Talk:Quote mining/Archive 1

message: 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)
thread_title: "Purposely"

message: Possible sources, placed here for evaluation and consideration by editors:
* Nielson Buzzmetrics
* Fashionable Nonsense: Quote mining
* Kuro5hin article on Climate Change Versus Loose Change term used but not defined - there are of course a great many sites which use, but do not define, the term - I include this one because it is about global warming, and most uses are creation/evolution. KillerChihuahua?!? 16:12, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sourcing 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Is quote mining done by scientists? Anti-creationists? 

message: 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)
thread_title: Regarding quote-mining by and about non-scientists

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Pubjacking 

message: ...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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Perhaps it is "well-documented" among Creationists... 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Humph

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Kulp's accusation of Price in Deluge Geology 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: "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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: I've just added further citations for usage of all three quotes by creationists. HrafnTalkStalk 08:38, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Already done. HrafnTalkStalk 15:00, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed examples 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: I've just added further citations for usage of all three quotes by creationists. HrafnTalkStalk 08:38, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Already done. HrafnTalkStalk 15:00, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Arbitrary break

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Third Opinion

message: 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)
replies: text: "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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Quote mining definition 

message: 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)
thread_title: My way or the highway

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

text: 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)
thread_title:  Is the ICR still quote-mining -- youbetcha 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Quote Mining In Regards to Non-creation/evolution Issues

message: 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)
replies: text: 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, 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Other Abuses 

message: *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)
thread_title: Comment Feb 1. 2009

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Expelled's Darwin quote 

message: "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:http://www.toarchive.org/faqs/ce/3/part8.html
::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.http://books.google.com/books?id=TCwLAAAAIAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=darwin+origin&ei=_pCFScj3DoL4lQTguoGXBg#PPA190,M1)
::::(*** - 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:Claim CA113.1, TalkOrigins Archive
::Gould wrote scathingly of this misrepresentation:
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)
thread_title:  Defending Darwin 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: (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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Tendentious HrafnTalkStalk(P) 12:38, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Tendentious HrafnTalkStalk(P) 12:38, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Where did I say that I assumed you were wrong? I just asked a question. --Ed Brey (talk) 17:54, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: (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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: [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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: "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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Skewing meaning vs. selecting meaning 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Tendentious HrafnTalkStalk(P) 12:38, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Tendentious HrafnTalkStalk(P) 12:38, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Where did I say that I assumed you were wrong? I just asked a question. --Ed Brey (talk) 17:54, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: (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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: [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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: "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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Ed Brey's comments interpersed into a copy of Hrafn's post

message: . . dave souza, talk 21:40, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: "''Workin' in the quote mine...''"

message: 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)
thread_title:  Collapse of a Texas Quote Mine 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  A spectacular behavioural sink 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: *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)
thread_title:  Quote mining, Fallacy of quoting out of context/contextomy, ducks, OR & weight