nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW
13,254
edits
Changes
Add blatant close-to-home example.
An '''out of context''' quotation is a kind of discrediting [[rhetoric|attack]] which appears to use a person's own words against him, but is deceptive because the apparent meaning of the quoted words—even though they are accurately quoted—is different from the meaning of the longer passage from which the words were taken.
An '''out of context''' quotation is a kind of discrediting [[rhetoric|attack]] which appears to use a person's own words against him, but is deceptive because the apparent meaning of the quoted words—even though they are accurately quoted—is different from the meaning of the longer passage from which the words were taken.
<!--Editors: please resist the temptation to transform this into a long list of examples, and, in particular, avoid examples that relate to live political or Conservapedian disputes. Only a relatively small number of examples are needed. They should be chosen as most clearly illustrating the points being made. This is best done with non-controversial examples. Controversial examples are less clear, because different readers will perceive what they are reading in different ways; in a controversial topic, what one person sees as a "quotation out of context" may be seen by another as perfectly fair. Thanks. --dpbsmith --->
<!--Editors: please resist the temptation to transform this into a long list of examples, and, in particular, avoid examples that relate to live political or Conservapedian disputes. Only a relatively small number of examples are needed. They should be chosen as most clearly illustrating the points being made. This is best done with non-controversial examples. Controversial examples are less clear, because different readers will perceive what they are reading in different ways; in a controversial topic, what one person sees as a "quotation out of context" may be seen by another as perfectly fair. Thanks. --dpbsmith --->
:"Yes, sir, I could. I cannot conceive of any because for years I thought what was good for the country was good for General Motors, and vice versa."<ref>Keyes, Ralph (1992): ''Nice Guys Finish Seventh: False Phrases, Spurious Sayings, and Familiar Misquotations,'', p. 8</ref>
:"Yes, sir, I could. I cannot conceive of any because for years I thought what was good for the country was good for General Motors, and vice versa."<ref>Keyes, Ralph (1992): ''Nice Guys Finish Seventh: False Phrases, Spurious Sayings, and Familiar Misquotations,'', p. 8</ref>
It's not totally unfair to translate the "vice versa" into "What's good for General Motors is good for the country," but chopping off the "for years I thought" and "what was good for the country was good for General Motors" is; it transforms a forthright statement into a piece of fatuous arrogance.
It's not totally unfair to translate the "vice versa" into "What's good for General Motors is good for the country," but chopping off the "for years I thought" and "what was good for the country was good for General Motors" is; it transforms a forthright statement into a piece of fatuous arrogance.
A blatant example involved columnist Alex Beam writing in the [[Boston Globe]] regarding Conservapedia:<ref>Beam, Alex, [http://www.boston.com/news/globe/living/articles/2007/06/06/just_the_facts____and_theyre_always_right/ Just the facts -- and they're always right], Boston Globe, 4th June 2007.</ref>
{{QuoteBox|Their entry on kangaroos, for instance, says that, "like all modern animals . . . kangaroos are the descendants of the two founding members of the modern kangaroo baramin that were taken aboard Noah's Ark prior to the Great Flood."}}
By quoting this out of context, Beam gave the impression that Conservapedia was claiming this as the truth. The actual truth, however, is that the quoted text was immediately preceded by "According to the origins theory model used by creation scientists...".<ref>See also [[Conservapedia:Alex Beam's column about Conservapedia]].</ref>
== References ==
== References ==