Talk:Quote mining/Archive 1

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

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. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 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" Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 07:51, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I've just added further citations for usage of all three quotes by creationists. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 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. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 15:00, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

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 :) ). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 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

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

false positive. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk

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

misquotation. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk

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)

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. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 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. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(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. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(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. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(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. HrafnTalk_Stalk^(P) 18:24, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

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. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 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. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(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. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 04:14, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

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)

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]

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(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. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(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. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(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)

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? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(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:IDONTLIKEIT. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P

) 10:15, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

From

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)

• 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. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(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. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 13:25, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

The

• 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. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(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.

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(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
  WP:RSes
  discussing other aspects.

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(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
  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
  Misquotation is a short, superficial and largely unsourced article, so I do not see how it could render anything redundant. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P
  ) 05:39, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

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. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(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

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. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(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"?
   • The only one appears to be Expelled's Darwin quote. Neither the Gould quote nor his response are mentioned at all in his article. The Darwin's Eye quote is mentioned in Objections to evolution#Evolution cannot create complex structures, but not in the context of quote-mining.
   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:UNDUE at their new location? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(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?

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(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

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.

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(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. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(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. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(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? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 13:27, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

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. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 18:20, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

If some "cooler head" can explain to me why a section on

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: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. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(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:MERGE). Can anybody suggest a means of substantive trimming that would still leave the "examples" as coherently-explained examples of quote mining? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P

) 03:16, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

• • "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. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(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. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(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. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P

) 12:10, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

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
   ?

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(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. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(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.

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(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

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

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:SELFPUB. Have you even read the cited AiG piece? Your responses give no indication that you have done so. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P

) 03:57, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

• 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"). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(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.

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(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. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(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 Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(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. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 06:38, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

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. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(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> Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 13:19, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

• 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)

I just read some of this article, and noticed

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". Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 05:56, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand the rationale... when editors (more than just myself; please don't make that mischaracterization) note that the

It's disproportionate to make the vast bulk of an article about

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". Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(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. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(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). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(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.

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 08:26, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

OK folks, this

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

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:

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. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P

) 12:09, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Please don't attribute your motives, as evidenced in your concerted removal of material from

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

WP:DUE weight. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P

) 12:45, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

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?

• ...
• ...

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. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(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.

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(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

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. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(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 Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P

) 12:38, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

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. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(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 Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(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)

WP:AGF, (ii) demonstrates an unwillingness to engage in debate in a constructive manner. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(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

WP:AGF. Either take me at my word, or at least do your own legwork if you think I might be wrong. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P

) 12:38, 12 February 2009 (UTC)