Conservapedia:AFD Quote mining

From Conservapedia

Jump to: navigation, search

Quote mining

Decision

This is an archive of a discussion for deletion.
The discussion has been completed. Please do not edit this page.
The decision was Keep --CPAdmin1 23:41, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

Quote mining (talk, history)

Contents

Discussion

While there is no specific policy against neologisms here, I think this term is a difficult one to have included. Its clearly only referenced in a small circle involved in the evolution/creation debate. Its also almost always a criticism by evolution supports levied against creation proponents. I think its just way to tendentious an entry to be included here till we get some sources or evidence that it can be applied in any other context. Summary: Its not very notable, and will lead to a lot of heated, unneeded debate. Tmtoulouse 14:57, 8 March 2007 (EST)

But, but, but, but... are you the same editor who uses the name Tmtoulouse on Wikipedia? (Who urges "keep" in the AfD on that topic there? Baffled... Dpbsmith 07:09, 10 March 2007 (EST)
Allow me to clarify this point. I believe that the topic is borderline worthy of an encyclopedic entry and DOES cross the line to worthy. Thats why I said keep it on wikipedia. The problem for here is exactly what you pointed out on your AFD at wikipedia. It is ONLY used in the evolution/creation community and the ONLY reliable sources will be pro-evolution degenerating pro-creation sources. Since this site would never stand for that the only way this article will manifest HERE is to use unreliable sources or totally unsourced original research and start calling things quote mines that no one else does. Basically the metarules of wiki allow a good entry to emerge there. The metarules for conservapedia do not. At the time I wrote that I felt that not having inaccurate information would be better then jury-rigging gibberish or sticking in barely tangentially related material in random articles. However, it has been made clear to me since that time that the approach that I took to increasing the respectability of conservapedia is a banning offense. My request for redress to put some control over a run away admin was met with silence. So I give up, I am not participating here further on articles, and as soon as a few meta issues that I started (like this AFD) are resolved I am gone totally.
On that note, this whole AFD might just be out of order because my argument rests on that fact that the things I fear would happen with this article and thus make it an illegitimate encyclopedic entry would NOT be wanted. But it turns out it is desired. So I withdraw my AFD, in whatever contex I can, and say keep and let the chips fall where they may. Tmtoulouse 13:50, 11 March 2007 (EDT)
OK. Dpbsmith 14:12, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

A Yahoo! search on the phrase "quote mining" brings up 5,730,000 instances of its use.

http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=quote+mining

That's hardly evidence of a term "referenced only in a small circle".

What's your real reason for wanting the entry deleted?

--Generalist 01:57, 10 March 2007 (EST)

Comment A lesson in proper search terms: http://search.yahoo.com/search;_ylt=A0geu9mUcvJF8_IA8GNXNyoA?p=%22quote+mining%22+&ei=UTF-8&x=wrt returns FAR fewer. Now find me an example that is not related to evolution/creation debate. Thats my point and evidence. Tmtoulouse 03:57, 10 March 2007 (EST)

Even if it is only used in that context, that's no reason to delete it. My vote is to keep it. MountainDew 04:13, 10 March 2007 (EST)

Comment the only reliable sources you will find using it though will be evolution supporters criticizing creation supporters, MAYBE a few the other way but not much. So basically the only way to do this article is to have some heavily critical material on creationism. Its being made more and more clear that this site is turning into a YEC epistemology so I don't think that will go over well. I BARELY think it qualifies for a wikipedia article, I don't see how it will work here.
p.s. How long do AFD's run? This is the last bit of business I feel obligated to see through to the end and wondering how long it will take? Tmtoulouse 04:19, 10 March 2007 (EST)
There isn't any rule on that right now. --TimSvendsen 06:59, 10 March 2007 (EST)

Quote mining is a reasonable concept and exists pretty much everywhere. In any debate people will take quotes out of context in an attempt to support they're case. Politicians do this constantly. What I would like to know is why people view the term as dubious?ChrisF

Comment Find me a single source that mentions quote mining in any context other than creation/evolution, the phenomenon is everywhere, but this term is a neologism in a particular area. I happen to love the term, but don't see how it would work as a accurate, well sourced, and reliable article with a creation science sympathetic tone. Tmtoulouse 04:21, 10 March 2007 (EST)
Reply I never didn't mean that the term was used elsewhere, I meant the concept was used in society.ChrisF
While not literally quote mining, the concept of Contextomy is essentially the same thing and a valid concern in publications [1]
There were some links in the discussion on Wikipedia about deleting its entry. [2] e.g. discussing religion [3] "Quote mining can prove anything." or global warming [4] (which shows a specific example) -- Limulus 03:52, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

I think we should keep this article. It's important to teaching intellectual honesty to realize what intellectual dishonesty looks like!--AmesG 10:48, 10 March 2007 (EST)

I also agree that it should be kept. It's a useful term and keeping it around could be a reminder to keep editors from doing it (intentionally or not). Jrssr5 20:32, 10 March 2007 (EST)

I don't really see a good reason for actually removing this other than that it's "too pro-evolution", which I don't even feel that it is. Both sides can do it. As a former high school debater, I know that tactics such as these are easy to use in debates (I did it myself back then), and I think that this article ought to remain. MountainDew 20:35, 10 March 2007 (EST)

In rational and reasonable discourse, quote mining is not a technique viewed as intellectually honest or honorable or worthy. Keep the entry. Clear thinking cries out for rationales that do not depend on techniques of dubious veracity. In a Google search that excluded articles that use words such as evolution, evolutionist, evolutionists, creation, creationist, creationists, intelligent design and materialist, there are still over 800 references in relation to 9-11 conspiracy theorists, medical claims, Hollywood film publicity, etc. -- those topics within the first ten sites. Why would you delete information warning of such misuse of truth? --Letusratiocinate 22:44, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

references

I think that there may be a misunderstanding concerning quote mining. Quote mining is a concept that has existed ever since books, papers, and intellectual journals have been written. One of the primary determinants of an accurate and honest work is the avoidance of quote mining, as it is tempting to skew sources to support whatever the writer would like to say. Anyone can find dozens of sources to support even the most ridiculous of notions. I think that the is no legitmate reason for this article to be deleted. It has nothing to do with the imaginary war between science and religion. It's about good, factual writing. There's no reason it should be deleted entirely.

Where is the Vote for and against?

I suggest a vote.

For deletion of article

Delete. Conservative 19:52, 20 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

Delete. Tmtoulouse 19:54, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

Keep article

KEEP --Crackertalk 23:55, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

KEEP -- User:Athiest

Weak Keep, but only if it can be fixed. I believe quote mining is not synonymous with taking quotes out of context (which can be done deliberately, carelessly, or innocently), but with a systemic search for supporting quotes. As such, I believe the article needs a major rewrite. If this can not be done at present, then delete. Philip J. Rayment 22:29, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

KEEP MountainDew 02:34, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

Keep as per PJR above - Would like to see a re-write if to be kept. Otherwise Delete. D-Reg.

KEEP --Letusratiocinate 22:45, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

Keep Jrssr5 11:26, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

Keep --Liπus the Turbogeek(contact me) 07:31, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

Keep --Hojimachongtalk 21:46, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

Keep: what possible good reason, other than censorship of unwanted ideas, could there be to delete this. It adds clarity. See User:Palmd001/BiasPalMDtalk 17:10, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

Keep To take a quote out of proper context is a powerful tool used by both liberals and conservatives alike to push their agendas. I think this article helps to show how to look through the facade and see the truth.--Elamdri 17:14, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

Keep I believe it's balanced and relevant, I can think of no reason to delete this article, other than censorship.Middle Man

Keep. RobS 00:09, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

Retrieved from "http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:AFD_Quote_mining"
Personal tools