Talk:Quote mining

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on March 8, 2007. The result of the discussion was keep.
Quote mining is part of WikiProject Literature, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Literature on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Literature Portal
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
Archive
Archives
Archive 1

Contents

[edit] "Purposely"

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

[edit] Sourcing

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

[edit] The impartiality of this article is disputable

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

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

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

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

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

Quote-mining by creationists is probably the most prolific form of the phenomena, and certainly the best-documented. It is therefore hardly surprising that this article is dominated by creationist quote-mining. Please see WP:DUE. HrafnTalkStalk 05:47, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. Quote mining is also referenced when talking about 9/11 conspiracy theorists. It has been used in a lot of different contexts. And yes I believe in evolution. This thing needs a re-write. You can mention the evolution thing as an example but this is a terrible article.--76.186.219.176 (talk) 23:19, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Then find reliable sources on its use in that context & add material to the article. HrafnTalkStalk 05:22, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Is quote mining done by scientists? Anti-creationists?

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

Now that I think about it, it is quite well-established that 911 conspiracy theorists engage in quote mining. There might be some in the global warming controversy on both sides as well.--Filll 16:00, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
Well KC in the section above gives three refs for post-modernists, conspiracy nuts and global warming deniers using the tactic.  –  ornis⚙ 16:03, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
It's also a favourite tactic of political pundits and journalists, but I haven't a source at hand for those, I'll see if I can't dig something up tomorrow.  –  ornis⚙ 16:04, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

[edit] Regarding quote-mining by and about non-scientists

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

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

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

[edit] Pubjacking

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

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

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

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