
It is (i) blatantly self-serving & (ii) clearly making claims about third parties -- what other "mainstream creationists" may or may not do. HrafnTalkStalk 02:54, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
The ICR cite also fails WP:SELFPUB for these reasons. Further the AiG quote fails #1 "the material used is relevant to the notability of the subject of the article" -- as it is referring to a list that is almost exclusively not quote mines. HrafnTalkStalk 03:49, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
I don't see how you can say that an "attempt to skew or contort" is compatible with the AiG statement. It therefore is relevant, since is says that this is not what they do. I'll look for a more specific statement, which would be better. --Ed Brey (talk) 12:01, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Seeing no response, I put the creationist response to the allegation back. Feel free to improve, but simple removal would be POV. I also reorganized. I merged the "Overview" section with the creation-evolution section, since the overview belongs in the introduction. I made the introduction generic, not referring to any particular use of quote mining. I removed descriptive text in the evolution-creation section that was restating what was already covered in the intro. --Ed Brey (talk) 02:36, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

As you see, I have responded. I have also corrected numerous inaccuracies in the statement and provided some context for AiG's ludicrous claim. Nothing that you have said gives me reason to believe that the claim is either credible, or meets WP:SELFPUB. HrafnTalkStalk 03:15, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
The worst of your inaccuracies is to take 'AiG condemns one quote' and turn it into 'creationists [generally] condemn quote-mining [generally]'. HrafnTalkStalk 03:16, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Given that:

  1. AiG quote-mines (both Revised Quote Book & Gould on intermediate forms -- and most probably others)
  2. AiG states "Many of these arguments have never been promoted by AiG"

It is clear that AiG's condemnation "Persistently using discredited arguments is both ineffectual and, more importantly, immoral" is not meant to be aa general condemnation of the practice of quote-mining -- a practice that they have a long-standing and current involvement in, but only of one specific quote mine (Darwin's eye) along with a large number of discredited "arguments" unrelated to quote mining. I therefore intend removing the AiG quote as irrelevant. HrafnTalkStalk 09:29, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Removed examples

Sorry I had to remove all the examples. Unfortunately not a single of them is an example of "quote mining", which is defined as massive, systematic collection of (mis)quotations. The given examples are just isolated examples of "misquotation", rather than of "quote mining". Please take examples from reliable sources which specifically speak of "quote mining", and what is more, which discuss a particular case of quote mining as an example. Anything else is but a wikipedian's opinion, i.e., original research. - 7-bubёn >t 19:28, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

And I have replaced them all. Every single one of them "is an example of 'quote mining'" which is NOT "defined as massive, systematic collection of (mis)quotations" but as "the practice of purposely compiling frequently misleading quotes from large volumes of literature or speech" (i.e. an extreme form of cherry picking). Please learn to discern a WP:RS in this field (hint: if you think that TalkOrigins Archive isn't one, then you need to learn more), and stop making unreasonable demands (e.g. that an example must be cited to a source that "specifically speak of 'quote mining'" -- which is unreasonable as some sources come from before the term was phrased). HrafnTalkStalk 02:42, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
My understanding is it primarily a list of newsgroup and that it is not peer reviewed. Review is through a post-publication feedback system, similar to Wikipedia's. How do you justify it as an original source? It is also not NPOV, which makes it a poor reference for the definition of "quote mining". Is there a NPOV source that indicates that there is consensus around the word outside selected evolutionists? --Ed Brey (talk) 12:24, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
TOA is not simply a dump off the newsgroup, it is a collection of articles and pieces that were generally originally posted on that newsgroup, with further editing and updating. It was managed for a number of years by Wesley R. Elsberry, and is currently maintained by the TalkOrigins Foundation Inc. A list of endorsements can be found in http://toarchive.org/faqs/awards/. Also, Michael Shermer in Science Friction: Where the Known Meets the Unknown describes it as being one of "the two best resources on the Internet on the evolution/creation topic" (the other being the National Center for Science Education website). Mark Isaac has had a major chunk of it (the creationist claims section) published as The Counter-Creationism Handbook. No, it is not peer reviewed, but WP:PARITY would seem to apply. HrafnTalkStalk 12:47, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
I think the conclusion drawn earlier to treat TOA as WP:SELFPUB works well here. The archive is useful as a source of creationist POV. We may take, therefore, from the site a POV of what quote mining is and when it has occurred.

Please don't restore examples without clear explaining who and where called them "quote mining". Any way otherwise is you opinion, i.e., original research inadmissible in wikipedia. Also by wikipedia rules, newsgroups are not valid sources for wikipedia, regradless opinions and endorsements of other people. Wikipedia has its own rules, please stick to them. Any information added to wikipedia must have a particular reputable and verifiable source. - 7-bubёn >t 17:35, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

  1. Please stop making tendentious demands. There is nothing in policy that states that the examples require that the source use the exact phrase "quote mining".
    • I am reverting not because of some bureaucratic demand for policy, but because I disagree that these are the examples of "quote mining". I wrote in my explanations that they contradict the definition of "quote mining" given in this wikipedia article. Therefore I demabd that you confirm your opinion in one possible way in wikipedia: prove it by citing a reliable source - 7-bubёn >t 18:38, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
  1. TalkOrigins Archive is NOT a "newsgroup" (see above). It is widely accepted (both inside wikipedia and outside) as a WP:RS.

I have reverted your meritless deletion of properly sourced material. HrafnTalkStalk 18:13, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 10#TalkOrigins Archive which concludes "TalkOrigins Archive should nowhere be considered less reliable than a self-published source, with the authority of individual authors determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus on article talkpages".

I would point out that there is no editorial consensus against using them in this case, so there is no justification for unilateral removal of them. HrafnTalkStalk 18:25, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

OK you convinces me that TalkOrigins is good source. Next your step is to use it to prove taht these examples are indeed the case of quote mining. Please re-read the definition in wikipedia article: the major difference from simple misquotation is massive and systematic collection of {mis}quotes. - 7-bubёn >t 18:38, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
"Every single one of them "is an example of 'quote mining'" which is NOT "defined as massive, systematic collection of (mis)quotations" but as "the practice of purposely compiling frequently misleading quotes from large volumes of literature or speech" (i.e. an extreme form of cherry picking)." As I already told you above. HrafnTalkStalk 18:43, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
OK. The wikipedia definition says: 'purposely compiling frequently misleading quotes from large volumes. I translated "compiling... from large volumes" as "massive, systematic". "Compiling" means making a big bunch, not just a single quote. Compiling means doing this systematically, not just picking a single quote at random. A single misquote does not make "quote mining". Not to say that you still failed to provide a proof that the examples are for "quote mining". - 7-bubёn >t 18:47, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Well you "translated" wrong then. "Compiling" does not necessarily mean "a big bunch" and an EXAMPLE of quote-mining will always be of a single quote -- as including a whole book (or anything similarly "massive") would be both WP:COPYVIO & completely unwieldy. These were NOT' "picking a single quote at random" or a "single misquote" -- they are quotes carefully cherry-picked to mislead. Cherry picking a quote is quote-mining. In summary, your arguments are wholly spurious. HrafnTalkStalk 19:13, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Disagreed with your logic, but the issue is closed for me, and in your favor, see below. - 7-bubёn >t 22:49, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

<ri> 7-bubёn, regrettably you seem to have been misled by the definition in this wikipedia article – not a reliable source, and in this instance the "definition" here seems to have deviated considerably from the definition given in the sources being cited. I've changed the paraphrase of these sources to "Quote mining is the practice of purposely compiling misleading quotes taken out of context from authoritative literature or speech, or presenting minor errors or inconsistencies, normal internal disagreements or outdated information with the allegation that this overturns a field of work." Hope that makes things clearer, if there any issues with this I'll be glad to discuss them. . . dave souza, talk 21:35, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

While I am OK with what you've done, I disagree with you in your first sentence. I agree that WP is not RS, but the article text must be consistent in the first place. If the intro says one thing and the rest of the text is allowed to say something totally different, then it will be an irreparable mess. Exactly for this reason I requested from my respectable opponent to quote sources. If this was done, it could have been verified that the sources diverge from wikipedia, and wikipedia could be fixed accordingly, based on the quoted sources. I admit I am guilty of failing to recognize that the issue has two sides. Looking at this nicely formatted and full of references page, I could not have imagined that it sucks from the very first lines. Sorry. - 7-bubёn >t 22:49, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Concluding, I have nothing against the restoration of the examples, if the sources are provided that say something like these examples are part of typical compilations aimed at <whatever they aimed at> (since this would match the updated definition of "quote mining", I do not request that the sources must use exactly the term "quote mining"). Otherwise these examples belong to the article "contextomy". - 7-bubёn >t 22:58, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

BTW, colleagues, do you happen to came across a statement in sources that the term "quote mining" is coined in analogy wth data mining? - 7-bubёn >t 22:58, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


I am so bloody sick of this!

  1. I point out to SemBubenny, with substantiation that TalkOrigins Archive is not a "newsgroup". He continues to claim that it is one and to revert on that basis, until he is told repeatedly.
  2. I point out to SemBubenny that the article topic is not "defined as massive, systematic collection of (mis)quotations", but he continues to claim that it is, and to revert on that basis. When he finally grasps that point, he continues on by presenting a wildly WP:OR 'translation' of the article's definition, and by treating this definition as in some way canonical and prescriptive, whereas it is in fact descriptive and can and should should be altered to match the actual usage of the term (e.g. in sourced examples). His latest demand that "the sources are provided that say something like these examples are part of typical compilations aimed at <whatever they aimed at>" is completely ludicrous WP:SYNTH of the article's definition, which nowhere claims that mined quotes only exist in "compilations", merely that they were selected through a process of compilation -- with no restriction on how the compiler uses them thereafter (individually, by the dozen or by the bookful).
  3. "I requested from my respectable opponent to quote sources" is made nonsense of by the fact that (i) one of the examples (Darwin and the eye) was referenced as being listed as a quote-mine from the very start (rendering the basis for this revert, as stated in its edit summary, to be fallacious), and (ii) I have further added a reference to an explicit description of a second example (the Expelled Darwin quote) as a quote mine (further cite here) -- it has of course been since removed by SemBubenny's 'baby with the bathwater' reverts. The third, Price, example is more problematic in that he lived long before the term was coined, and sources on him (e.g. The Creationists) tend to be more formal and not use such informal terms. If I get a chance in between responding to all this WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, I will attempt to find references demonstrating more conclusively that it is a quote mine.

I will conclude by stating that I consider that SemBubenny's heavy-handed removal of long-standing sourced material, without gaining a consensus on talk first is very poor wiki-etiquette. His continued WP:EDITWARing to do so, even after his arguments are repeatedly shot down, stretches WP:AGF to breaking point. HrafnTalkStalk 03:51, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

Having re-read Numbers' chapter on Price, I think that he's an imperfect example of the phenomenon (not because he wasn't quote-mining, reading between the lines he most certainly was, but there's little in the way of explicit articulation of this). I am instead substituting the far more famous one of Stephen Jay Gould. Like Darwin/Eye & Darwin/Expelled, the quote is explicitly listed on TOA's 'Quote Mine project', which I believe qualifies it for inclusion. I will be restoring those two examples shortly. HrafnTalkStalk 06:04, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

The example "Stephen Jay Gould on intermediate forms" doesn't indicate who allegedly quote mined. This example doesn't seem useful without this. In particular, if the quoter agreed with Gould that the fossil record is abrupt, but doesn't accept the argument of punctuated equilibria, it would not be a misquote to quote the science in which there is agreement. This does not necessarily make Gould appear to be anti-evolutionists, but only that he recognizes that there is a hurdle to overcome. I believe for this example to be included, a RS would be needed showing an author's intent to distort Gould's meaning, or at least an accusation that has gained significant traction. This same problem exists for the "Darwin on the eye" example. --Ed Brey (talk) 03:01, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes it does -- "quoted in Backer of Theory Never Contradicted Self, Truth Shows, Casey Luskin, Evolution News & View, Discovery Institute and Large Gaps in Creation, Genesis Park" The quote makes no mention of "the fossil record is abrupt" or "punctuated equilibria" it is about the existence of "intermediate forms" and completely dishonestly attributing a vewpoint to Gould when he states of it "I reject this argument" This was gross and indefensible dishonesty. Likewise "Darwin on the eye" is "quoted in 9. Fully-Developed Organs, Walt Brown" HrafnTalkStalk 07:51, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
I've just added further citations for usage of all three quotes by creationists. HrafnTalkStalk 08:38, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
For the example, to be valid, the text of the alleged quote mine instance should be listed along with a reference to the source of the quote, in addition to a reference to the accuser. This will help in determining whether that particular quote is worthy of inclusion. --Ed Brey (talk) 12:42, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
Already done. HrafnTalkStalk 15:00, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Third Opinion

I have read through the discussion and am prepared to offer a third opinion. Are you guys interested or do you want someone more qualified? :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:00, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm happy with the changes you made to the article. While the original was probably accurate, it concentrated on the process of compiling the quotes, which is in most cases unobservable, and in many cases untraceable to the usage of the quotes -- which is the bit that is observable. If you've got a third opinion, I'd be interested to hear it (though do of course reserve the right to disagree strenuously :) ). HrafnTalkStalk 02:33, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Fourth opinion, as it were: It's bad when a tangent takes up as much space as the main topic, but something is drastically wrong with an article when a tangent takes up several times as much space as the main topic. The topic is quote mining, not creation versus evolution. Instead of arguing about who gets to add the most, this needs to be turned around: Trim out the weaker examples, or the article will need renaming to "Creation -v- evolution arguments: disputed usage of quote mining."
The topic is personally interesting to me, and yet I found myself rolling my eyes at the volume of tldr long before the article's end. I severely doubt anyone here wants that result in readers - this article will be much stronger if it's short and coherent instead. arimareiji (talk) 13:41, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Quote mining definition

The previous definition of "quote mining" as synonymous with "selective quotation" is unnecessarily weak and does not fit the etymology of the word. Mining involves a repeated process, as is also seen in the term data mining. There isn't an authoritative definition of "quote mining" that I know of, but what there is seems to refer to repeated use. --Ed Brey (talk) 03:09, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

"Mining" as a metaphor need not involve a "repeated process". In this context it can also mean the process of going removing a large amount of overburden, interburden and tailings in order to get to produce a small amount of ore and then the element being mined for. Like going through the entirety of Darwin's works to come up with a handful of deceptive quotes. 'Mining' is used in the same pejorative way within statistics to describe throwing a large number of hypothesis tests at a data set, which will inevitably eventually result in a false positive. HrafnTalkStalk 03:59, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
Mining is a descriptive term to describe the effort and selectivity to sort through a work or a speech looking for gold. This is very much what selective quotation refers to. The most common example is in movie review quotes: "This was the worst movie I've seen in a very long time and I recommend strongly against anyone going to see it anytime soon!" becomes "This... movie... I recommend strongly... see it... soon!ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:31, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
Acknowledged. Given the uses of "quote mining" in the sources, it seems both aspects are true. If just one or two quotes had been allegedly pulled from a large pool of literature, no new term would likely have been coined; the term came about in response to what was perceived as a pattern. --Ed Brey (talk) 04:10, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
The existence of whole books of creationist quote mines (a fact that you just happened to delete from the article) proves the "repeated process" aspect. The care with which the 'ore' of the original Darwin quotation was 'refined' by ellipsis down to the Expelled quote-mine is clear evidence of the second. Both represent a degree of purposeful and systematic malfeasance that warrants a new term beyond simple misquotation. HrafnTalkStalk 04:34, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
I sounds like we're agreed regarding the systematic nature of quoting that differentiates quote mining from misquotation. You're assertion that I "just happened to delete" the reference to the book of quotes is WP:WEASEL, as it implies I did not have purpose behind it. I'll start a new section to elaborate on the edit summary. --Ed Brey (talk) 12:23, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Books of quotes

Regarding text from the article:

Both AiG and Henry M. Morris (founder of ICR) have been accused of producing books of mined quotes. TalkOrigins Archive (TOA) states that "entire books of these quotes have been published" and lists prominent creationist Henry M. Morris' That Their Words May Be Used Against Them and The Revised Quote Book (published by Creation Science Foundation, now Answers in Genesis) as examples, in addition to a number of online creationist lists of quote-mines.[1] Both AiG and ICR quote mine Stephen Jay Gould on intermediate forms.[2]:

I removed it because the cited source doesn't say these are books of mined quotes, just book of quotes. The "The Quote Mine Project" article alleges they are "presented with little or no context except for vague claims that they somehow 'disprove' evolution", which does not necessarily include quote mining. This might be useful to reintroduce in the context that creationists are heavy quoters, so one may expect some to disagree with how some quotes are used given the volume. --Ed Brey (talk) 12:51, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Complete and utter baloney! The Quote Mine Project opens with:

One frequent creationist poster to the talk.origins newsgroup produced a long list of what he dubbed "Famous quotes from famous evolutionists" [1]. It was not hard to discover that the list was taken, almost verbatim, from a creationist site called "Anointed-One.Net", where the list is called "Quotes by Famous Evolutionists." Lists like this, presented with little or no context except for vague claims that they somehow "disprove" evolution, are common among creationists. Indeed, entire books of these quotes have been published [2].

In this context "these quotes" is clearly 'mined quotes' and what does [2] say these books of these mined quotes are:

2. Henry Morris' 500 page book of quotes, That Their Words May Be Used Against Them, with some sample pages, can be seen at Amazon Books: That Their Words May Be Used Against Them.

There have been other such books:

Over twenty years ago, in 1977, an unusual book appeared on the scene. Authored by creationist Robert Kofhal, and published by the Creation-Science Research Center in San Diego, California, it bore the catchy title, Handy Dandy Evolution Refuter. In its 157 pages, this mass market paperback provided almost 200 valuable quotations from the writings of prominent evolutionists . . . Seven years later, in 1984, the Creation Science Foundation of Australia published a thin, 8½x11-inch booklet of 20 pages that bore the title, The Quote Book. Compiled by John MacKay and co-workers, this volume provided over 100 quotations . . .

That Their Words May Be Used Against Them, Reason & Revelation, October 1998, 18[10]:80.

The Creation Science Foundation of Australia became Answers in Genesis and is selling the The Revised Quote Book to this day.

And here is just a small sampling of the many creationist lists of quotes similar to Anointed One's that can be found on the web: ...

I think that this is clear enough, and I'm restoring this material. 14:51, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
By the way, what is your excuse for removing the fact that both AiG & ICR quote-mined Gould on intermediate forms at the same time? They can "profess" to be whatever they want, but their rank dishonesty is clear as day -- such hypocrisy simply besmirches, and raises skepticism about, genuinely honest Christians. HrafnTalkStalk 15:01, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm not seeing a RS that says that these quotes "attempt to skew or contort" - the "rank dishonesty" that you attribute to the authors' character, a key ingredient to quote mining. Remember, in the authors' opinions, they are quotations used in proper research. --Ed Brey (talk) 12:05, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
That ICR & AiG would claim the quote represents Gould's views when he clearly states immediately thereafter "Although I reject this argument..." demonstrates unequivocally that they are baldfaced liars. That they would continue to do so after Gould chastised them for the practice would seem to indicate that they do this knowingly, but do not care. This "proper research" is nothing more than base deception, as would any attempt to portray this behaviour as possessing even a semblance of intellectual or academic acceptability. Assuming good faith, I therefore assume that you were not attempting to defend such despicable behaviour. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 12:29, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
Your POV hinges on your POV regarding #Skewing meaning vs. selecting meaning. --Ed Brey (talk) 02:35, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Your POV hinges on defending indefensible dishonesty. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 04:15, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
I don't see how you conclude that I'm defending dishonesty. I'm not trying to defend either side. Both sides accuse each other of quote mining (see charge 3), and each is perfectly capable of defending itself. My goal is to help provide a neutral overview of the topic that doesn't presume POV over another. If you feel I'm taking the POV of a given side, feel free to let me know about the problem on my talk page. {Tag:NotDefending} --Ed Brey (talk) 11:37, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Tendentious. Also it is fallacious to state that "Both sides accuse each other of quote mining" -- the ICR is not accusing scientists of quote-mining, merely giving their own tendentious defence of their dishonesty. If they're lying, then they might as well go the whole hog and lie about the fact that they're lying after all. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 13:37, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Our disagreement highlights the uncertainty that surrounds the term "quote mining". To me, the statement, "Out of the many thousands of such references that are included in our writings, critics have to search diligently to find even a handful that they can interpret as misleading." is an accusation of quote mining (or more precisely meta quote mining), even if the term is not called out. Your summary judgement of tendentiousness is not helpful, nor are your personal sense of ICR's honesty. Let the facts speak for themselves. --Ed Brey (talk) 17:48, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
It highlights no such thing. The ICR accusation, even if it had any substance (which I strongly doubt), is not of quote mining. Your ubiquitous misrepresentation of the facts is not helpful, and it is not my "personal sense of ICR's honesty" -- their intellectual honesty is impeached by pretty much the entire scientific community, and their work dismissed as pseudoscience. The article does let "facts" speak for themselves -- it simply does not let discredited claims speak for themselves. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 18:24, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Ed Brey's "more readable version"

Creationists see the allegations as a smoke screen. They acknowledge isolated instances of improper quoting among creationists, but don't see these as significant in the overall debate. Moreover, mainstream creationists profess a character inconsistent with quote mining; Answers in Genesis says this:

Except it is not all "Creationists" calling the general practice a smoke screen, it is ICR calling what it pretends is a few isolated 'innocent' cases of misquotation -- ignoring the whole booksful of this dishonesty, and the fact that, in spite of Gould himself calling them designedly-dishonest or stupid for doing so, they still misrepresent his quote on intermediate forms. This clearly demonstrates that the practice is neither 'honest' nor 'isolated'. So maybe it should read:

The ICR dishonestly blames the victim for pointing out their dishonesty and pretend that this systematic and unrepentent practice are just isolated incidents. Moreover, mainstream creationists profess a character inconsistent with quote mining; Answers in Genesis says this:

It isn't all "mainstream Creationists" 'professing' either, it is just AiG. And the only quote mine that AiG condemns is the Darwin/Eye quote, and they continue to publish The Revised Quote Book here and to use the Gould quote-mine. Any 'higher ground' that they might profess to is merely a sewerage filled gutter (as opposed to Hovind's wallowing in the sewer itself). Thus it should read:

The ICR dishonestly blames the victim for pointing out their designedly-dishonesty and pretend that this systematic and unrepentent practice are just isolated incidents. Moreover, AiG claims the moral high ground by disavowing dishonest arguments it knows have had too much exposure to have much effect, but does not talk about all the dishonest arguments it is still using.

I would not suggest using any of these versions, but the last version is a more accurate reflection of the facts we have in front of us than the "more readable version", and it contradicts that version to such an extent that the first cannot be considered credible. HrafnTalkStalk 15:36, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

That creationists see the allegations as a smoke screen is literally true. ICR has multiple creationists, to which the statement applies. Now, it would WP:WEASEL if other creationist orgs didn't believe likewise; however, it seems quote likely to me that they do. However, if you find a RS that says that creationists in general do not see the allegations as a smoke screen, then we should incorporate the controversy among the creationists.
Take a step back and look at your proposal. Do you really think that the article should pass judgment and says that "The ICR dishonestly blames"? So much for describing the controversy. --Ed Brey (talk) 12:12, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
How can they believe that the allegations are a "smoke screen" when they continue to use quotes where the author's own original words immediately thereafter explicitly disavows the viewpoint, and when the author has harshly rebuked them for the practice? It is therefore knowing dishonesty. "Do you really think that the article should pass judgment and says that 'The ICR dishonestly blames'?" What part of "I would not suggest using any of these versions" did you fail to understand. I merely stated that it was an improvement on credulously accepting ICR's self-published self-serving 'blame-the-victim' lying through their teeth. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 12:56, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
Here too, your POV hinges on your POV regarding #Skewing meaning vs. selecting meaning. --Ed Brey (talk) 02:35, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Your POV hinges on defending indefensible dishonesty. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 04:14, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

My way or the highway

I would like to reiterate my support for the lead sentence that included selective quotation as a synonym or close parallel. Selective quotation is really what quote mining is all about and is exactly what is described in the examples in the article. Basically, they mean the same thing, but quote mining is a fun neologism. The way the lead reads now it says that quote mining is misquotation which is false and needs to be kept distinct. A misquote is inaccurate or wrong, the beauty of quote mining is that you use the real quotes, you just mine them like gems finding the ones that convey perverse meanings to what was intended. The most common example is in movie review quotes: "This was the worst movie I've seen in a very long time and I recommend strongly against anyone going to see it anytime soon!" becomes "This... movie... I recommend strongly... see it... soon!" Of course for quote minin gyou can't really take just individual words out of context, but have to use phrases or sentences. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:46, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Is the ICR still quote-mining -- youbetcha

A short while ago, Ed Brey asked for evidence that major creationist groups were "currently" engaged in the practice of quote mining. Here's proof:

Statement on my view on biological evolution

TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:

I recently got aware of an article entitled "Werner Arber: Nobel Laureate, Darwin Skeptic" that was published in September 2008 by the Institute for Creation Research and that is authored by Jerry Bergman, Ph.D. This article completely misinterprets my general conclusions that I base on several decades of studies in microbial genetics. A number of citations are taken out of their original context and surrounded by comments and misinterpretations by the author of the article.

The truth is that I have contributed to advance scientific knowledge on biological evolution by studying molecular mechanisms of genetic variation. Genetic variation is clearly the driving force of biological evolution. A number of different specific molecular mechanisms contribute to spontaneous genetic variation. Together with non-genetic elements specific gene products are thereby involved as variation generators and as modulators of the rates of genetic variation. These are established facts that are based on experimental evidences and that are valid for the course of biological evolution as it works today in living organisms. Theoretically, one can extrapolate into the past history of life development on Earth. One can, e.g., postulate how the genes involved in biological evolution may have become fine-tuned to insure to living organisms a comfortable genetic stability and at the same time to the populations of living organisms an evolutionary development, including adaptability to changing living conditions and an expansion of biodiversity. In contrast, there is, so far, neither satisfactory scientific knowledge nor theory on the origin and early evolution of life on our planet.

On solid scientific grounds one cannot expect to discover if a Creator as defined by religious beliefs and sometimes referred to as intelligent design or God's Will, could be responsible for the origin and subsequent evolution of life. Serious scientific investigations can neither prove nor disprove the existence of God or a possible impact of God on evolutionary processes. In our civilization, both scientific knowledge and religious beliefs contribute essentially to our orientating knowledge, but these two sources of our worldview should not be intermingled. In conclusion, I am neither a "Darwin skeptic" nor an "intelligent design supporter" as it is claimed in Bergman's article. I stand fully behind the NeoDarwinian theory of biological evolution and I contributed to confirm and expand this theory at the molecular level so that it can now be called Molecular Darwinism.

Werner Arber
Professor emeritus for Molecular Microbiology,
University of Basel.
Nobel Laureate Medicine/Physiology 1978[2]

HrafnTalkStalk(P) 07:54, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

This is an good example of a current allegation. Do you have RS of a response from ICR to the allegation? --Ed Brey (talk) 12:15, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
Your request is oxymoronic. Any response from the ICR would almost certainly fail WP:SELFPUB, and so not be a RS. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 13:01, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
A self-published source a legitimate in describing a controversy with an allegation against the self-publishing organization and its defense. --Ed Brey (talk) 02:38, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Not when the "self-published source" makes claims that are either (i) about third parties, or (ii) are "unduly self serving", it isn't. Read WP:SELFPUB. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 04:12, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
When an organization is defending itself against accusation, "Using self-published and questionable sources as sources on themselves" applies. However, you did remind me of an interesting point, which is that the article should not include self-published accusations. This means that accusations against an organization from the talk-origin archive (which is roughly equivalent to selfpub in reliability) should not be used. Unduly self-serving applies, too. --Ed Brey (talk) 18:30, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Quote Mining In Regards to Non-creation/evolution Issues

The article mentions that creationists aren't the only ones who quote mine, yet list no examples concering the non-creationist mined quotes. This article should be fleshed out to include examples beyond the creation/evolution controversy.64.180.93.200 (talk) 13:08, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Agree, completely. The article needs to be drastically trimmed wrt creation-evolution, and examples beyond creation-evolution have to be included. It's ridiculously WP:UNDUE for this tangent to occupy well over 90% of the article. It would be best if the editor(s) in favor of keeping it can decide on what to trim. But if that doesn't happen, someone else will need to. arimareiji (talk) 07:16, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
If "over 90%" of the discussion in sources of quote-mining is on creo/evo, then it isn't WP:UNDUE to give it that prominence. What non-creo/evo sources are we ignoring? HrafnTalkStalk(P) 09:04, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
The article's title is not "Creation/evolution debate as it pertains to quote mining." Nor is it "Examples of quote mining by creationists." Unless the article's title changes, making over 90% of its content (~19k of ~20k) about another subject is indeed undue weight. arimareiji (talk) 09:11, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
Your characterisation is inaccurate. All the examples are of the article's topic of "quote mining" -- NOT "another subject". All the examples given are prominent ones. If you believe we are giving WP:UNDUE weight to these examples of quote-mining, then please suggest more prominent ones. If you believe we are giving undue weight to examples of quote mining versus general discussion on the topic, then please suggest sources for such uncovered discussion. If you think that the evo/creo aspect is given undue weight, then suggest other aspects that prominent sources that give column-inches to. Without an articulation of what specific issues the article is failing to give WP:DUE weight to, claiming that it is giving undue weight to evo/creo begins to sound remarkably like WP:IDONTLIKEIT. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 10:15, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
From WP:UNDUE, "An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements." One blurb about quote mining, and over 10x as much text "giving examples" that just happen to all coincidentally push the same POV about a different subject, is at best afoul of WP:NOTDIRECTORY, and at worst afoul of WP:SOAPBOXing. Wikipedia is not here to give lists of examples, so your assertion that anyone who disagrees should go find a whole lot more examples to further bloat the article is specious. An "examples" list well over 10x as large as the original subject doesn't belong, especially when it pushes POV. arimareiji (talk) 11:35, 31 January 2009 (UTC)


I would defend all three examples on the basis of "significance to the subject":

  • The Gould example, because it is the most prominent case of the quote-mined author calling creationists out on the quote-mine. Gould's condemnation have been quoted in multiple works -- including by Richard Dawkins and Eugenie Scott.
  • The Darwin & the Eye example, because it is arguably the most widely (mis)used and most discredited quote-mine -- to the extent of having been condemned even by a major creationist group (the only quote-mine for which this has occured).
  • The Expelled Darwin quote is prominent for being featured in both the Scopes trial and Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed (with the latter getting documented in Scientific American).

I would suggest that each of these examples has received prominence in publications at least in proportion (and probably exceeding proportion) to their prominence in the article. There is nothing 'coincidental' that all the examples of quote-mining are creationist -- creationists have made a cottage industry of the practice and produced whole books of them -- so it is hardly surprising that they form the most prominent examples. This has also meant that scientists, science education advocates, and their supporters have been among the most vocal and most systematic in their opposition to, and documentation of, the practice. Quote-mining most probably exists elsewhere -- just not nearly as prominently and as well-documentedly. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 12:53, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Not in Our Classrooms: Why Intelligent Design Is Wrong for Our Schools, Eugenie Scott, Glenn Branch:

The ubiquitous creationist argument about transitional fossils is generally conducted by misquoting or distorting the words of a paleontologist, such as Stephen Jay Gould. Gould expressed outrage over this, memorably: Since we proposed punctuated equilibria...

I think a 'memorable' rebuttal to the 'general conduct' of a 'ubiquitous argument' is prominent. YMMV. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 13:25, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

RfC - alleged WP:UNDUE

The Quote mining page presently consists of 1.7k of text which defines the term quote mining, and 18.7k of "examples" which demonstrate the use of it by (only) creationists. As both the Talk page and the edit history show, numerous editors have protested that this is pushing POV on a different subject and tried to trim it, but have all been reverted and/or told to add more examples instead. arimareiji (talk) 13:15, 31 January 2009 (UTC) Update: After fiercely resisting, the editor begrudgingly allowed the "examples" of creationists to be reduced to 8.7k, but has since added more material which made it 9.2k (5x the size of the main subject), and added a 3k section of "other" examples. arimareiji (talk) 08:11, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

  • Update: arimareiji continues to misrepresent matters. The fact of the matter is that, apart from the newly created 'Other abuses' section, all cited sources discuss quote mining purely in the context of evo/creo. Even in that section, two of the six sources (and the only ones that make explicit mention of 'quote mining') do so at least partially in a evo/creo context. I would provide an adjective to describe arimareiji 's claims, but that editor would no doubt complain about any accurate adjective I might use. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 11:24, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
  1. Arimareiji is misrepresenting. The three "examples" are only 13.3k (with a reasonably significant proportion of that being references documenting creationist usage of them).
  2. Arimareiji has been challenged to provide prominent "examples" of quote-mining by non-creationists. They have not even attempted to do so.
  3. As both the talkpage & edit history shows, there have been a number of spurious complaints made about this article, based upon:
    • misapplication of WP:RS;
    • misinterpretation of the article's definition;
    • ignoring sources already cited in the article; and
    • WP:UNDUE weight to creationist counter-claims that have been discredited by their own actions.

HrafnTalkStalk(P) 13:35, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

  • If it's "only" 13.3 k (i.e. only 8:1, not 11:1), why does that material show as an 18.7k addition when pasted into a sandbox? (I have no intention of deleting it just to make a WP:POINT.)
  • Thank you for reiterating the argument you make each time this comes up - "if you don't like it, add some more examples" to an article already demonstrably bloated with them.
  • If you're the article's sole defender for nigh a year against numerous editors who are all making "spurious complaints," doesn't that say something to you?
  • This article's purpose is not to add or subtract "weight to creationist counter-claims that have been discredited by their own actions," nor is it to prove how intellectually dishonest they are. It's to define quote mining. arimareiji (talk) 13:57, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Sorry, but this article is 20.6k, making the examples on 64%. You are including general discussion of quote-mining in evo/creo as part of "examples" -- which is not legitimate.
  • I'll keep reiterating this point every time you make this illegitimate argument. You act as though there's some sort of POV-pushing manipulation to only mention evo/creo examples, when the fact of the matter is that these are, by far, the most prominent examples.
  • On "creationist counter-claims", please read WP:SELFPUB.
  • "It's to define quote mining" -- the two definitions we have of quote mining, Forrest & Gross (2004) p7 & Isaak (2007) p14, both do so explicitly in the context of evo/creo. It is therefore hardly surprising, and perfectly WP:DUE, that the article concentrates mainly on this aspect. In fact, per WP:V, we don't have any choice but to stay on this aspect, unless and until somebody can come up with WP:RSes discussing other aspects.
HrafnTalkStalk(P) 14:19, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
I believe I'll rest, and let the present state of the article speak for itself. It already has, to several editors who came before me. arimareiji (talk) 14:25, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Firstly, already involved parties should not be heavily involved in an RfC. Secondly, this article certainly appears to be mostly an attack against creationists. The need to include more than two examples in the whole article is dubious; the prose should be written clear enough to explain quote mining sufficiently. A much less controversial and widespread use of quote mining is in quoting critical reviews. Above all, this is an article about a logical fallacy, not the evo/creation debate.–OrangeDog (talk • edits) 16:26, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

  • Tsk The article still gives massive undue weight to the creationist/evolution issue and so currently appears to be a soapy coatrack. The article seems to be redundant to our article on Misquotation and so should be merged into it to resolve this tendentious and tedious matter. The example of misquotation which should be given most prominence is the quoting of critical reviews out of context which will be more familiar to our general readership, has received legal attention at a high level and which should be less prone to edit wars. Colonel Warden (talk) 21:30, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Colonel Warden: please cite sources for alternate viewpoints of 'Quote mining' that this article is giving "massive undue weight to the creationist/evolution issue" at the expense of. Given that the term was coined in the context of this issue, the claim of WP:COAT would appear to be unsustainable. Misquotation is a short, superficial and largely unsourced article, so I do not see how it could render anything redundant. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 05:39, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Non-creationist examples of quote-mining

Can anybody come up with WP:RSes discussing or giving examples of quote-mining in non-evo/creo contexts?

In #Sourcing a couple of years back, KillerChihuahua provided links to three examples. The problem is that the first one is broken (and from Wayback appears to be heavily tangential), and the other two are probably of, at best, marginal reliability. Do we have a consensus for including any of these sources?

A GoogleBooks search turns up just evo/creo material as well as "quote mine" where "mine" is being used as a first-person possessive pronoun. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 14:47, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

This conversion is more than a little belated. If you're unwilling to trim any of the massive "here's why creationists are intellectually dishonest" text, adding more examples hardly helps. Nor does it show willingness to compromise on the basic premise that this article should be about quote mining, not creation-evolution_controversy. arimareiji (talk) 14:56, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
'Beleted conversion'? Hardly. Merely opening up for general discussion a question that I have put to you repeatedly ([3][4]), which you have repeatedly side-stepped. I have never suggested that I am averse to adding non-evo/creo material. I am unwilling to eliminate well-sourced material when you have provided no evidence that this material is being given weight beyond that merited by its prominence in sources. The fact that you seem to be completely happy to argue WP:UNDUE without any references to sources whatsoever is clear evidence that your argument is wholly without merit. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 16:05, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
<ec> The quote mining issue appears to have developed as part of the creation-evolution controversy so it's most documented in that context, and that weight of expert opinion should properly be shown in the article. It is fair to say that we should aim to should aim for concise "summary style" when mentioning examples which are better described in full detail on other articles, which can be linked from here for that full detail. The term does seem to be spreading to other areas such as global warming,[5][6] but note the reference back to creationism in these articles, and the need for reliable sources making this claim. So, it's a laudable idea to work on finding other arenas of quote mining and to trimming surplus detail that's properly covered elsewhere, but the proportion of the article referring to creation-evolution seems unlikely to change greatly at present. Look forward to being shown wrong by well referenced additions related to other areas of argument. . dave souza, talk 16:08, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
I hate to parse the meaning of the verb "is," Clinton-style, but could you clarify what you mean by "are better described in full detail on other articles"? I would interpret "are" as "can be / ought to be," but Hrafn appears to interpret it as "have already been." Alternately, you might have meant both? arimareiji (talk) 17:09, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

If we were to trim, what would we trim?

Taking Dave's intervention as an excuse to move, out of combative demolish-arguments-I-perceive-to-be-weak mode, to looking at the wider picture, I'd like to pose the following questions:

  1. Which of the examples are non-prominent?
    • The only example, in my opinion that is even close to being a candidate is Darwin's Eye. This is because it's aptness is due to the frequency of its use, not to any individual, single prominent usage or criticism. It is however most probably the most widely abused quote-mine -- so losing it would be unfortunate.
  2. Which of these examples is "described in full detail on other articles"?
    1. Follow-up question (per arimareiji): are there any of these examples that could/should be relocated elsewhere (if so, then to which article?), without feeling WP:COATRACKy or WP:UNDUE at their new location? HrafnTalkStalk(P) 17:19, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
  3. What 'fat' can be removed from the examples without reducing them to incoherence?
    • The second Gould rebuttal & the Moore quote are probably the most obvious candidates. Others?

HrafnTalkStalk(P) 16:53, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Losing the long explanations would go a long way. The reader is going to be bored, not convinced, by lengthy details. If you narrow it to two or three examples that can be encapsulated in <4k of text (excluding ref cites that aren't used to contain arguments and explanations, so theoretically up to 6 or 7k), I'd not object. The key would be, as Dave Souza said, to keep it summary-style.
If you can't narrow down your quotes to the bare essentials, no one else will be able to do it for you in a way you'll find satisfactory. If you'd like, use this talk page as a sandbox - it would obviate the need to check whether it's 8k or 20k, because you can see it in the history. arimareiji (talk) 17:27, 31 January 2009 (UTC)


What you describe as "long explanations" is, for the most part, the quoted context, that demonstrates how these quotes are taken out of context. I do not see how letting the misquoted writer speak for themselves is WP:UNDUE. It is, to my mind at least, far more neutral, and far more compelling, than to editorialise what the context was. At minimum, a coherent example has to show:

  1. The misused quote;
  2. The missing context that makes it misleading;
  3. Some indication (either implicit or explicit) of why the example is prominent.

HrafnTalkStalk(P) 17:46, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

The devil, as they say, is in the details. If a single quote needs paragraphs of context, then it needs to go to the appropriate article about that subject. arimareiji (talk) 17:56, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
Quote-mining IS ABOUT CONTEXT! Trying to give an example of a quote mine without giving the context is pointless, counter-productive and incoherent. Also, for the most part this is "the appropriate article". This is the article about quote-mining so, by and large, this is the sole article where it makes sense to lay out an example of quote-mining (the only exceptions would be the rare article, such as Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, where the issue of quote-mining is sufficiently central an issue, that it would warrant the space there). I consider your demand to be unreasonable and, to be blunt, to demonstrate a very poor understanding of the subject matter. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 18:09, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
(edit conflict from succeeding section) My "demand" that "a single quote [doesn't] need paragraphs of context" to be understood as misleading is pointless, counter-productive, incoherent, unreasonable, and demonstrates a very poor understanding of the subject matter? arimareiji (talk) 18:24, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
Your stringing together of multiple fragments of my own comments out of order and out of context is garbled and incoherent. If you want to understand what I said then, in the first instance, read what I said, in the context in which I said it. If you still don't understand what I said then ask a question that relates to what I actually said, not to some patchworked reworking of it. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 03:06, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

(undent) As you wish. In context, I asserted: "The devil, as they say, is in the details. If a single quote needs paragraphs of context, then it needs to go to the appropriate article about that subject."
Your immediately-following response was "Quote-mining IS ABOUT CONTEXT! Trying to give an example of a quote mine without giving the context is pointless, counter-productive and incoherent." This was followed by a long didactic, and then "I consider your demand to be unreasonable and, to be blunt, to demonstrate a very poor understanding of the subject matter."
Seems clear enough to me.arimareiji (talk) 13:03, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that is what I said. And your question is? Or was the question-mark at the end of your second-to-last post on this thread a typo? HrafnTalkStalk(P) 13:27, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

A summary to date

In my opinion at least, arimareiji has neither given:

  1. A coherent articulation (i.e. one that actually discusses sources and their prominence) of why this article fails to meet WP:DUE.
  2. Any suggestion as to what could be removed sufficient to meet arimareiji's 4k demand, without the examples losing the context of the mined quotes, and thus any coherence as examples.
  3. Any suggestion as to where these examples could be moved that wouldn't be "WP:COATRACKy or WP:UNDUE at their new location".

In summary, I have found arimareiji's comments to be wholly unhelpful. So, rather than stick around in what will inevitably be "combative demolish-arguments-I-perceive-to-be-weak mode", I'll leave the field for a while & see if cooler heads can either (i) come up with genuinely helpful suggestions or (ii) explain the subject matter to arimareiji better than I have been able to. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 18:20, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

If some "cooler head" can explain to me why a section on creation-evolution arguments in the article Quote mining must be 11x as large as the section defining quote mining, and it's utterly unreasonable to say that it should be limited to 3x as large, please do. arimareiji (talk) 18:30, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
arimareiji: if you had paid any attention at all to either the sources (as I have repeatedly suggested, most recently in #1 above) or to our discussion of them, you would have realised that EVERY WP:RS we have to date (100%) discusses quote mining in context of evo/creo. Therefore, any percentage on evo/creo not exceeding 100% is not WP:UNDUE. I will respond to any further attempts by yourself to discuss weight that does not address sources simply with "Does not address sources -- vacuous" or similar. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 02:57, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Arbitrary ratios are unhelpful, and from the sources I've seen there is going to be a focus on that particular context. A demonstration of use of quotes out of context is reasonable, the Gould example and Darwin on the eye cover this pretty well, but Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed#Charles Darwin quotation issue already gives the detailed explanation of that issue, this article could provide a link to that section together with a brief summary of some of the published reactions to that quote mining. In my opinion giving the details of two examples suffices, and perhaps the article could include more informed comment rather than examples. Any joy with sources on uses in other areas? . dave souza, talk 18:49, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
Arbitrary ratios are specifically unhelpful, I agree. But they're quite illustrative generally. 3x as large isn't a reasonable size in my opinion; I don't understand why a POV tangent should even be the same size as the subject material. But it says a lot that Hrafn considers it completely unreasonable to limit it to a ceiling of "only" three times as large as the direct subject of the article, and has stifled any effort to trim it whatsoever for almost a year. Check the edit history. arimareiji (talk) 19:03, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
You contradicted yourself. 3x as large isn't a reasonable size in my opinion vs. "only" three times as large. So is 300% large or no? &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;dissera! 19:37, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
No contradiction, but there was ambiguity. I think both 3x and 11x the amount of text directly covering the subject are overweighted for a POV tangent. I offered it as a compromise, whereupon Hrafn insisted that even being 3x as large isn't enough. arimareiji (talk) 21:50, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

My suggestion would be to include the terminology "selective quotation" in the introduction and to include move review quotes as an example. I do think the massive discussion of the evolution debate needs to be trimmed or split off into a new article. Misquotation and quote mining are NOT the same thing. A misquote is an inaccurate quote. Quote mining is about taking quotes out of context. Cheers. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:34, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Do we have a WP:RS for the movie-quotes (either generally, or citing specific examples)? The trouble I see with a split is that 100% of our current RSes overlap quote mining with evo/creo. Can anybody suggest a means of splitting that would not suffer from either overlap or lack of coherence due to loss of context (both criteria for a WP:MERGE). Can anybody suggest a means of substantive trimming that would still leave the "examples" as coherently-explained examples of quote mining? HrafnTalkStalk(P) 03:16, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Here are some reliable sources:
    • "EVERY theatregoer suspects that the glowing tributes outside promising a “thrilling!” or “sensational!” evening may be a little economical with the truth. According to a Times survey, the true picture is far worse: there is as much fiction on the advertising boards as on the stage. More than one third of West End theatres have been found to use highly selective quotations, from the optimistic to the downright misleading." Times (UK) [7]
    • And from politics "But the Bush commercial's selective quotation about the McCain we know omitted the editorial's final two sentences: There is much there to admire. After all, we have supported McCain in his past runs for office. " New York Times [8]
    • Theater "They range from the blurb (inexact); the (selective) quotation; the (qualified with faint) praise; the (cherry-picked) astonishing plot; the (quote-whore’s travesty of) appreciation; to (the lie) circumstantial and (the lie) direct." Times (UK) [9]. The beauty of selective quotes/ quote mining is that they aren't really misquotations. They are just out of context and misleading. ChildofMidnight (talk) 08:16, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Here are a couple more
    • "Selective quotation also produces distortion by omission." NY Times book review [10]
    • "'Obviously selective quotation can be misleading - I'm not saying it is, but it can be,' he continued. 'And we really can't come to any absolutely definitive conclusions on the whole of this matter without seeing all of the papers, which we haven't seen and which the government has made clear it's not going to show to us.' Guardian story [11]. ChildofMidnight (talk) 08:33, 1 February 2009 (UTC)


Based upon my self-responses to my questions (#2 & 3) in the above section, and Dave's comments, I have taken the liberty of trimming the Expelled example down to the barest summary + a further-tag & have trimmed out the second (more tangential) Gould rebuttal-quote. If anybody can give specific suggestions for further trimming that does not involve significant loss of coherence, or can demonstrate that specific material's prominence in the articles exceeds their prominence in the sources, I will look at it. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 03:39, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I applaud you for taking Dave Souza's suggestion and trimming down Expelled to two short sentences and a reference to the full article (-4.9k). However, I note that was all you did wrt this section, other than removing one long sentence from Gould and adding in material about AIG (-505b, of which -27b was an edit to the subject: net -478b to leave 12.8k of creationist quote-mining to 1.8k of subject). This still leaves the POV tangent 7 times as large as the subject - an improvement, but only by degrees.
Even if your argument that refs don't count is taken at face value, despite the fact refs are being used to further the argument, cutting it down to only visible text still shows that we have 4 and a half times as much on creationist quote-mining as we do on the article's subject. arimareiji (talk) 10:04, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
arimareiji: you have no basis whatsoever for your arbitrary and unreasonable demands -- so I will simply ignore them. Good day. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 10:40, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
I'll leave it to others to decide whether it's "arbitrary and unreasonable" to say that a POV tangent should be somewhere near the same size, rather than many times as large as, the direct subject of the article. As to your ignoring my points, that's not news. arimareiji (talk) 11:25, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Your claim that this is "a POV tangent" has no basis in analysis of the sources or the prominence they give to aspects of this topic, so is a vacuous "tangent". Please stop attempting to argue WP:DUE without bothering to even consider the sources. Thank you. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 12:10, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Answers in Genesis quote redux

Given the increased attention that this article is getting (at least for the moment), can I take advantage of this to seek a wider audience for the issue disputed in #Answers in Genesis claims/quote above? Specifically:

  1. Does the framing the article currently gives the AiG quote accurately reflect the context in which AiG made it? Or does it give a false impression of a far wider condemnation than AiG intended?
  2. Is its use congruent with the limitations placed by WP:SELFPUB?

HrafnTalkStalk(P) 03:58, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

1 - I concur with Ed Brey; it's undue to leave a huge section in place on behalf of the accuser and remove the only two sentences that give the accused any airtime. And bluntly, it already comes off as major overkill - so much so that even though I have heavy personal animus against quote mining, I actually find myself feeling sorry for how they're being treated here.
2 - Are you asking whether AIG can be used as a source on AIG's views? arimareiji (talk) 10:14, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
  1. You failed to answer my question. Does the framing the article currently gives the AiG quote accurately reflect the context in which AiG made it? Or does it give a false impression of a far wider condemnation than AiG intended?
  2. No I am not. I am asking the question that I asked. If I had wanted to ask "whether AIG can be used as a source on AIG's views" I would have asked that question!
Given that arimareiji does not seem interested in answering the questions I asked, I throw the issue to other editors. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 10:37, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
1 - You're asking us to be mindreaders and discern that their motives are those which you attribute to them. Let them speak for themselves in their own words, whether you think they're lying or not. We're not attributing it as a fact, we're attributing it as their claim - which is an entirely proper use of SELFPUB.
2 - Absent asking us to read their minds and know what they "really" meant by it, which is not our prerogative, that's the only question I see. arimareiji (talk) 11:22, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
  1. No. I would expect a reasonable editor to read the original source, and then the article's framing of the quote, and compare the two. No mind-reading necessary -- just reading the source.
  2. So reading the source, then reading WP:SELFPUB, and deciding if the former meets the criteria in the latter, is beyond you? Fine, don't answer the question then. But please don't ask if you can answer a completely different question instead.
HrafnTalkStalk(P) 12:03, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Given that arimareiji is having considerable trouble comprehending these clear, if open-ended, questions, I'll attempt to simplify (over-simplify?) them into a couple of leading questions. Is the AiG quote condemning as "immoral" the general practice of quote mining? (If not, then the quote is off-topic & most probably misrepresented.) If so, is this condemnation "unduly self serving" in the context of WP:SELFPUB, given their documented use of quote mining? (Side-question: does the source meet all the other criteria of WP:SELFPUB?) HrafnTalkStalk(P) 12:53, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Given that Hrafn is having considerable trouble asserting it, I'll repeat it for him: As made clear from his previous discussion with Ed Brey, he wants to remove the material. My characterization would be that this is a rare example of creationist POV and has to stay in per WP:UNDUE, whereas he believes that their "true" motives are the opposite of those stated. Let the facts speak for themselves as to their true motives. arimareiji (talk) 13:13, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Thank you arimareiji for blaming me for your own failure at basic comprehension. Thank you also for your failure to WP:AGF. Thank you for continuing to blithely spout prejudged views without any attempt whatsoever to address the sources, or my questions. "Is the AiG quote condemning as 'immoral' the general practice of quote mining? ... If so, is this condemnation 'unduly self serving' in the context of WP:SELFPUB, given their documented use of quote mining?" DO NOT give an answer to another question (if you want to do that, then start a new thread), DO NOT give an answer that does not have an explicit basis in (i) the cited source, (ii) how it is framed in the article & (iii) WP:SELFPUB. Have you even read the cited AiG piece? Your responses give no indication that you have done so. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 03:57, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Suggestions

  • An entire paragraph explaining Gould's views is unnecessary; all the more true since it's followed by "Gould is scathing..." which is a short and direct rebuttal. All that's needed is "However, the context that immediately follows demonstrates that this view is articulated only in order to reject it: "Although I reject this argument (for reasons discussed in ["The Episodic Nature of Evolutionary Change"]), let us grant the traditional escape and ask a different question."" (But you need a source that contains the full quote; the one you cite only contains the de facto misquote.)
  • Darwin on the eye would be a much stronger first example. However, the "context" for his quote needs to be corrected to what the source actually says, and a continuous line of thought established rather than the present tangent which follows it. Example:
Stopping there, as some authors have***, changes the meaning because Darwin explains his actual line of thought shortly thereafter: "Reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a simple and imperfect eye to one complex and perfect can be shown to exist, each grade being useful to its possessor, as is certain the case; if further, the eye ever varies and the variations be inherited, as is likewise certainly the case; and if such variations should be useful to any animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, should not be considered as subversive of the theory." Darwin goes on to describe how these can be observed in nature, from "aggregates of pigment-cells... only to distinguish light from darkness" to depressions which have no lens but are "filled... with transparent gelatinous matter and have a clear outer covering," and up through increasingly advanced forms.
(*** - The refs from inside the quote which show instances of it need to be moved here)
  • Finally, both the "In this case, the originally..." and the "Thus, presenting the original..." sentences in that section are unnecessary restatement. The "The creationist organization..." should be kept; I also note that it disproves my assertion in the section above - this is a third sentence which gives the creationists "airtime." arimareiji (talk) 11:17, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

The trimming of the context on the Gould quote that you suggest does not seem unreasonable. You are incorrect to state that "the one you cite only contains the de facto misquote", as it was from this source that I copied the context in the first place. If you think it is in some way a misrepresentation of what Gould wrote, then you're welcome to search out the original text.

On Darwin's Eye, I am less convinced. Your version appears muddled. Quote-mine, context, explanation (possibly made more concise than current) would seem to be cleaner than interspersing context & explanation. Also, it is inaccurate to state "shortly thereafter" -- it is immediately thereafter (except for your omission of "Yet"). HrafnTalkStalk(P) 11:49, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Wrt Gould's full quote, you're correct - I mistakenly associated the use of [12] with the use of [13].
Darwin's Eye:
Wrt "muddledness," the current version transitions from "the eye evolved through progressive forms" to "he goes on to refute this contention," which leaves the reader with no reason to believe the previous. My proposed version would instead transition to "and here are examples of those progressive forms," which explains the previous - otherwise, it comes across as technobabble.
"In this case" is WP:OR, first and foremost. "Thus, presenting" is source-supported, but overlong and dips too far into restating the point. It could be amended rather than removed.
Wrt inaccurate quoting, this source faithfully reproduces the original source, which perhaps should be included instead of other sources which misquote him. (sarcasm)Could we have found the first example of pro-scientist quote mining?(/sarcasm) Note for the humor-impaired: No, I do not consider this on par with AIG or ICR, and it should not be claimed that it is. The intent of those who created [14] and [15] was to make the context clearer, even if they did go about it the wrong way. arimareiji (talk) 12:35, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
The original source may depend a bit on which edition you're citing, see the links here for more defintive text. None of these citations seem to use the term "quote-mining", so we should use this rebuttal to give that context. It might be better to move that example to Fallacy of quoting out of context in plsce of the existing uncited example there, and replace it by one of the others on this list . dave souza, talk 12:57, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
If that's the case, we need to cite that edition. Someone's quote isn't nearly RS enough to overturn the book itself. See elsewhere for my opinion on whether it has to be called quote-mining by the source, even if it demonstrates all the characteristics of quote-mining and we're not asserting that the source explicitly used the term quote-mining. arimareiji (talk) 13:16, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Back to suggestions: If no one has a reference for a book edition of Origin of the Species that supports the current version of the context quote listed in "Darwin on the eye," we need to use Darwin's own words - not a webpage transcript of indeterminate validity, which is what's currently being used. I find it difficult to believe that anyone would assert someone's webpage is a better source for Origin of the Species than the actual book itself, but stranger things have happened. Input? arimareiji (talk) 19:12, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Going once, going twice... arimareiji (talk) 04:16, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

A few point:

  1. The "current version" (nor any recent version) states neither "the eye evolved through progressive forms" nor "he goes on to refute this contention" -- so I have no idea where this material is coming from.
  2. Wikisource has at least two versions of Origins -- the (newer) version that I originally linked to had neither the original quote-mine nor its context. I have already (and before this thread got onto this subject) relinked it to the 1859 edition which does contain this material. I see no reason not to cite wikisource on this.
  3. "In this case.." is not OR (e.g. see for example Dawkins here, but is miscited. Given that the citation I mistakenly gave does in fact have a delightfully pithy Gould quote on the topic, I'm going to substitute that for an attempt to recite my original explanatory piece.

HrafnTalkStalk(P) 04:22, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikisource, delightfully easy though it may be to access, is not more reliable than the actual book itself. Claiming "it's a different edition" doesn't support it alone. Verifiability demands putting all the cards on the table - if you have an edition which uses the wording you want to keep, then please link it so that it can be examined. You have not linked it to "the edition," you have linked it to a web transcript that purports to be a faithful one. arimareiji (talk) 05:42, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Wikisource acts as a convenience link for the underlying reliable source. This is standard practice and has been addressed, e.g. at WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 3#Unreliable source reprints reliable source. If a reader has questions about the reliability of the convenience link, then they still have the option of searching out another publication (either online or hardcopy) of the source. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 06:04, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
I already have searched out the original, and I've referred to it a few times already. It doesn't match. And given that your Wikisource doesn't match the original, and that you haven't or can't match it to an actual edition containing that text, Wikisource (as a copy) is not more reliable than the original. I find it difficult to believe that you're seriously arguing that Wikisource is a better source for Darwin's words in Origin of the Species than the actual book itself is. [comment by arimareiji, I presume]
Fix format, add name presumed editor. Wee joke: what is this Origin of the Species? </joke> I've added a link to the relevant pages of the first edition of OTooS at Darwin Online, it's a good read. . . dave souza, talk 09:37, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
I much prefer getting (understanding) jokes to most wikitalk content, but I'm afraid that one went way over my head... so what's the origin of the Origin of the Species? (I agree about Darwin Online in general. We might disagree on whether "original" editions or later drafts are better, but I'd rather understand the joke than argue.) arimareiji (talk) 11:49, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

"Published by J.M. Dent & Sons, 1909" = not the original HrafnTalkStalk(P) 06:30, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

According to the ELs to On the Origin of Species, there were at least six editions, and numerous changes in intervening editions. If you don't want to trust wikiusource, then you're welcome to go here for another copy of the first edition.

I just checked, the article explicitly cites the First Edition. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 06:38, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Other Abuses

I have created a short section on ChildofMidnight's examples. If you can find more examples (or sources indicating more prominence to those already mentioned), please feel free to expand the section. I have intentionally ignored Ed Brey's demand that we find explicit citation that use the exact phrase "quote mining" to describe examples before including them. It was absurd even in the context of evo/creo, and is even more absurd outside that context. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 11:21, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Sadly, these don't seem to be described by the sources as quote mining and from all I've seen the term is only just spreading beyond the creation-evolution controversy. I've added some clarification to the article,[16] note that quote mining appears to be a specific variation of the Fallacy of quoting out of context. My suggestion would be that these examples be moved to that article, which needs improvements – it includes the Darwin eye example, but without any citations. If this article is to include use outside creationist misuse, we really need citations using the term. . dave souza, talk 12:42, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Believe it or not, I agree with Hrafn. If it has all the characteristics defined with respect to quote mining, I would think it can be included as long as there's no claim that "XYZ source called it quote mining." arimareiji (talk) 12:52, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
I agree too that reference to the exact phrase "quote mining" is necessary, but rather the concepts of digging through lots of literate to find quotes with the intent to skew or contort their meaning. I don't recall requesting (much less "demanding") an exact phrase. --Ed Brey (talk) 12:19, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

<boilerplate> Just a quick note on Dave's sources. They're blogs, but both from stables of 'expert blogs' (one a prominent science writer, the other an academic at a reasonably prominent institution), so the "For example, material may sometimes be cited which is self-published by an established expert on the topic of the article, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." exception would seem to apply. (Just making a note of this in case it comes up later.) </boilerplate> HrafnTalkStalk(P) 13:19, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Comment Feb 1. 2009

  • I would just point out that the use of quote mining predates the terminology. So think the focus of the article needs to be explaining what qutoe mining is and giving examples. The eymology and history of the actual term should also be covered. I still think the wording selective quotation is accurate. If there is a difference between selective quotations and quote mining I would like to know what it is. At the very least quote mining is a type of selective quotation, although I think they are indistinguishable. A misquotation is inaccurate normally, so that's a rather different beast although I suppose you could fit quote mining and selective quotation under the braodest possible meaning of misquotation. It's more like misleading quotation. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:23, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Expelled's Darwin quote

I just read some of this article, and noticed this section. It states (shortened): "Ben Stein and William Jennings Bryan used the same quote mining (who decides this?) of a passage from Charles Darwin's book. The heavily edited quote gives the impression that Darwin is supporting eugenics, when he is (who decides this?) in fact explicitly rejecting it." Not only is this POV, but the only source is to a semi-reliable bias blog post. I do not think this should be in the article, unless some non-bias-blog sources are found to back it up. Also, what gives this significance over related occurrences? Thank you. TheAE talk/sign 05:15, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

AE: follow the 'further' template, read the material there, and look at the sources cited there, before complaining. This article previously had far more material, and cited far more sources, but has recently been pruned back heavily as it was "described in full detail on [an]other article". HrafnTalkStalk(P) 05:56, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Latest addition

I'm not sure I understand the rationale... when editors (more than just myself; please don't make that mischaracterization) note that the creationist tangent shouldn't be many times as long as the original subject, you add a longer and less coherent discourse by Gould to replace Darwin's coherent explanation of his own words? arimareiji (talk) 05:35, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

arimareiji: as I have repeatedly pointed out to you, the vast majority of sources that discuss quote mining do so in the context of evo/creo so this IS NOT A TANGENT!

You seem to have problems in comprehending this, so I will repeat:
THIS IS NOT A TANGENT!

Your claims about WP:DUE have no basis in, nor even attempt to address, the prominence of viewpoints in sources (the basis of that policy), so have no weight whatsoever. I am sick of your unsubstantiated baloney. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 05:55, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

It's disproportionate to make the vast bulk of an article about quote mining about only the use of it by creationists. You're correct that it would not be a POV tangent if it were in proportion to the main subject. But when it's many times the size... then as many have noted before me, and some after me, you're forcing the article to be about a different subject, "Use of quote mining by creationists." Perhaps it would be better to make exactly that split and let this article cross-link the new one. You apparently can't be happy unless you have a full article devoted to the subject, and many editors have already noted that this is WP:UNDUE given the article's title. arimareiji (talk) 06:11, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
No discussion of the prominence of viewpoints in source -- therefore wholly vacuous and without basis in WP:DUE. NOBODY discusses "the main subject" (i.e. the topic of quote mining generally, as opposed to merely giving specific examples of the phenomenon without using the term) except in the context of your "tangent". HrafnTalkStalk(P) 06:26, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Your impressively-extensive vocabulary of pejorative language to describe the many editors who have disagreed with you on this page (baloney, muddled, failure at basic comprehension, pointless, counter-productive, incoherent, unreasonable, demonstrates a very poor understanding of the subject matter, dead horse, stop flogging it!, irrelevant, tendentious, meritless, wrong, bloody sick of this!, heavy-handed, very poor wiki-etiquette, wildly WP:OR, completely ludicrous, fallacious, Complete and utter baloney!, wholly without merit, wholly spurious, wholly unhelpful, wholly vacuous, and my favorite - insinuating that if someone disagrees they must secretly be a quote-miner themselves) doesn't make your arguments more credible. One editor shouting down everyone who disagrees is not consensus. arimareiji (talk) 06:54, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
<does a quick check> Oh good, you included "irrelevant" -- because that is exactly the word I'd have used to describe this non sequitor of a reply. You 'opine at great length but without factual substantiation' (would the best word be wikt:bloviate or wikt:pontificate? My vocabulary isn't quite up to such subtleties) on what the article should and should not concentrate on, and then object when you are called on this lack of factual basis. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 07:36, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

P.S. I did not "replace Darwin's coherent explanation of his own words" -- as the words that I replaced were not Darwin's (as can be seen from the dif). HrafnTalkStalk(P) 07:36, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Good of you to address the subject at last. Your timeline is correct; you refused to allow a coherent explanation which used Darwin's own words and later replaced your chosen wording with a considerably-longer meta-analysis by Gould which still doesn't explain Darwin's thesis - it just attacks those who deliberately misconstrued it.
Incidentally, the correct phrase is non sequitur. And no, it's not a non sequitur to note that instead of addressing the subject, your typical response is to attack the editors who bring it up - considering that you had just done so. Non sequitur literally means "it does not follow," i.e. one thing doesn't follow upon another.
So I believe the more-pertinent phrase would be ad hominem, which you've repeatedly practiced on this page and were doing so again. arimareiji (talk) 07:54, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
  1. So you admit that I did not "replace Darwin's coherent explanation of his own words". And given that your own explanation has never been in the article, I did not "replace" it either. Your accusation thus has no factual basis.
  2. You fail to understand what an ad hominem argument is. If I said that 'your argument is vacuous because you are a [Buddhist/murderer/Tibetan shepherd/etc]', it would be ad hominem. Were I to state 'your argument is vacuous because it has no factual basis' it would not be an ad hominem. Given that I do not, as far as I know, have any knowledge as to the creed, criminal record, occupation-while-in-Tibet, etc of editors on this talkpage, my avenues for ad hominem are severely limited.

HrafnTalkStalk(P) 08:26, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

OK folks, this WP:TALK page is for discussing improvements to the article, not commenting on each other. So let it rest right there. The article is about a topic which originated as a term to describe creationist tactics, and therefore gives due prominence to the reliable sources using that term, all of which appear to be in that context with the two exceptions describing global warming denialists as similar to creationists in use of the technique. Complaints about proportions, percentages, or kilobytes of info devoted to creationist misuse are offtopic and if repeated will be treated as trolling. Those wanting changes in the article should present verification. . dave souza, talk 09:28, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Nice. "Complaints" about naming the subject as "quote mining" and then writing the article "creationist quote-mining" are trolling, while one editor's badgering and insulting a series of editors who try to correct this until they leave isn't.
  • I have provided examples of undue length to be removed, and only one was incorporated. One needle, in a very large haystack of "La la la you're wrong" and insults. Continuing to enable Hrafn to barrage editors who disagree with this, rather than discuss the issues, results in what you can see has occurred several times: Every editor will give up and leave, seeing that the sniping will be endless and/or that he has an admin to defend these actions.
  • This article needs to be split into Hrafn's article and an article on quote mining which links to it. For all the pretty talk about "quote mining is about creationists," that's not what the article is named.
  • Finally, it's remarkable that you would try to ban referring to the fact that the "creationist quote-mining" tangent is several times the size of the "quote-mining" subject. To my knowledge, no precedent exists for such a ban. arimareiji (talk) 10:34, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

arimareiji: go ahead and try to construct an article on "quote mining" that avoids heavy usage of the sources on "creationist quote-mining" (and therefore a requirement to give heavy WP:WEIGHT to their coverage of that aspect). It will be an article without a definition of the term, almost no sources that even mention the term, and very little content. The overlap between coverage on quote mining and coverage on its usage in evo/creo in the sources isn't 100%, but it is quite close. Yes, I know you disagree with me, I know you can say so at great length. You have already said so at sufficient length for me to form a personal assessment of how much value I place upon it. So let's skip both the next instalment of it, and my assessment of the next instalment, and you can get on to demonstrating that a meaningful article on quote-mining-sans-creationism is viable. For the avoidance of doubt, AFAIK the only sources that make no mention of creationism are the last four in 'Other abuses' (but they make no explicit mention of 'quote mining'), and the only other ones that mention both creo&non-creo are the first two sources in that section. Have fun.HrafnTalkStalk(P) 11:07, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I've already said twice how this is possible. Split them into "Creation-evolution controversy/Quote mining" (or whatever the proper nomenclature would be) composed of your section, and leave behind a link-in of one short paragraph and a direct to the new article. arimareiji (talk) 11:36, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
arimareiji: this is what the article that you are seeking would have to look like: Talk:Quote mining/arimareiji version. Please note the {{fact}}-tags on the lead paragraphs. These are because the material in these paragraphs were previously substantiated by evo/creo material (and no, you do not get the third lead paragraph -- that's explicitly cited to purely evo/creo material). Once these paragraphs are eliminated for lack of verifiability that does not come with a requirement to give due weight to the heavily evo/creo material that any sources bring, the article collapses completely. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 12:09, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Please don't attribute your motives, as evidenced in your concerted removal of material from Class rings, to me. My intent is not to destroy or "collapse" anything. I didn't say remove the sources, you did. In addition, I suggested that a short paragraph and link be left behind. None of this is reflected in your blatant mischaracterization of me, and I'll thank you to remove my name from it immediately. arimareiji (talk) 12:21, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
arimareiji: if you want to discuss an article on 'class rings' please do so on Talk:Class ring‎ (but the discussion will again come down to the matter of sources). The evo/creo aspect is what holds this topic together, so removal of it will of necessity collapse the article (and it matters not one whit whether that collapse is intentional or a mere byproduct of the removal). You cannot remove the material without removing the sources, because the sources discuss the topic exclusively in the context of evo/creo, so to include these sources but fail to give heavy emphasis to that aspect would be to blatantly fail to give their treatment of quote mining WP:DUE weight. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 12:45, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

(undent) To the unknown IP - whether or not you agree with Hrafn's methodology, removing his comments is flatly unacceptable. When you engage in actions such as doing so, you discredit those who oppose him and strengthen his claims. Finally, such behavior is clearly WP:UNCIVIL and can quickly lead to sanctions. arimareiji (talk) 06:52, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Defending Darwin

"To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree."

Option 1. Stopping there, as some authors have***, changes the meaning because Darwin explains his actual line of thought shortly thereafter:[3]

::"Reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a simple and imperfect eye to one complex and perfect can be shown to exist, each grade being useful to its possessor, as is certain the case; if further, the eye ever varies and the variations be inherited, as is likewise certainly the case; and if such variations should be useful to any animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, should not be considered as subversive of the theory."

Darwin goes on to describe how these can be observed in nature, from "aggregates of pigment-cells... only to distinguish light from darkness" to depressions which are "filled... with transparent gelatinous matter and have a clear outer covering" but have no lens, and up through increasingly advanced forms.[4]
(*** - The refs from inside the quote which show instances of it need to be moved here)
Option 2. This quote is clearly taken out of context because Darwin continues:[5]

::Yet reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a perfect and complex eye to one very imperfect and simple, each grade being useful to its possessor, can be shown to exist; if further, the eye does vary ever so slightly, and the variations be inherited, which is certainly the case; and if any variation or modification in the organ be ever useful to an animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, can hardly be considered real. How a nerve comes to be sensitive to light, hardly concerns us more than how life itself first originated; but I may remark that several facts make me suspect that any sensitive nerve may be rendered sensitive to light, and likewise to those coarser vibrations of the air which produce sound.[6]

Gould wrote scathingly of this misrepresentation:

::Anti-evolutionists continually cite this passage as supposed evidence that Darwin himself threw in the towel when faced with truly difficult and inherently implausible cases. But if they would only read the very next sentence[s], they would grasp Darwin's real reason for speaking of absurdity 'in the highest possible degree.' (Either they have read these following lines and have consciously suppressed them, an indictment of dishonesty; or they have never read them and have merely copied the half quotation from another source, a proof of inexcusable sloppiness. Darwin set up the overt 'absurdity' to display the power of natural selection in resolving even the most difficult cases – the ones that initially strike us as intractable in principle. The very next liner, give three reasons all supported by copious evidence for resolving the absurdity and accepting evolutionary development as the cause of optimally complex structures.[7]

The first uses Darwin's revised 6th/final (per darwin-online.org.uk) edition quote. The second uses Darwin's first-edition quote and a "particularly pithy" quote by Gould. arimareiji (talk) 11:30, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Those who have not already made their opinion clear, please chime in - which of the two followups is stronger?

  • ...
  • ...

Skewing meaning vs. selecting meaning

An improvement to the article would be to differentiate between true misquotation, which skews or contorts meaning, and partial quotation, which quotes and deals with only a select subject. For example, suppose an evolutionist says, "The evidence poses difficulty A with the creationist theory. I resolve this difficulty with explanation B." If a creationist believes that difficulty A is correctly a difficulty, but finds an error or unreliable assumption in explanation B, he may ignore explanation B and state the point of agreement regarding difficulty A. If he doesn't imply that the author believes difficulty A disproves evolution (which is easy to do by identifying the author as an evolutionist), his use of the quote is not quote mining. If he wishes, he can share his knowledge regarding explanation B; however, he is not required to expand his scope as such. --Ed Brey (talk) 12:30, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

The use is most certainly quote mining, even were your characterisation of the situation accurate (which the examples already in this article demonstrate is often not the case -- as they ascribe to scientists positions they have explicitly rejected). It does not matter whether the creationist agrees with the scientist ('evolutionist' is pejorative, and thus uncivil, please desist in its usage) or not. If the creationist wants to quote the scientist, they have the duty to do so with sufficient context as to accurately represent the scientist's true position. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 12:44, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
(The term evolutionist is not necessarily pejorative; I'm using it in a non-pejorative sense, since it is more precise than scientist in this context.) The situation I described does arise in the article. The evolutionists do acknowledge the difficulty. (They also explicitly reject the idea that the difficulty popes a problem for their theory because they believe they have a good explanation that resolves it.) Our disagreement on what constitutes quote mining leads me to believe that the article needs a RS (not selfpub) on the term quote mining to be viable. I don't know of one. Does anyone? Without one, I think that the content of the article would better served by merging it with topics of the various controversies, with less focus on whether use of quotes were quote mining and more on how the quotes shed light on controversies. Otherwise, this article risks becoming original research on which of the self-published uses of the term quote mining are legitimate and what the definition is. --Ed Brey (talk) 02:20, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Ed Brey, you have misrepresented every aspect of this:

  1. "Evolutionist" is always pejorative in that is reduces legitimate science to a mere "-ism". As such, it is in direct violation of WP:NPOVFAQ#Giving "equal validity". It is also not "more precise" than "scientists", as creationists often apply it to a wide range of scientific disciplines that contradict their religious beliefs. Further use of the term will be struck without comment.
  2. The scientists in question were not acknowledging a "difficulty", but merely an argument, or potential argument. Regardless, when somebody states "I reject this argument", citing them for that argument is always completely dishonest.
  3. We already have two published sources for "what constitutes quote mining" -- Creationism's Trojan Horse and The Counter-Creationism Handbook (both cited in the final paragraph in the lead). In any case, the source of the disagreement was you first creating idiosyncratic definitions not contained in the article, and then equally idiosyncratic 'translations' of the article's definition.
  4. The only place where it would be reasonable for the vast bulk of this article to go is Creation-evolution controversy‎. As that article is meant to be an overview, and is already lengthy, it is unlikely that such a proposal would be considered to have any merit.

HrafnTalkStalk(P) 04:09, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Ed Brey's comments interpersed into a copy of Hrafn's post

Ed Brey, you have misrepresented every aspect of this:

1. "Evolutionist" is always pejorative in that is reduces legitimate science to a mere "-ism". As such, it is in direct violation of WP:NPOVFAQ#Giving "equal validity". It is also not "more precise" than "scientists", as creationists often apply it to a wide range of scientific disciplines that contradict their religious beliefs. Further use of the term will be struck without comment.

From a neutral POV, "evolutionist" is no more or less pejorative than "creationist". Both views have popular support and hence roughly equal validity from a WP perspective. I realize your personal POV leans toward evolutionism and you believe that to be the only "true" science, which is fine. But for purposes of this article, we can't consider your personal POV. --Ed Brey (talk) 18:43, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
Ed, your argument is in direct contradiction to WP:NPOVFAQ#Giving "equal validity". This subject is closed. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 02:59, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Only if you assume that one side or the other is pseudoscience. We're not talking about flat Earth or no Holocaust here, where the views have widely different validity. In the creation-evolution controversy, I'm not arguing that the views have identical validity, but that there is enough support for both that they each have substantial validity. --Ed Brey (talk) 12:22, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Tendentious HrafnTalkStalk(P) 12:38, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

2. The scientists in question were not acknowledging a "difficulty", but merely an argument, or potential argument. Regardless, when somebody states "I reject this argument", citing them for that argument is always completely dishonest.

A "difficutly" cna be separate from an argument. The difficuty states the perceived (not necessary real) problem. See Countermajoritarian difficulty for an example. There can be various explanations for the difficulty, each with arguments for and against. --Ed Brey (talk) 18:43, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
Baloney -- an "argument" that is fallacious (either on its assumptions or its logic) is never a "difficulty". Demonstration of how an argument is fallacious is not even close to admitting that a "difficulty" exists. Your own argument on this is fallacious (being based upon conflating difficulty with argument) and is tendentious. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 02:59, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Whatever it's called, the quoted text provides common ground. For example, the common ground that prompted the punctuated equilibrium argument. Maybe one buys into punctuated equilibrium and so concluded that abrupt transitions in the fossil record don't argue against evolution. Or maybe not. Whether the quoted "argument" is fallacious part of the debate. --Ed Brey (talk) 12:22, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Tendentious HrafnTalkStalk(P) 12:38, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

3. We already have two published sources for "what constitutes quote mining" -- Creationism's Trojan Horse and The Counter-Creationism Handbook (both cited in the final paragraph in the lead). In any case, the source of the disagreement was you first creating idiosyncratic definitions not contained in the article, and then equally idiosyncratic 'translations' of the article's definition.

Do you see either of the books as reliable sources (vs. just selfpub)? If so, on what grounds? Regarding definitions, I agree that my definition doesn't carry weight on its own. We need a reliable source. --Ed Brey (talk) 18:43, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
Barbara Forrest is a highly regarded philosopher and historian of science and a recognised expert on the history of the Intelligent design movement, a subject that she was accepted as an expert witness on by a Federal court. Asking if her book is "just selfpub" displays a complete ignorance of the subject matter. As for Isaak, he is less prominent than Forrest, but if his book is "just selfpub", it would mean that he would be far more prominent as he'd have to be the University of California, as that book is published by the University of California Press. That you questioned my assessment without even attempting to familiarise yourself with the books in question (i) is in violation of WP:AGF, (ii) demonstrates an unwillingness to engage in debate in a constructive manner. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 02:59, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
If I didn't AGF, I wouldn't ask. Your answer was quite helpful and helps prioritize time (can't research everything at once). Here's what I'm trying to constructively debate: we need a RS to tell us what constitutes quote mining, and I don't see how either of those sources will do. It seems that we need a source from a linguistic expert so that we have a clear definition on what is and is not quote mining and what forms of quotation are valid. I'm concerned that no such RS exists. --Ed Brey (talk) 12:22, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Ed: I stated that these books were "published sources". Without doing any investigation whatsoever (not even following the link to Creationism's Trojan Horse, let alone simply looking The Counter-Creationism Handbook up in GoogleBooks), you jump to the conclusion that I was wrong, and they might be only "just selfpub". That is a failure to WP:AGF. Either take me at my word, or at least do your own legwork if you think I might be wrong. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 12:38, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Where did I say that I assumed you were wrong? I just asked a question. --Ed Brey (talk) 17:54, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
(i) This is a 6-week-old thread (and I see no legitimate reason for reopening it at this late stage). (ii) By questioning whether the "published sources" I had listed had in fact been legitimately published without doing any (even very basic) checking you assumed that they were questionable, and thus that I was misrepresenting their reliability. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 18:15, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

4. The only place where it would be reasonable for the vast bulk of this article to go is Creation-evolution controversy‎. As that article is meant to be an overview, and is already lengthy, it is unlikely that such a proposal would be considered to have any merit. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 04:09, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

The content would be folded as appropriate into the appropriate main articles for the sections, depending on the area the content addresses. --Ed Brey (talk) 18:43, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
As I stated above, "the only place where it would be reasonable for the vast bulk of this article to go is Creation-evolution controversy‎." There is no other "main article" where discussion of creationist quote-mining would not be heavily tangential and WP:UNDUE. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 02:59, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Ed, don't intersperse your comments with those of another editor. Bad form. As for your assertions, for some reason you seem to want equal validity for a fringe viewpoint, see WP:NPOV/FAQ. . . dave souza, talk 20:30, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
[Edit conflict] Dave, I have no problem with well-structured 'interspersal' that clearly differentiates who's saying what. I do however object vehemently to having to waste my time answering patently meritless arguments. I intend in the future to simply respond with "Tendentious." (or similar) to such. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 02:59, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you don't like about interspersing comments. It's an efficient way to address topics that lend themselves to individual replies with minimal duplication. I'm not familiar with any recognized WP standard about interspersion, but if there is one, please let me know. --Ed Brey (talk) 02:54, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
The problem arises as soon as interspersing comments causes any confusion about who said what, which is why it's essential to make that clear. If Hrafn's happy with the structuring, that's ok, but to me it looked rather confusing, a better practice is to add a copy of the original, preferably italicised, or to indicate who made each comment that's being interrupted. . dave souza, talk 10:07, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
The views of creationists and evolutionists are broadly accepted. Neither view is a fringe view. (Keep in mind that although academia heavily favors evolution, that group cannot overrule the broader perspective. Its size is relatively small, and there is controversy regarding its bias due to forces such as mobbing, as highlighted by Expelled et. al.) --Ed Brey (talk) 02:54, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
"The views of creationists" are ubiquitously rejected by the experts in the relevant fields to their claims. WP:DUE instructs us to give due weight to reliable sources (i.e. these experts), not the ignorant masses. Your argument is tendentious. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 03:02, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Interestingly, this published paper states that "Calling evolution “evolutionism” is a specious rhetorical tactic, since it suggests that evolution is an ideology", nice to have a reliable source. . . dave souza, talk 10:07, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
I'd have to disagree with the WP:TE charge. If you'd like to point out a specific, feel free to post to my talk page. Your statement of rejection just restates the controversy. WP:DUE says to give weight to popular views. It doesn't say, "Wikipedians select the pool of experts," or "Go with academia." --Ed Brey (talk) 12:22, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

MIA list

  • ICR defence of the accuracy of That Their Words May Be Used Against Them
  • AiG defence of the accuracy of The Revised Quote Book
  • Explanation from either ICR or AiG why their decades-long continued use of the Gould quote is "innocent"
  • Ben Stein defence of why he recycled Bryan's severely-edited quote of Darwin

I.e. anything that would actually give relevant creationist viewpoints on the accusations against them documented by this article. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 13:12, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Absence of any reasonable excuse / defense for behavior doesn't make it okay to go on at length about why the behavior is inexcusable. The more you bash the indefensible, the more it starts to sound like the recent 100-0 girls' basketball game everyone got their knickers in a twist over. (Or the amusingly-ironic hysteria in bashing the winners for it ad infinitum.)
Just curious, if I did spend the time to do a search and found ICR/AiG/BS say something substantive in their defense - would you accept SELFPUB as long as it's accurately characterized as their words and not an established fact? I severely doubt I'd find anything; I think they'd rather ignore the question. But all the more because it's unlikely to find them talking about it at all, I'm not eager to conduct a lengthy search if it would be for naught no matter what the result is. arimareiji (talk) 13:34, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
arimareiji: I don't find your tone to be particularly helpful. If somebody were to find directly relevant material from a creationist org I'd most probably allow it (considering that its relevance outweighs the fact that it would most likely be self-serving), but don't guarantee that I wouldn't place it in the context of facts that impeach its claims. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 14:26, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
That's exactly the rub I'm worried about, that of pointy interpretation. Isn't every claim in a POV dispute inherently self-serving in the sense of "asserting one's own good motives," which seems to be what you're objecting to? My understanding is that "unduly self-serving" as intended by WP:SELFPUB applies to conflict of interest that benefits the subject directly, rather than in "being right." If it involves questionable claims about a third party, that's different - but if they're only speaking to their own motives, it's hard to see how that would be "self-serving" except in a criminal trial.
Likewise, I continue to be concerned about your insistence that the article needs to go on at even greater length about how wrong creationists are. Let the facts speak for themselves. There's virtually no creationist POV, but your immediate reaction to bringing some in is "don't guarantee that I wouldn't place it in the context of facts that impeach its claims."
There's already a mountain of material that impeaches their motives and perspective - those are the only subjects that SELFPUB would allow to be brought in anyway. More piling-on is not called for. arimareiji (talk) 15:02, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
There is very little relevant creationist material because (i) creationists very rarely mention the subject at all and (ii) when they do, they tend to address the issue very obliquely. Where they make claims that are either (i) self-serving to the point of inaccuracy or (ii) inaccurate statements about third parties, I tend to have a disinclination against including them -- a disinclination fully justified under WP:V. When lack of anything more reliable forces us to use their inaccurate characterisations, I think we owe our readers some factual context. If most people did not know what a lion looked like, and we reported creationists as stating that they are blue, I think we'd owe our readers an accurate colour picture of a lion for context. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 15:43, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
Oddly enough, nobody seems to think we should be giving more weight to theatre promoters, political copywriters or Lerone Bennett Jr. -- none of who have had any words offered in their defence. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 15:45, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
I repeatedly made it clear I'm not trying to include any of their claims to factuality, only their perspective/motives, and you use the analogy of "claiming lions are blue." Could you explain how their claims about their own motives are a matter of objective fact (i.e. claiming lions are blue) which can be disproven objectively (i.e. here's a picture of a lion)?
Also, could you give one example of one of the (apparently virtually all) claims creationists make about their own beliefs which are "unduly self-serving"? Or at least an analogy which illustrates the dividing line? It's not at all clear how you intend to apply this standard. arimareiji (talk) 16:33, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
This is not about "claims creationists make about their own beliefs", but about factual claims that creationists have made about what scientists have said, and factual claims that creationists have made thereafter about their previous claims. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 17:08, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
Putting this another way, it is reasonable to state that Young Earth creationists (such as AiG and ICR) believe in a recent creation and believe that science, if 'correctly' done, will support this view. Is it reasonable to state that, Gould's "Although I reject this argument" notwithstanding, they believed that he supported the argument he explicitly rejected? Is it reasonable to state that, his rebuke notwithstanding, they believed that their continued (to this day) quoting of him was accurate, and that they have never misrepresented except by innocent mistake? HrafnTalkStalk(P) 17:29, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
If they have the balls to claim (as opposed to insinuating) that they've "never misrepresented except by innocent mistake," I would be stunned. And I don't think that would be inclusible under SELFPUB - in my opinion, that would be excluded for being contentious material from a WP:QS. Likewise, if they have the balls to claim that Gould intended to support them, I would be stunned. And that would be excluded on grounds of being about someone other than themselves. If they openly discuss the topic of quote mining or having been charged with dishonesty, that would be inclusible under WP:SELFPUB - but it would be the biggest stunner of all.
What I meant was material of the "truth shall set you free" ilk, i.e. the politician-style nonresponses which are the best I expect to find. Better to air it than to have readers wonder why we "censored" it. And you never know, I might luck out and find someone openly discussing it and bringing clean hands to the table. arimareiji (talk) 18:28, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

<unindent>ICR don't come right out and say they've "never misrepresented except by innocent mistake," but their comments cited for the "smoke screen" claim the article certainly does its best to create that impression ("An evolutionist's quote mistakenly used out of context..."). How is attributing to Gould the argument that he explicitly rejected, without mentioning this rejection, not "claim[ing] that Gould intended to support them"?

Both the ICR and AiG base their claim to moral high ground at least in part on claims as to what third parties are doing/not doing. (ICR: "This lack of hard evidence for evolution has spawned a new discipline in evolution, that of scouring the creationist literature for any demonstrable error in an effort to put creation on the defensive and shift the focus off of evolution's many weaknesses." AiG: "Many of these arguments have never been promoted by AiG, and some have not been promoted by any major creationist organization (so they were not directed at anyone in particular), but are instead straw men set up by anti-creationists.") HrafnTalkStalk(P) 02:28, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

"Workin' in the quote mine..."

[17] . . dave souza, talk 21:40, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Dammit, now I've got that song stuck in my head. ^_^ That aside, it was a sadly-amusing read. But I think Leroy McLeroy is more exemplary of a Texas politician than anything else, and Texas politicians aren't exactly notable for their fierce dedication to the truth. arimareiji (talk) 22:06, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Collapse of a Texas Quote Mine

Not a RS, but perhaps providing some context to discussion of the subject: Collapse of a Texas Quote Mine. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 03:50, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Removal of relevant material

This edit removed specific references to quote mining, leaving an incomprehensible version of the Darwin's eye argument, and giving great weight to selective quoting where the term quote mining isn't evident or shown in the sources. So I've reverted it. . dave souza, talk 17:19, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I thought that might happen. I had hoped the edit would be tidied up rather than reverted in its entirety. Apart from anything else, I'd added an example that wasn't to do with evo/cre and had explained the other areas of usage.
Given that "quote mining" is a recent term to describe a long-existing phenomenon, I find it silly to demand sources that label every example as "quote mining". The lead has quite clearly established what quote mining is - why is there dispute that the example given is valid? I accept that I lost a few references while trimming (they were rather jumbled) but they could have easily been re-added without reverting my whole edit.
I'm not going to re-revert myself but would appreciate it if someone attempted to edit this article with the aim of improving its readability.–OrangeDog (talk • edits) 17:27, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
I see nothing "silly" about requiring the presence of the sources that define quote mining and giving WP:DUE weight to the context in which they defined it. I am getting more than a little sick of this 'I know more about what's important about quote-mining than the sources do' mindset. It is both arrogant and in violation of policy. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 18:16, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
OrangeDog, your edit didn't just remove references, it removed whole chunks of text which explain quote mining and show examples of it. The "other areas" part already pushed into areas of original research, asserting that any quoting out of context is quote mining without sources for that term. There are a couple of global warming references, more are needed for that section. The additions you made are obscured by the wholesale deletions, it'll be halpful if you raise them here for discussion first, or add them one at a time without deleting relevant content. . dave souza, talk 18:32, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
The term is adequately defined in the lead with appropriate citations. Why are extensive and possibly POV examples of evo/crea arguments necessary? I'm trying to assume good faith, but the discussions above, as well as similar patterns at other related pages suggest either someone pushing an agenda or (on this page at least) failing to get the point. I cut the example quotes down to the minimum needed to show the specified quote mining. This is an article about a logical fallacy, not about creationist arguments and their value. While the term may have been popularised by anti-creationists, we should not allow this POV material to spill into a discussion about a technique that has been used for far longer and in much wider spheres.
Lack of sources specifically naming the technique as "quote mining" should not be taken to mean they are not valid examples. You would be hard pressed to find sources that describe billabongs in England, but that does not mean oxbow lakes are only found in Australia.–OrangeDog (talk • edits) 19:32, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
Yet, billabong manages along without any English examples. If you wanted to remedy that, you'd have to find a reliable source describing English oxbow lakes as billabongs. See WP:NOR. . . dave souza, talk 19:39, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
OMG! "Billabong is an Australian English word meaning a small lake, specifically an oxbow lake". Making the astounding logical step that an oxbow lake is also a billabong is no where near WP:OR.
Why bother opening an RFC if you're just going to beat down everyone who tries to be constructive? Before I leave I ask you consider the true sentiment behind WP:NPOV, WP:DUE and WP:IAR.–OrangeDog (talk • edits) 19:58, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

A few points:

  1. The term 'quote-mining' was coined, and is still used almost exclusively, in the context of evo/creo.
  2. It is only in this context therefore that we have things like a definition, descriptions of prevalence, etc. Hence, it is only in this context that we can go beyond mere examples.
  3. I have no problems with listing examples from beyond evo/creo that do not mention the term, but meet this definition, per WP:DUCK. However doing anything more than simply list them would be WP:OR.
  4. I would further note that the only prominent examples we have are from evo/creo. The examples from outside tend to be ephemeral, and soon forgotten.

On this basis, the choice is between an article that puts heavy, but WP:DUE, emphasis on evo/creo, or little to no article at all. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 02:43, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

  • No article at all seems the sensible choice. I just made this point above, at the RFC, but it is perhaps buried too deep in the mire. It is currently my intention to propose a merger to the article Misquotation where we can focus properly upon the topic rather than examples of usage. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:12, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Misquotation is a short, superficial WP:OR mess. It contains too little material, let alone sourced material, to sustain any merger beyond a bare-redirect. Redirecting a lengthy sourced article to a short unsourced one would appear to be turning WP:V on its head. An argument could be made for merging it with Fallacy of quoting out of context (another sourced article you recently redirected to Misquotation, which I have unredirected for the same reason as I have just objected to the proposed merger/redirect of this article there) which, by broadening the context, would give valid policy basis under WP:DUE for broadening the coverage -- a basis that has been entirely lacking under the current topic heading. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 05:54, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
  • I think that this article should not be merged. I agree completely with Hrafn on Misquotation, but an argument can be made for a merge with Fallacy of quoting out of context. Not a very good argument, IMO. For one thing, quote mining is more than just quoting out of context, as it also involves unwarranted insertion, deletion and changing of words in the qoute. That means that qoute mining doesn't really fit in the article about quoting out of context. Also, a merge would break the interwiki links from this article.Sjö (talk) 08:35, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
  • The Misquotation article does not have the tendentious issues which beset this article and this may be due to it having spun off its examples into a separate list, which seems sensible. The article should focus upon the primary topic rather than the examples, as numerous editors have said above. There is much cleanup to be done wherever this ends up and so the current content should be no obstacle to progress. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:02, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
  • (i) The claim that List of misquotations was "spun off" from Misquotation is erroneous. The former in fact predates the latter. (ii) Misquotation is "beset" by the fact that its "current content" is an WP:OR mess with almost no sourced content -- the sole sourced content being a dictionary definition and an example of a particular type of misattribution (which example has its own article in any case). It is in far more desperate need of "cleanup" than this article. (iii) Finally, and connected to my 2nd point, we have in fact as yet no RS actually stating that quote mining/quoting-out-of-context is in fact "misquotation" -- therefore merging this article there would be WP:SYNTH. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 15:31, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Incidentally, in case people haven't noticed, I've nominated this article for merger into Fallacy of quoting out of context‎. Discussion of this is at Talk:Fallacy of quoting out of context‎#Merger proposal. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 15:31, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

A spectacular behavioural sink

The article is bloated and, as someone noted, has all the signs of being both a soapbox and a coatrack. The fact that it contains thousands of words but is still only ranked as a "Start" class page should be taken as a clue that something has gone amiss in the editorial process.

My suggestion: Just present the definition of "quote mining" and two short examples and move on. Please.

Ditto for this talk page -- the amount of energy being expended here is an admirable sign of collegial human generosity toward the creation of a non-profit public encyclopedia, but that energy could serve so many better purposes than haggling over whether the examples should contain three times as many k as the definition of the term, or 11 times as many k. Another clue that the debate is being conducted on a meta-level due to soapboxing and coatracking is the need of editors to learn the private slang of the participants just to parse the talk page: "evo/creo"? C'mon, folks, i am sure that "evo/creo" is very meaninful to you, but the subject here is a specific form of rhetoric ("literature") and not "cults."

Just present the definition, two short examples, and move on.

Alternatively, as a way of at least deriving some auxilliary value from this overlong article and overlong debate, you could leave in place the grand multiplicity and length of examples achieved at the height of the page's expansion and then links could be created both to the page itself and to this talk page from the page on OCD.

Cheers! :-), cat yronwode Catherineyronwode (talk) 04:14, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

See WP:WQA#Hrafn for context of this. I have no interest in feeding this editor's obsession over me by responding to this 'missive'. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 05:35, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Hrafn, you don't own this article, and she is presumably addressing this to all the editors of this page. Regarding the context, it does seem odd that she didn't even have the courtesy to notify you, but that's just one of these little niceties. . . dave souza, talk 12:48, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Yes Dave, it was quite thoughtless of me not to presume that the timing of this was just one of the universe's bizarre little coincidences. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 13:21, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

<undent> Catherineyronwode, that just seems to be a long-winded way of saying you'd like the article to be more concise. Talk pages are for focussed discussion of how to improve the article, and precise detailed proposals are needed, not off-topic rambling. Your comments on other editors are verging on personal attacks, which are unacceptable. If you do feel obsessively compelled to follow Hrafn about, that comes under policy regarding WP:Wikihounding, and I hope you're not going to do that. So, if you've got constructive proposals you're welcome to put them forward, but you must also accept that many people find this just as informative as, say, Skippy (dog). . . dave souza, talk 12:48, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Quote mining, Fallacy of quoting out of context/contextomy, ducks, OR & weight

Currently, the only material from outside creo/evo are examples included under WP:DUCK as fitting this article's definition. The problem with them is at that one of the three is clearly of Fallacy of quoting out of context#Contextomy in advertising, a second is on 'Contextomy in politics' (a sub-topic which was originally covered in that article, but which I've moved to talk as the existing material was WP:SYNTH, but which still would appear to have more reason to place there than here), and a third which could go into either. This in turn makes their inclusion here even closer to the border of WP:OR.

Given this, and the fact that the only explicit discussion/definition of 'quote mining' is in context of creo/evo, any un-merged article on this topic will of necessity have a fairly narrow focus. So the choices would appear to be to either support some sort of merge (and the one at Talk:Fallacy of quoting out of context‎#Merger proposal is the only one formally on the table, with a merge to Misquotation being suggested, but in my opinion non-viable, due to the lack of sourced content at the latter -- which even lacks a source for this topic being a subtopic of it), or a very narrowly-focused article here. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 19:01, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'll take it from the deathly hush over at Talk:Fallacy of quoting out of context/Archives/2012#Merger proposal that people are happy to have both articles, with that article concentrating on Advertising/Politics (in which context sources generally use the word 'Contextomy') and this article concentrating on evo/creo (in which context sources generally use the phrase 'Quote mining'). Once the merge-proposal closes (and currently it appears it will do so as 'no consensus (so keep)'), anybody who complains about the preponderance of evo/creo material here will be pointed to that failed proposal and the fact that covering material that is more appropriately part of Fallacy of quoting out of context is 'off-topic' here. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 17:07, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, I have seen quote mining (or to be more neutral, accusations of quote mining) in the discussions about global warming, alternative medicine and the vaccine controversy and I think it wouldn't be too hard to find some more examples in other areas as well. I think that this could be mentioned briefly, with appropriate references. Only problem is that those references would have to be to various blogs etc, which are generally not considered very reliable sources.Sjö (talk) 17:36, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Sjö: you're welcome to add such examples if you can find WP:RSs for their existence. If we can't, well have to deal purely with the context that these sources do discuss the topic of quote mining in. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 17:43, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Colonel Warden: given that your favoured option is merger to the unmaintained WP:OR piece of garbage that is Misquotation, I will take your opinion with a pinch of salt. As to your accusation of WP:COATRACK, the fact that the term that is the subject of this article is used almost exclusively in the context of evo/creo renders it meritless. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 17:43, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
  1. ^ The Quote Mine Project, John Pieret (ed), TalkOrigins Archive
  2. ^ Cite error: The named reference gouldmine was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  3. ^ http://www.toarchive.org/faqs/ce/3/part8.html
  4. ^ http://books.google.com/books?id=TCwLAAAAIAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=darwin+origin&ei=_pCFScj3DoL4lQTguoGXBg#PPA190,M1)
  5. ^ Claim CA113.1, TalkOrigins Archive
  6. ^ Cite error: The named reference p187 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  7. ^ Common Pathways of Illumination, Natural History 12/94, p. 10, Stephen Jay Gould, cited in Cretinism or Evilution?: An Old, Out of Context Quotation
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Quote_mining/Archive_1&oldid=1190111855"